Here are some excerpts from Rush about the ACLU. Again, maybe not as harsh, but I didn't exactly do an exhaustive search to find these:

[INDENT][URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3947362"]Rush Limbaugh
Of Limbaugh’s many targets, it is hard to pick a favorite. But if you enter “Rush Limbaugh” and “American Civil Liberties Union” or ACLU into an Internet search engine, you’ll get 8600 results.

Sample items taken from Mr. Limbaugh’s own website:

September 12th, 2003:
“If this guy had burned that flag,” Limbaugh said, “the ACLU and countless other groups would be down there supporting this guy’s right to desecrate old glory. But because he’s flying the American flag respectfully, none of the so-called civil libertarians makes a peep.”

September 23rd, 2003:
“The ACLU has decided they’re not going to appeal the Ninth Circuit’s decision to reinstate the California re-call election... They must not really care all that much about you stupid minorities and poor people.”

December 23rd, 2003:
“Where have all these so-called civil libertarians gone, the ACLU and the rest of them, claiming our government is overreaching?”

Maybe I’m over-reaching, but I don’t think Mr. Limbaugh likes the ACLU. And something else he has shown an antipathy to—the right to privacy. Again, from his own website:

August 22nd, 2003:
“I warned you about this ever-broadening interpretation of the so-called right to privacy. It’s not a ‘right’ specifically enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.”

A quote that makes an odd preface to this next one:

December 23rd, 2003:
“Now they need my medical records, my private medical records to find out if I’ve committed a crime called doctor shopping? They now have to invade my privacy to learn whether I have broken the law?

Yesterday, the ACLU filed a friend-of-the court brief supporting Mr. Limbaugh’s argument that the seizure of his private medical records was illegal, and Limbaugh gratefully accepted the ACLU’s help.[/URL][/INDENT]

Seriously now, you guys make me laugh. I like hearing how hypocritical Rush is, how hypocritical Republicans are, but never a mention of the same about Democrats. Are you kidding me? EVERY politician is a hypocrit. The fact that you haven't mentioned that....well, it says a lot.

Seriously now, you guys make me laugh. I like hearing how hypocritical Rush is, how hypocritical Republicans are, but never a mention of the same about Democrats. Are you kidding me? EVERY politician is a hypocrite. The fact that you haven't mentioned that....well, it says a lot.

Democrats are also hypocrites. William Jefferson should at the VERY least try explaining his side of the story (though it certainly seems he is guilty) and possibly even resign his seat (as Pelosi has asked him to do - on committees, anyway). Democrats (and Republicans) are hypocrites for defending him for all the wrong reasons (save your own ass) while citing defending his privacy (the same privacy they don't defend of average citizens).

Happy? I didn't think so.

Does it say a lot when the right-wing people on this site don't mention Republican hypocrisy (hmm, who comes to mind?) or is it just me?

Thanks for editing my post bud...in the future I'll try not to make such an egregious error
All I'm saying is that it goes both ways, and so there's really no reason for anyone to get upset.

Thanks for editing my post bud...in the future I'll try not to make such an egregious error

No prob. Just trying to help, like ..... someone else.

All I'm saying is that it goes both ways, and so there's really no reason for anyone to get upset.

But there are plenty of reasons to get upset ... with our government and politicians ....

Really it depends, I guess. I worked the projects for a long time when I was a local. And they generally vote liberal. And a lot of the people there would jack you up as soon as look at you.

No doubt this is why Hillary is pushing for felons to be reenfranchised, right?

You are correct on one point and one point only... this was supposed to be about a film, but you took it into a discussion of "liberal v. conservative" by making a broad assumption that is about as false as can be.

Actually, it was another poster who stated he would refuse to view the film because of its conservative, pro-war message and use of tragedy to forward some right-wing propaganda. That started this digression. So, looks like you are wrong again (quelle suprise!).

All of your other points, including those about weak minds, sparse vocabularies, name calling, etc. are way off subject and prove that you are completely a hypocrite which you claim to despise. Did I ever make a comment regarding your parents and their bad luck with a prophylactic? Was I the one that continues to berate and insult everyone who has a point contrary to my own? Do I throw out childish taunts to anyone who responds with care, intelligence and logic? Look into a mirror and point your finger straight ahead... that is the single individual on this board who refuses to acknowledge opposing viewpoints with maturity and dignity in all cases.

Yes, the anti-Catholic slur you threw into your previous post showed real care, intelligence, and logic. It typifies the prejudice with which you and many others of your ilk view those with strong religious commitment. As a lapsed Catholic and former Catholic school inmate, I don't share their commitment to established religion, BUT I STILL RESPECT THEM and I feel no need to BELITTLE OR DENEGRATE THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF OTHERS as you seem to. It always amazes me how liberals seem to get away with prejudiced and even racist comments, such as calling Clarence Thomas "Uncle Tom," or Condoleeza Rice, "Aunt Jemima," or throwing Oreo cookies at Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. Obviously, it is the Democratic party that has the "plantation mentality" that Hillary once spoke of because they object so much to minorities thinking for themselves, making their own choices, and not voting the way da lib'ral Massah say. Your rather pathetic attempt to paint me as a Wal-Mart employee once again shows your embedded prejudices. Wal-Mart employees are working, productive, tax-payers, not figures of fun for your infantile sallies.

And as far as your "top-secret, classified, need-to-know" profession? I don't really care. You've lost all credibility and whatever it is you do is highly unlikely to be in the intelligence community.

See above. Your foolish postings belie your professed lack of concern. It's true you don't have need-to-know, but need-to-grow up, you've got that in spades!

Back to the movie... I figure that if you were on United 93, either you would've joined with the terrorists since you only side with those in power and control, or it would've hit its intended target since you would've screwed up the storming of the cockpit by first asking all the liberals to please be seated as only "real men" can properly storm a cockpit. And, then only you would've been there to attack the other bad guys.

"You figure?" Go "figure" yourself! I no longer have the patience to read your idiotic lunacy, much less reply to it!

What a waste of perfectly good carbon you've proven yourself to be!

Salon.com, and to think I was criticized for referencing NewsMax.com once. I have never before read such a load of self-serving propaganda. If even half of this stuff were true and Clinton done so much to counter Usama bin Laden, then why would Sandy Berger be smuggling classified material OUT of the National Archives in his underwear? Why there would be nothing to hide! Don't quote the 9/11 Commission to me, they were not formed to discover anything, just to cover up the lapses of the previous administration.

If I ever "swallow anything evil" (The Who), rereading that link to Salon.com will work much better than a "finger down my throat!"

Also, I said "armored support" not armor, that signifies Bradley Fighting Vehicles and M-1 Abrams tanks, not body armor. That was what was needed in Somalia and refused by the Clinton administration.

How does one wrap something in a sandwich?



No, it’s not “TRUE.” You even said before that it was your “personal observation,” which –NEW FLASH- is not the same thing as TRUE.


Or maybe the Republican controlled congress doesn’t allow introduction of Democratic legislation. I also remember Republicans voting down a Democratic sponsored bill and then reintroducing it as their own.

Then theres the fact that any dissenting intelligence was pushed aside in order to follow policy of going to war.
Drumheller

In the interest of not being hypocritical (as you claim), let’s not forget to mention the FACT that Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney did a LOT of scaling down of the military in his day.

Here and Here and Here


Given the proper armor? Surely you jest. Certainly you remember the Republican congresses since 2003 failing to authorize proper armor, no?

And there’s that fallacy again (perpetuated by the likes of Drughead Limbaugh and Slanthead Hannity) that Clinton was offered OBL(the same OBL that Bush “doesn’t think much about”) on a silver platter.

Not true
The 9/11 commission also agreed that there was no such offer.

What Clinton did do

I guess you aren't interested in civil discussion, despite your claims.

I guess you didn't notice the anti-Catholic slur that provoked my retort?

I guess you didn't notice the anti-Catholic slur that provoked my retort?

I noticed. I'm Catholic and I wasn't offended...... Maybe you're just wound too tight.

I notice you didn't make mention of ANY of the other links. I even included a NewsMax link for your pleasure. I could provide things on Sandy Berger episode also, but why bother, as you'd just dismiss them (not refute them, just dismiss them).

But then you never actually offer evidence, only "personal observation."