Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-08-2003, 09:46 AM   #41 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Gotta love the smoking gun.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/rushsearch5.html

This kind of wacky crap is one of the reasons Rush is being investigated so thoroughly.

This doctor Deziel prescribes Rush 4-6 prescriptions a month from this page alone. Almost 500 pills of Norco a month.

Good for the prosecutors siezing these documents. It is important to get enabling doctors locked up in jail. Like these guys who are looking to make some fast cash off of weak people like Rush.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 12-08-2003, 12:11 PM   #42 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Astrocloud
I'm not "the Left" -repeat ad nauseum.

For your query on the government seizing medical records... Try a google search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ords+-limbaugh

You make too many assumptions about the positions of "the Left" and the anti-Rush people in general. You state that they are "willing to comprise the principles they claim to hold so dear" -yet Lurkette (who started this thread) is supporting his defense precisely on principle. Do you even know who your arguing against?

I assert that drug laws in this country have been controlled by right wing interests for years. The left wing has espoused treatment and the right has pushed for harder time and mandatory sentences. Now it seems like a hero for the right is going to be locked away in prison... Am I supporting this? Yes and no.

If Rush Limbaugh supporters genuinely believe in the values that he disseminates. Values like
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1594/a01.html?178


-Then perhaps this is a chance for them (his supporters) to reconsider their own priorities. Should drug offenders be given more time than murderers? The laws in this country say yes...

Did I say you were "left" NO, ad nauseum. You are decidedly anti-Rush so you fall into the so named category. By your posts, it's clear that you are most certainly more liberal than center, so why is it you take offense at the term liberal?

Did I group lurkette in there? Nope. Where are the groups who are against mandatory minimums for drug possession? How about those who advocate treatment versus punishment? If they were SO committed to it, why aren't they speaking about Rush's case? I have yet to hear a single

As far as your google search, they are not appropriate to this case in relation to charges against Limbaugh. Perhaps they are appropriate if the target of the investigation is the prescriber but not in the case of use by Limbaugh.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 12-08-2003, 12:16 PM   #43 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by twotimesadingo
Actually, I know of dozens upon dozens of cases in which people who possess drugs in dealer quantities had all manner of records seized, including medical records. You see, a good friend of the family works with the United States Attorney's Office, and I have also spent a good deal of time in the New Hampshire District Office. While I can't give any case names -- I don't remember any of them, to be honest -- I know for a fact that this friend of the family spent a good deal of his time working for the U.S. Attorney who aided in ATF and narcotics prosecution.
Trust me, more hours than you can even begin to comprehend goes in to preparing for a federal drug possession case (and remember, the quantity of drugs Limbaugh possessed may make him eligible for federal prosecution). This includes the collection of pertinent material, such as the collection of medical documents. It happens. You don't hear about it because most of the people prosecuted in this manner are not celebrities, so the media doesn't showcase the event.
If that's the norm, then I stand corrected. As I've stated, it SEEMS that this investigation is going beyond the bounds of other publicized investigations. As far as not hearing about the seizing of medical records because the people aren't famous, I know of many cases in my local area where prescription drug use was rampant, other much more serious crimes were committed and medical records were not seized. I am still not convinced that the seizure of medical records is the "norm".
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 12-08-2003, 12:29 PM   #44 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Gotta love the smoking gun.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/rushsearch5.html

This kind of wacky crap is one of the reasons Rush is being investigated so thoroughly.

This doctor Deziel prescribes Rush 4-6 prescriptions a month from this page alone. Almost 500 pills of Norco a month.

Good for the prosecutors siezing these documents. It is important to get enabling doctors locked up in jail. Like these guys who are looking to make some fast cash off of weak people like Rush.
I agree about getting such doctors "off the street" so to speak but there are other ways to do it without patient's medical records becoming public. It was completely foreseeable that the seizure of Rush's medical records would end with them being available online. Could the prosecutors not have gotten the same drug information by going to the pharmacies that Rush used and getting those records? At least that would afford some semblance of medical privacy.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 12-13-2003, 05:54 PM   #45 (permalink)
Minion of the scaléd ones
 
Tophat665's Avatar
 
Location: Northeast Jesusland
Hmmm. I am normally against anything that has a shadow of a hint of a shade of an iota of an inkling of a whiff of police powers about it. When I next hear a politician say "tough on crime" and see that they mean all crime, not just crime by lower and middle class people, that could change.

However, for the full force of the law and then some to descend upon a man who has consistently called for more police powers and harsher penalties to be applied to just those practices in which he admits to being engaged, how can that be anything but justice?

Oh, and I used to listen to his show three days a week between All Things Considered and Pacifica. I have determined that Rush Limbaugh is every bit as relevant a political commentator as Cheech and Chong were in their time, which is to say, as a political thinker, he's a fair entertainer.

Edit: Strange, I didn't consciously pick Cheech and Chong for their drug use. Martin and Lewis or Rowan and Martin or even Tiny Tim would have worked as well.
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by Tophat665; 12-13-2003 at 05:58 PM..
Tophat665 is offline  
Old 12-14-2003, 12:32 AM   #46 (permalink)
Upright
 
I can't belive I'm supporting rush either, but tho me the point is that these were prescription drugs. I feel bad for him that he was in engought pain to require them. I have a freind who is a preofessional athlete and it's unbeliveable to me how much pain he is in daily. I wish Rush the best.
PacoMan is offline  
Old 12-14-2003, 04:03 PM   #47 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Just outside the D.C. belt
Quote:
Originally posted by PacoMan
I can't belive I'm supporting rush either, but tho me the point is that these were prescription drugs. I feel bad for him that he was in engought pain to require them. I have a freind who is a preofessional athlete and it's unbeliveable to me how much pain he is in daily. I wish Rush the best.
The drugs were not obtained, always, from a pharmacy. Drug abuse is abuse, the illegal nature comes from getting script drugs from street vendors, doctor shopping, and aiding a continuing criminal enterprise. I do wonder how much the sainted Marta was aware of the quantities involved. A person would have to have the awareness of a book-end not to notice the full briefcase "prescriptions."

2Wolves
__________________
Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.
2wolves is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 09:51 AM   #48 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Maybe they are pursuing him so doggedly because they are fans of his show and agree wholeheartedly with with his stance on drug abusers.
filtherton is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 10:07 AM   #49 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
Maybe they are pursuing him so doggedly because they are fans of his show and agree wholeheartedly with with his stance on drug abusers.
LOL, yep that's it.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-05-2004, 06:52 AM   #50 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
FYI:

According to a New York Daily News article with regard to the prosecutors going after Rush Limbaugh...

"The Palm Beach Post review found only one case in which the county filed charges of illegally acquiring overlapping prescriptions, but the defendant died before trial."

While there is still the possibility that this investigation isn't politically motivated, it has smelled from the beginning as being outside the norm and this only strengthens my belief.

http://www.nydailynews.com/01-04-200...p-133587c.html
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-05-2004, 02:03 PM   #51 (permalink)
Banned
 
At the risk of being admonished by the mods, i couldnt give a rats ass about Rush. You live by the sword....
Endymon32 is offline  
Old 01-05-2004, 02:32 PM   #52 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally posted by Nizzle
In fact, I have a few times. He did nothing but blame every single conceivable ill in our society on "Liberals." (I quote it here, because the right-wing enjoys using this label as a negative -- our founding fathers were Liberals, don't you forget that.)
And at one time "gay" meant "happy".

A liberal in the 18th century would be considered a libertarian today. "Liberal" as it is currently known is more or less a synonym for "socialist".
irseg is offline  
Old 01-05-2004, 03:05 PM   #53 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Nizzle,
How many man hours are being spent on Rush Limbaugh's Rx drug habit? How many are spent on the average John Smith's Rx drug habit?
How many man hours were spent trying to find out if Clinton lied about having an affair, how many man hours are spent on the average joe to find out if they lied about having an affair?
Rekna is offline  
Old 01-05-2004, 03:06 PM   #54 (permalink)
Insane
 
madp's Avatar
 
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Using public resources to prosecute drug users who are not committing crimes or harming anyone else in service of their drug use is a complete waste of tax dollars, and it could happen any one of us.
__________________
why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
madp is offline  
Old 01-05-2004, 03:06 PM   #55 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by irseg
And at one time "gay" meant "happy".

A liberal in the 18th century would be considered a libertarian today. "Liberal" as it is currently known is more or less a synonym for "socialist".
Man, this thread makes me as gay as having a cold pop on a hot summer day.

As long as conservatives continue to try to marginalize liberals by calling them communists, I'll marginalize them by calling them mean spirited right-wingers (hey, it's better than traitors).
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-05-2004, 03:09 PM   #56 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by madp
Using public resources to prosecute drug users who are not committing crimes or harming anyone else in service of their drug use is a complete waste of tax dollars, and it could happen any one of us.
Canada's taking a step in the right direction by lessening their penalties for users, but by U.S. law it is indeed a crime. Talk to your congressman and senator.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-05-2004, 03:16 PM   #57 (permalink)
Insane
 
madp's Avatar
 
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Quote:
Talk to your congressman and senator.
But they don't return my phone calls any more.

Seriously, the war on drugs is a complete failure, but no politician with any amount of ambition will touch the issue bc it's tantamount to throwing oneself on a grenade in the political world: they'd be doing all of us a big favor, but they can kiss their political career goodbye.
__________________
why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
madp is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 05:58 AM   #58 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Rekna
How many man hours were spent trying to find out if Clinton lied about having an affair, how many man hours are spent on the average joe to find out if they lied about having an affair?

Oh please. It's different, not completely different but still different. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer he is not an elected official. An elected official who is sworn to uphold the Constitution AND one that is supposed to be a court officer should not be committing perjury. It wasn't about sex, it wasn't about lying, it was about PERJURY. People claim that Nixon's crime was covering up the crime. It's the same as with Clinton. I could care less if he screwed the poodle in the Lincoln bedroom. It doesn't matter. When he then lies about it in court, under oath, it becomes a crime.

Was the Clinton investigation politically motivated? Of course. Should it have been investigated? Absolutely. The President committing crimes is different than the average citizen (or even a celebrity pseudo-journalist like Rush) committing them. Rush whining about being singled out is a joke, just as Clinton whining about it is. They each chose careers that could make them targets, they each understood that. The difference is, the President has more of a responsibility to the people as a leader than some self righteous radio "personality".
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Last edited by onetime2; 01-06-2004 at 06:02 AM..
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 06:44 AM   #59 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
The comparison to Clinton does ring true, in a way. Should Clinton have been asked about his personal life at the grand jury hearing? Without a doubt, no. Should DAs be investigating into someone's personal drug use? No. If you are socially liberal (ack, scary word, SCARY WORD!!), then odds are you agree with me.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 08:39 AM   #60 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Oh please. It's different, not completely different but still different. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer he is not an elected official. An elected official who is sworn to uphold the Constitution AND one that is supposed to be a court officer should not be committing perjury. It wasn't about sex, it wasn't about lying, it was about PERJURY. People claim that Nixon's crime was covering up the crime. It's the same as with Clinton. I could care less if he screwed the poodle in the Lincoln bedroom. It doesn't matter. When he then lies about it in court, under oath, it becomes a crime.

Was the Clinton investigation politically motivated? Of course. Should it have been investigated? Absolutely. The President committing crimes is different than the average citizen (or even a celebrity pseudo-journalist like Rush) committing them. Rush whining about being singled out is a joke, just as Clinton whining about it is. They each chose careers that could make them targets, they each understood that. The difference is, the President has more of a responsibility to the people as a leader than some self righteous radio "personality".
The difference is it is a conservative being prosicuted now instead of a democrat.

Clinton should have never been asked that question and even though he was he should have had no obligation to answer it. That was an issue between him and his wife not the government.

Now your saying that we should have double standards? I just want to make sure i get your side correctly. We should have double standards when prosicuting crimes?
Rekna is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 09:25 AM   #61 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Yes, apparently laws only apply to democrats.

(Evil, filthy, tricksy, traitorous democrats)
Superbelt is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 10:50 AM   #62 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Rekna
The difference is it is a conservative being prosicuted now instead of a democrat.

Clinton should have never been asked that question and even though he was he should have had no obligation to answer it. That was an issue between him and his wife not the government.

Now your saying that we should have double standards? I just want to make sure i get your side correctly. We should have double standards when prosicuting crimes?
Without the words you're trying to force into my mouth...

WE SHOULD HOLD OUR LEADERS TO HIGHER STANDARDS THAN WE HOLD OTHERS. THOSE WHO SWEAR TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO ABIDE BY THE LAWS SET FORTH UNDER IT.

Clinton lied under oath in a sexual harrasment case. The question was not out of bounds. If it were, obviously the judge would not have allowed it. If you think he shouldn't have been obligated to answer it, as someone else recently posted, write your congressman and change the laws.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 10:58 AM   #63 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
WE SHOULD HOLD OUR LEADERS TO HIGHER STANDARDS THAN WE HOLD OTHERS.
I don't think I need to use all caps for this:

''the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 11:17 AM   #64 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
I don't think I need to use all caps for this:

''the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''
Can you prove he was intentionally trying to deceive when he opted to use that intelligence? Didn't think so. Was he under oath? Does that constitute perjury? I guess they aren't equivalent then. Oh well, better luck next time.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 11:30 AM   #65 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Can you prove he was intentionally trying to deceive when he opted to use that intelligence? Didn't think so. Was he under oath? Does that constitute perjury? I guess they aren't equivalent then. Oh well, better luck next time.
You backed off pretty quick from that "higher standard," I wonder why? (yeah, that was a rhetorical question)
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 11:44 AM   #66 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
You backed off pretty quick from that "higher standard," I wonder why? (yeah, that was a rhetorical question)
Rhetorical or not, I didn't back off at all. You point to something that isn't a crime as compared to something that is. How about comparing apples to apples? Hell you can't even say that Bush was knowingly lying. So, in the worst case scenario (for your point of view) you're comparing being wrong with lying under oath. In the worst case scenario (for my point of view) it's comparing a lie to a crime. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect them not to commit crimes and ideally would love it if we could get them not to lie but that's a bit of pie in the sky wishing there.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 11:54 AM   #67 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Rhetorical or not, I didn't back off at all. You point to something that isn't a crime as compared to something that is. How about comparing apples to apples? Hell you can't even say that Bush was knowingly lying. So, in the worst case scenario (for your point of view) you're comparing being wrong with lying under oath. In the worst case scenario (for my point of view) it's comparing a lie to a crime. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect them not to commit crimes and ideally would love it if we could get them not to lie but that's a bit of pie in the sky wishing there.
I agree that there should be no committing of crimes and no lying (common ground!). If I had to pick though, I'd go with the crime that resulted in ZERO deaths over the lie that resulted in FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SIX American deaths (so far).
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 11:58 AM   #68 (permalink)
Banned
 
please both of you go back and read onetime2's post. With the exception of the part about the president sleeping with poodles, it was dead on.

One is holding political office, one is not. One individuals character is of national interest to us, the other is not, etc etc etc. And this assuming they had done the same thing. I like Rush, but I would have lost total respect for him, had he been getting BJ's by a early 20something intern behind Marta's back.

This scenario is a fuck of a lot more telling about one's character (and to reiterate, an entertainer's character is neither here nor there as far as the rest of us are concerned, but the presidents....) than one who has had back back pain for years, develops a tolerance, and becomes addicted. And the orignal posters suggestion that this is a "designer drug", might have been more on target had the motivating factor been hedonism (as was Clinton's, without regard to his wife, the intern, or the country).

He was not found in possession of 100's and 100's of pills (as some have suggested he is being come down on as a dealer) - the mother fucker was never found in possession at one time of this quantity of that. That's like telling your average college kid that you have evidence he's bought 100 1/8's of weed over the last 4 years, so your going to try him as a dealer because of the quantity involved.


You're hypocrisy's really are stunning.
matthew330 is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 12:04 PM   #69 (permalink)
Banned
 
......how many people died in that aspirin factory Sparhawk? Contrary to what Clinton would have you believe character does mean something, and if one of the two presidents had gone on a bombing spree for personal gain - who's proven character would you guess would be more likely to do such a thing?
matthew330 is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 12:12 PM   #70 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
I commend you, matthew330, for supporting Rush Limbaugh through this difficult time. However, I suspect your qualifyer "I would have lost total respect for him, had he been getting BJ's by a[sic] earl 20something intern behind Marta's back" is designed to give you cover to support those you are in favor of politically.

Let's do the BJ Litmus test, shall we?

What do these five politicians have in common:

Bill Clinton
Newt Gingrich
Bob Livingstone
Strom Thurmond
Henry Hyde

Somehow I doubt your lack of conviction in despising those who cheat on their wives, when they wear an elephant pin on their lapel.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 12:12 PM   #71 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
I agree that there should be no committing of crimes and no lying (common ground!). If I had to pick though, I'd go with the crime that resulted in ZERO deaths over the lie that resulted in FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SIX American deaths (so far).
Alright, first off, you still haven't proven that it was a lie on Bush's part. Regardless, we are off onto another point of contention. We would have been going into Iraq with or without the piece of intelligence about uranium in Africa. Do you honestly believe THAT is what finalized the decision and led us into Iraq? Do you think without it, Bush would have ignored the Iraq situation because the US voters were steadfastly against it (they weren't by the way)? Of course you don't because you think Bush and his advisors were just itching to take on Iraq.

It's terrible that 486 people lost their lives in Iraq but their deaths helped to give millions a chance at a better future. Their sacrifices may help to stabilize the Middle East. Now, I'm sure you will claim that it has done nothing but destabilize the region and create a thousand other Bin Laden's but only the future will determine who is right.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 12:19 PM   #72 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
I agree 100% that cheating on your wife is a failure of character, matthew330, and while I wish that our politicians were angels, it is pointed out all too often that they are not.

Also, you really don't want to start up a debate on wars or military operations for personal gain - save it for another thread.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 12:21 PM   #73 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
only the future will determine who is right.
Indeed.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 12:27 PM   #74 (permalink)
Banned
 
don't know about strom thurmond or henri hyde, but of the first three - who's the only one who didn't loose their political position
matthew330 is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 12:38 PM   #75 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
No no no, matthew330, it's my BJ Litmus Test.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 12:38 PM   #76 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Also, you really don't want to start up a debate on wars or military operations for personal gain - save it for another thread.
Wasn't trying to start a new debate, It was directly related to what you said earlier

Quote:
If I had to pick though, I'd go with the crime that resulted in ZERO deaths over the lie that resulted in FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SIX American deaths (so far)
I think the relevance is obvious enough.
matthew330 is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 12:48 PM   #77 (permalink)
Banned
 
I really wish i would have left the "If Rush Limbaugh had a BJ.....". Even though it is 100% true, I should have guessed it would have been the only part of the post you saw.

"No no no, matthew330, it's my BJ Litmus Test."

....hahahaha
matthew330 is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 12:49 PM   #78 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Yes, apparently laws only apply to democrats.

(Evil, filthy, tricksy, traitorous democrats)
stupid fat democrat!
Rekna is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 01:01 PM   #79 (permalink)
Junkie
 
getting a blow job is worse than being a drug addict? We better rewrite our laws to match your premise. Did you know that George Washington along with many other expresidents screwed his slaves? JFK had an affair with Maralyin Monroe....

People shouldn't complain about being prosicuted for a crime unless they are arguing directly against it being a crime. Is Rush arguing that doctor shopping is not illegial or shouldn't be? No he is saying he shouldn't be prosicuted even though the law is valid.... Be careful of encuraging double standards they already exist enough the last thing we want to do is segregate the nation even more.

To argue that prosicuters are holding Rush to a double standard because he is a well known politition but then say it was ok for prosicuters to do the same thing to the president you are being hypocritical.
Rekna is offline  
Old 01-06-2004, 01:31 PM   #80 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Rekna
getting a blow job is worse than being a drug addict? We better rewrite our laws to match your premise. Did you know that George Washington along with many other expresidents screwed his slaves? JFK had an affair with Maralyin Monroe....

People shouldn't complain about being prosicuted for a crime unless they are arguing directly against it being a crime. Is Rush arguing that doctor shopping is not illegial or shouldn't be? No he is saying he shouldn't be prosicuted even though the law is valid.... Be careful of encuraging double standards they already exist enough the last thing we want to do is segregate the nation even more.

To argue that prosicuters are holding Rush to a double standard because he is a well known politition but then say it was ok for prosicuters to do the same thing to the president you are being hypocritical.
Clinton's problem wasn't getting a blowjob, it was lying under oath . Thats the key point so many people like to forget.

So you can argue that there is nothing wrong with getting a BJ in the oval office while talking to people on the phone, and thats fine, but thats not the issue.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
 

Tags
limbaugh, rush, supporting


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:34 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360