Well, I don't see the precise connection here -- as this quote seems to be a bit out of context (more below) anyway. The main difference her is that Rush's "drugs" were acquired by prescription, legally. Not the same as the illegal drugs and junkies he was referring to.

Rush, in this quote was actually criticizing those people that bellyache about the "drug crisis" and just want to keep passing more drug laws when there are already laws on the books, not enforced, that deal with these issues.

RIK

Acquired allegedly through doctor shopping. One CAN acquire prescriptions illegally. He got many prescriptions filled from many doctors and wound up with a lot more pills than he should have...... I saw a list once, but can't find it.

Rush is "bellyaching" about the USERS: "And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up." Was he doing MORE than that? Probably. But he WAS criticizing the USERS!

Note too, that quote =far= predates Rush's addiction. Some folks, not friendly to Limbaugh's way of thinking, trolled through his show's transcripts seeking more bad-mouthing of addicts after Rush found a chimp on his own back. Just to prove hypocracy, y'unnerstan. They couldn't.

Yeah, and they FOUND hypocricy. Not too hard. Of course his comments PREDATE his addiction. You don't hear him making such comments now do you.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

BTW, Mike, the "wound too tight" comment was NOT directed at you. Try reading it again. I've got no issues with the DaVinci codes "claims" - one way or the other.

Acquired allegedly through doctor shopping. One CAN acquire prescriptions illegally. He got many prescriptions filled from many doctors and wound up with a lot more pills than he should have...... I saw a list once, but can't find it.

Rush is "bellyaching" about the USERS: "And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up." Was he doing MORE than that? Probably. But he WAS criticizing the USERS!

Yeah, and they FOUND hypocricy. Not too hard. Of course his comments PREDATE his addiction. You don't hear him making such comments now do you.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

BTW, Mike, the "wound too tight" comment was NOT directed at you. Try reading it again. I've got no issues with the DaVinci codes "claims" - one way or the other.

Why, Jim...you and me disagree?! I ask yez, now, when has that =ever= happened?

Acquired allegedly through doctor shopping. One CAN acquire prescriptions illegally.

Absolutely, you're right, they can. But I'm glad you put allegedly. Since he was not convicted.

He got many prescriptions filled from many doctors and wound up with a lot more pills than he should have......

Never proved.

I saw a list once, but can't find it.

Imagine that.

Rush is "bellyaching" about the USERS: "And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up." Was he doing MORE than that? Probably. But he WAS criticizing the USERS!

NOPE! You're WRONG! You're taking him out of context. I know you don't think you are Jimbo... but trust me, YOU ARE. I remember the topic very well Jimbo. I have listened to him every day since he came on the air nationally. And I watched the show. I tend to doubt that you do more than criticize him on what you have read and heard rather than what you KNOW. He's "Right Wing" so he is your enemy. You want him to be flawed. You've got a wish in one hand and shit in the other.

Now again, what he was saying was.... There is no need for more laws to go after drug criminals. Since we already have laws, and people are breaking these laws, just enforce the existing laws and arrest the criminals. Stop making more laws.

That was the point of his comments. However if you wish to extrapolate more from it than you that to serve your purpose, you are certainly free to do so (and remain wrong).

Let me ask you Jim, do you like being taken out of context? Let me tell ya, it sucks.

Yeah, and they FOUND hypocricy. Not too hard. Of course his comments PREDATE his addiction. You don't hear him making such comments now do you.

Actually, he still calls Hippies "Long Haired, Maggot Infested, Plastic Banana, Feel Good Rock-N-Roll, Dope Smoking, FM Radio types". So I would say he hasn't strayed too far off course. And thank goodness. A majority of "long hairs" are actually like that.

I don't want you to think I'm picking on you here Jim. In case you haven't noticed I've been avoiding the politics because frankly, I don't have time to debate it anymore. I just did not want to see you pursuing this without all the facts just out of your dislike for somebody.

RIK

Imagine that.

Saying I didn't?

I tend to doubt that you do more than criticize him on what you have read and heard rather than what you KNOW. He's "Right Wing" so he is your enemy. You want him to be flawed. You've got a wish in one hand and shit in the other.

RIK[/QUOTE]
Wow, you've got that ALL wrong

Saying I didn't?

I'm saying that it's convenient.

Actually, I believe you did see some list. Was it accurate? Who knows?

Wow, you've got that ALL wrong

Whatever you say.

RIK

You know, another reason I have stopped frequenting the political discussions is because of the frame of mind that comes with it and then lingers.

It keeps me angry, tense and even sad. There are too many other things in my life that already do that. Always in the back of my mind is that half of the people around are "wrong".

What happens in a never ending cycle of us getting on here and trying to persuade.... We take shots at each other's champions or ideology. These debates ultimately go nowhere and convince nobody. They do create a lot of heat and some name calling of people that we've never met. I just don't find it productive anymore. And I hate the way I feel all the time. It's distracting.

Why should I defend Rush Limbaugh? I don't know the man. And he made the mistake of doing enough of something human to give the other side at least a modicum of ammo to throw his way.... Which I find even talking about him to begin with actually does get off point. Conversely, what good does it do to bash the guy. It's not going to change his fan's minds -- unless he's proved guilty. It's not even like Rush makes policy or changes anything. He's merely a very popular talk radio guy that half the people agree with most of the time and half hate but don't listen to.

RIK

Joe!!!

You refuted all that with one line!!!! You must be a genius or an asshole! (To bad I already ruled out genius)
Honostley (Honestly?) man, if you can't respond to someone and not address all the points given, then give it up. Scott has some great points and you blew them all off because you couldn't answer. Instead you bad mouthed again. Can we say asshole?

Obviously, YOU can, just say it twice, once for me, once for yourself. Scott's greatest point is found on the tippy-top of his empty, liberal head!

KRW- You've done it to me also!

Doubtless it was fitting given the circumstances.

You have to look for the bold. Taking into account the short attention span of my liberal friends (they still can't remember past 2000), I always post my replies, point-by-point, directly after each of their paragraphs in bold face. I guess it's too much to expect you to read that to which I am replying?

Then, I have to type some short, terse statement outside the shaded box, so the post will be accepted (otherwise, it is ruled as "too short!"). It's not that I don't understand how to use the quote tool, I just choose to use it in my own way.

BTW, when I lived in Dallas, I was told "real cowboys don't wear spurs" (ref. avatar). If you can't get a horse to do what you want without spurs, maybe you should walk.

You know, another reason I have stopped frequenting the political discussions is because of the frame of mind that comes with it and then lingers.

We take shots at each other's champions or ideology. These debates ultimately go nowhere and convince nobody. They do create a lot of heat and some name calling of people that we've never met. I just don't find it productive anymore. And I hate the way I feel all the time. It's distracting.

Why should I defend Rush Limbaugh? I don't know the man. And he made the mistake of doing enough of something human to give the other side at least a modicum of ammo to throw his way.... Which I find even talking about him to begin with actually does get off point. Conversely, what good does it do to bash the guy. It's not going to change his fan's minds -- unless he's proved guilty. It's not even like Rush makes policy or changes anything. He's merely a very popular talk radio guy that half the people agree with most of the time and half hate but don't listen to.

RIK

I wouldn't take the persiflage on the political board too seriously, Richard. I enjoy the debates, like seeing others' opposing views, and natch, throw in my own scholarly, irrefutable points . But I never take the arguments personally. Jeez, if I did that, the attendents in my ward would have to cinch my straitjacket even tighter.:eek:

I am glad i surfed on and found this thread. It is quite entertaining. I think I can add a little perspective on why this devolved into such an odd debate. It involves the mindset of the Evangelical Conservative Christian. When Born-Again Christians become born-again, they are told that way is the only path to God. That in and of itself is not horribly bad, as many religions consider themselves to be the one true "Church". However, those other religions will often accept that others can find salvation in other religions. Not Born-Agains. They believe that only by being a born again can you go to heaven. And then they take it a step further...
They also believe that if you are not of them (ie a born-again yourself) you are working for Satan and against them. So even all other Christians are Satanists whether they know it or not because they are not born-again. Yes, born-agains often say...
If you're not with us, you're against us.
And that is where that statement comes from. When Bush used it, he was quoting born-again religious dogma. And not one news show has ever to my knowledge brought this out.
Sadly, this debate has taken over their thinking, and it is this thinking that, IMHO, separates the Neo-Con from a traditional conservative. Normal people of any political stripe recognize that people can have differing opinions and still be united behind as cause. Normal people also recognize that many things are apolitical (such as storming the cockpit). However, the Evagelical does not. To them, everything must be thought of in God terms (no exception) and you must agree with them on everything (no exceptions) or you are the enemy. Too often as a result, if you disagree politically, you are assumed to be enemies.
Except for providing my definition on Neo-Con, everything above is not an opinion, but is exactly what they believe. Here is my opinion: It is this type of thinking that is souring politics and political thinking in America. I think it lowers people of all political stripes. It also explains why debates such as the politics of people on Flight 93 could happen when no logical person would ever think of it.

I wouldn't take the persiflage on the political board too seriously, Richard. I enjoy the debates, like seeing others' opposing views, and natch, throw in my own scholarly, irrefutable points . But I never take the arguments personally. Jeez, if I did that, the attendents in my ward would have to cinch my straitjacket even tighter.:eek:

I don't take what is said to me personally (most of the time), It's more what I have to say to others that bothers me in the back of my mind all day.

RIK