|
|
Post by Walter on Feb 6, 2004 16:15:55 GMT -5
"Once again, we agree 100% (+/-) Like Methusela, I'm still looking for that one selfless and unhypocritical politician. And Jimmy Stewart doesn't count. " It's good to see we agree in more area's than would be expected. Maybe you're more liberal than you let on.    Don't spread that around. Puleeze!  |
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Feb 6, 2004 16:57:11 GMT -5
lol |
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Feb 22, 2004 9:44:34 GMT -5
I'm not saying that Rush is any more or less guilty than any liberal who has admitted to experimenting with drugs. The difference is, they ADMITTED to EXPERIMENTING. Rush denied that he was hooked, while going after the people you claim are "lazy" and "pathetic:" Drug addicts. Like him. Whether his doctor prescribed too much, or he was taking because he was such incredible pain (poor, blameless, innocent Rush in pain? Perish the thought.)? Beside the question. He went after drug addicts with incredible fervor, persecuting them just as you do. However, there was a twist: HE WAS ONE. I would ask you to keep in mind, that while defending Rush and putting down liberals, Rush IS a drug addict. So calling them pathetic and lazy and societies bane might be a little harsh on your beloved Limbaugh. I'm a fairly regular listener of Rush, and have been since 1990. I don't seem to remember him directly going on the attack of drug addicts so much as illustrating a lifestyle of non-productivity and drain on society. Sure, Rush is an addict. And he admitted this on his show. Denial is a hallmark of the disease of addiction. Admitting that you "Experimented" with drugs is not tantamount to admitting that you have an addiction. There are millions of people out there today who hold the same beliefs about "drug addicts", only to find that they too have a problem. A problem that started as a toothache, or a back surgery. Rush is human. You can't blame him for being human. All addicts are "hypocrits" if you think about it; I'm sure he is all too aware of this now. (sorry, don't know how the smiley ended up in the word "drug"??) |
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Apr 12, 2004 12:46:07 GMT -5
Only problem with your argument Red is this, Rush doesn't want your pity or sympathy or welfare/govt programs. He got himself into it and he got himself out of it. Would a liberal do the same? No way! We, the taxpayers, would be expected to open our wallets and give until it hurts so the wacked out druggie could get his methadone and go through counseling and therapy. Rush did this on his own and took care of the problem himself without your intervention or mine. Liberals do not expect people to take responsibility for themselves and that is the problem! Conservatives do and that is why Rush admitted to his problem and got help, which HE paid for and not me. A liberal judge in Rush's county has admitted having an addiction to the very same drug and he is not under investigation, WHY?
|
|
|
|
Post by RubyRedSlippers on Nov 1, 2004 18:08:50 GMT -5
Only problem with your argument Red is this, Rush doesn't want your pity or sympathy or welfare/govt programs. He got himself into it and he got himself out of it. Would a liberal do the same? No way! We, the taxpayers, would be expected to open our wallets and give until it hurts so the wacked out druggie could get his methadone and go through counseling and therapy. Rush did this on his own and took care of the problem himself without your intervention or mine. Liberals do not expect people to take responsibility for themselves and that is the problem! Conservatives do and that is why Rush admitted to his problem and got help, which HE paid for and not me. A liberal judge in Rush's county has admitted having an addiction to the very same drug and he is not under investigation, WHY? This is midly entertaining for its broad generalizations and arrogant assumptions. But otherwise, the whole ignorance factor is a tad irritating. "Liberals" are grouped together because of their political views. This has nothing to do with the sense of personal responsibility of the individuals labeled "liberal." This fundamental concept topples your entire "argument," a bit. (It wasn't very hard to do.) I understand that you feel sympathetic toward your dearest Rushie, as he's a fellow (fanatic? rabid? unreasonable?) conservative, and that you don't feel sympathetic toward "liberals" that are likewise drug-addicted because... Well, I don't understand that. But at least own up to it. I understand this is supposed to be a rant, and while ranting one may stray from the articulate path. But... Educated ranting? Yes ma'am please. |
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Nov 2, 2004 17:31:25 GMT -5
I'm not going to make any excuses for Rush. He's the only one responsible for what happened to him. Although this would be a good case for Edwards to prosecute, "Your defective medication caused my client to get hooked. He has suffered untold amounts of physical and emotional harm. You owe him...one mmmmmmillion dollars. Yeah baby, YEAH. I'm dead sexy, baby!"
Seriously though, Rush took responsibility for his own circumstances. He blamed no one but himself and got the help he needed. I'm fine with that.
|
|
