Gould 0738 wrote:

I'm disappointed in the fact that there is enough evidence to allege that Rush
Limbaugh has a serious addiction to narcotics. Big time. Not that unusual for
an "entertainer" (which is what he is, kind of like WWF- there are folks who
think it's real) but out of character for a guy who has spent probably a
thousand hours on the air blasting away at drug addicts and junkies.


Why the disappointment? Surely you were aware Limbaugh and the trash in
his audience were hypocrites.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Why the disappointment? Surely you were aware Limbaugh and the trash in
his audience were hypocrites.

I don't know that many right wing dopers.
Drunks, yes. By the ton......but I'm just more used to alcohol being the drug
of choice among conservatives. One is accustomed to falling down drunks wailing
about "drug abusers", (not that everybody who does so is a drunk, of course).
If the allegations against Rush's narctoic addiction prove to be true, that's
not only hypocritical- it should be considered a breach of trust by every one
of his followers.

The buzz on one of our local talk stations was pretty funny tonight. One
station has a mix of moderate and conservative hosts.
A conservative host was running a monologue about the RL drug scandal, and I
laughed so hard I almost wrecked the car!
General line: "The liberals are showing their true colors with this Rush
Limbaugh situation. They are willing to use this weakness to try to destroy his
career! His political enemies are sinking so low, they are trying to distract
us with this single factor and ignore the majority of what Limbaugh stands for
and what he has done! It will backfire on them. The public doesn't like a witch
hunt!"

Thoughts of Monica-Gate and $60mm spent by Ken Starr trying to dig up dirt on
another well known political persona in the past came immediately to mind. I
guess is
low and dirty if the target is a conservative, but an act of patriotism
preserving national security when the target is a moderate or a liberal. :-)

Gould 0738 wrote:
Why the disappointment? Surely you were aware Limbaugh and the trash in
his audience were hypocrites.

I don't know that many right wing dopers.
Drunks, yes. By the ton......but I'm just more used to alcohol being the drug
of choice among conservatives. One is accustomed to falling down drunks wailing
about "drug abusers", (not that everybody who does so is a drunk, of course).
If the allegations against Rush's narctoic addiction prove to be true, that's
not only hypocritical- it should be considered a breach of trust by every one
of his followers.

The buzz on one of our local talk stations was pretty funny tonight. One
station has a mix of moderate and conservative hosts.
A conservative host was running a monologue about the RL drug scandal, and I
laughed so hard I almost wrecked the car!
General line: "The liberals are showing their true colors with this Rush
Limbaugh situation. They are willing to use this weakness to try to destroy his
career! His political enemies are sinking so low, they are trying to distract
us with this single factor and ignore the majority of what Limbaugh stands for
and what he has done! It will backfire on them. The public doesn't like a witch
hunt!"

Thoughts of Monica-Gate and $60mm spent by Ken Starr trying to dig up dirt on
another well known political persona in the past came immediately to mind. I
guess is
low and dirty if the target is a conservative, but an act of patriotism
preserving national security when the target is a moderate or a liberal. :-)




I love the part about "what Limbaugh stands for and what he has done."

To me, Limbaugh is *the* symbol of the non-thinking, self-centered,
selfish, racist, xenophobic, divisive, woman-hating modern
"conservative" that is destroying America. Limbaugh is clever with the
quips, no question about it, but he has done all of us great harm over
the years, stirring up his pack of angry white men and reinforcing their
mindlessness. There's at least a half-dozen examples of Rushophiles
right on this newsgroup.

Limbaugh deserves payback for the harm he has done. He'd best serve
himself and us by getting off the drugs and off the radio.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Limbaugh deserves payback for the harm he has done. .

Ah, the Democratic party line. You guys don't have one single stance or
issue that sells...so, instead, you sell sleaze. There's not much
difference between the National Enquirer and the NY or LA Times these days.
I wouldn't even wipe my ass with a one of 'em.

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Limbaugh deserves payback for the harm he has done. .

Ah, the Democratic party line. You guys don't have one single stance or
issue that sells...so, instead, you sell sleaze.

Oh, puh-lease. All Limbaugh sells is sleaze, and the lowest common
denominators - like you - lap it up.



There's not much
difference between the National Enquirer and the NY or LA Times these days.
I wouldn't even wipe my ass with a one of 'em.

Poor little angry white man.




--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

I mighjt be angry, but I have reason for it, america is going to hell in an
handbasket because of the people. We need to unite and fight against the
rupublicuns.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Limbaugh deserves payback for the harm he has done. .

Ah, the Democratic party line. You guys don't have one single stance or
issue that sells...so, instead, you sell sleaze.

Oh, puh-lease. All Limbaugh sells is sleaze, and the lowest common
denominators - like you - lap it up.



There's not much
difference between the National Enquirer and the NY or LA Times these
days.
I wouldn't even wipe my ass with a one of 'em.

Poor little angry white man.




--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

"Don Pulaski" wrote in message
news:EKWfb.501784$cF.177205@rwcrnsc53...
I mighjt be angry, but I have reason for it, america is going to hell in
an
handbasket because of the people. We need to unite and fight against the
rupublicuns.

Very clever Bill...not.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Limbaugh deserves payback for the harm he has done. .

Ah, the Democratic party line. You guys don't have one single stance or
issue that sells...so, instead, you sell sleaze.

Oh, puh-lease. All Limbaugh sells is sleaze, and the lowest common
denominators - like you - lap it up.

Limbaugh does sell sleaze. But he's an entertainer...not an elected
official in a position to actually *do* something.



There's not much
difference between the National Enquirer and the NY or LA Times these
days.
I wouldn't even wipe my ass with a one of 'em.

Poor little angry white man.

Yes, I'm white. Nothing else from your sentence is accurate.

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Limbaugh deserves payback for the harm he has done. .

Ah, the Democratic party line. You guys don't have one single stance or
issue that sells...so, instead, you sell sleaze.

Oh, puh-lease. All Limbaugh sells is sleaze, and the lowest common
denominators - like you - lap it up.

Limbaugh does sell sleaze. But he's an entertainer...not an elected
official in a position to actually *do* something.


What Limbaugh does is stir up hatred and resentment. That is his stock
in trade.



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Ah, the Democratic party line. You guys don't have one single stance or
issue that sells...so, instead, you sell sleaze. There's not much
difference between the National Enquirer and the NY or LA Times these days.
I wouldn't even wipe my ass with a one of 'em.

Well there ya go. Any newspaper without a strong, conservative bias is
immediately relegated to National Inquirer status......
Since you wouldn't use one of those papers as TP, it's safe to assume you don't
read them, either.

Do you insulate your philosophy from critique because you are not confident it
will withstand scrutiny?

Enlightened people welcome philosophical critique. Testing ideas against one
another validates the better ones and forces revision of the weak. For all
except those who are certain they already know all they could ever hope to know
about the truth *before* they set out to find it, this is a good thing.
Separates the genuine thinkers from the parrots.