More Bush Religious BS
 

June 25, 2008

Report Sees Illegal Hiring Practices at Justice Dept.

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON -- Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used “political or ideological” factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.

The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of investigations growing out of last year’s scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized during the Bush administration.

“Many qualified candidates” were rejected for the department’s honors program because of what was perceived as a liberal bias, the report found. Those practices, the report concluded, “constituted misconduct and also violated the department’s policies and civil service law that prohibit discrimination in hiring based on political or ideological affiliations.”

The shift began in 2002, when advisers to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft restructured the honors program in response to what some officials saw as a liberal tilt in recruiting young lawyers from elite law schools like Harvard and Yale. While the recruitment was once controlled largely by career officials in each section who would review applications, political officials in the department began to assume more control, rejecting candidates with liberal or Democratic affiliations “at a significantly higher rate” than those with Republican or conservative credentials, the report said.

The shift appeared to accelerate in 2006, under then-Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, with two aides on the screening committee — Michael Elston and Esther Slater McDonald — singled out for particular criticism. The blocking of applicants with liberal credentials appeared to be a particular problem in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, which has seen an exodus of career employees in recent years as the department has pursued a more conservative agenda in deciding what types of cases to bring.

Applications that contained what were seen as “leftist commentary” or “buzz words” like environmental and social justice were often grounds for rejecting applicants, according to e-mails reviewed by the inspector general’s office. Membership in liberal organizations like the American Constitution Society, Greenpeace, or the Poverty and Race Research Action Council were also seen as negative marks.

Affiliation with the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative group, was viewed positively.

Representative John Conyers Jr., the Michigan Democrat who heads the House Judiciary Committee, saw the report as affirmation that the Justice Department had crossed the line in “putting politics where it doesn’t belong.”

“When it comes to the hiring of nonpartisan career attorneys,” Mr. Conyers said, “our system of justice should not be corrupted by partisan politics. It appears the politicization at Justice was so pervasive that even interns had to pass a partisan litmus test. ‘’

The inspector general is still investigating other issues related to alleged politicization of the Justice Department, including the central question of why nine United States attorneys were fired in late 2006. Those findings have not been made public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/wa...hp&oref=slogin

I mean WTF - fukc the law, we're doing Jesus' work. And -- if we can stack the deck for the Lords' Shepherds to make some cash - s0 be it.

These people make me sick. And, what makes me even sicker is that people in the US are too fukcing stupid to see this for exactly what it is

When I think of religion, the following comes to mind:

"George Carlin On Religion"

When it comes to bull****, big-time, major league bull****, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bull**** story. Holy ****!

But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is f*cked up.

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of **** you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

No woman could or would ever f*ck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a ****. Doesn't give a ****, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

So rather than be just another mindless religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn't give a ****, I decided to look around for something else to worship. Something I could really count on.

And immediately, I thought of the sun. Happened like that. Overnight I became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can't see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us.

Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I'm unworthy. Doesn't tell me I'm a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don't pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn't presume on our friendship. It's not polite.

I've often thought people treat God rather rudely, don't you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. Do this, gimme that, I need a new car, I want a better job. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday His day off. It's not nice. And it's no way to treat a friend.

But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know, your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for defecating in a mall. But most of all, you'd really like to f*ck that hot little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you'd have to. And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?

Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and f*ck up Your Plan?

And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say? "Well, it's God's will." "Thy Will Be Done." Fine, but if it's God's will, and He's going to do what He wants to anyway, why the **** bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn't you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It's all very confusing.

So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I said, I don't pray to the sun. You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Two reasons: First of all, I think he's a good actor, okay? To me, that counts. Second, he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't **** around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was having trouble with.

For years I asked God to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog, Joe Pesci straightened that cocksucker out with one visit. It's amazing what you can accomplish with a simple baseball bat.

So I've been praying to Joe for about a year now. And I noticed something. I noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50% rate. Half the time I get what I want, half the time I don't. Same as God, 50-50. Same as the four-leaf clover and the horseshoe, the wishing well and the rabbit's foot, same as the Mojo Man, same as the Voodoo Lady who tells you your fortune by squeezing the goat's testicles, it's all the same: 50-50. So just pick your superstition, sit back, make a wish, and enjoy yourself.

And for those of you who look to The Bible for moral lessons and literary qualities, I might suggest a couple of other stories for you. You might want to look at the Three Little Pigs, that's a good one. Has a nice happy ending, I'm sure you'll like that. Then there's Little Red Riding Hood, although it does have that X-rated part where the Big Bad Wolf actually eats the grandmother. Which I didn't care for, by the way. And finally, I've always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from Humpty Dumpty. The part I like the best? "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again." That's because there is no Humpty Dumpty, and there is no God. None, not one, no God, never was.

In fact, I'm gonna put it this way. If there is a God, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody's okay? All right, tell you what, I'll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a God, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened, oh, wait, I've got a little cramp in my leg. And my balls hurt. Plus, I'm blind. I'm blind, oh, now I'm okay again, must have been Joe Pesci, huh? God Bless Joe Pesci. Thank you all very much. Joe Bless You!

(Copyright 1999 by George Carlin)

I think their favorite university to hire from is Liberty University. The fact that it was founded by Jerry Falwell pretty much tells you all you need to know about what kind of school it is. It is considered a fourth tier school by US News and World Report, and yet it's graduates get scooped up left and right for jobs in the Bush administration. That is where that Monica Goodling came from, who testified to Congress, and said Alberto Gonzales was improperly trying to coach her in her testimony.

If they compile a department full of Bush cronies, they can do all sorts of nefarious deeds designed to ensure Republicans get elected to Congress. Have you heard of voter caging? That is where you send mail to someone you know will not be home. Then when it gets returned undelivered, you can claim that person doesn't exist and remove them from voting rolls. Republicans like to target Black college students who are away during the summer, and with a corrupt Justice Department, nothing gets done about this.

Where did religion come in to that piece at all? Did I miss something? Hell, I even read it twice.

It is in this sentence:

They hired only right wing conservatives, which means religious conservatives in this day and age. This is important because the Dept. of Justice can be influenced by the religious crazies, e.g. those wanting to put gay (and straight people for that matter) in jail for consenual pre-marital sex and even marital sex if it involves fellatio -- which happened more than once over the last 20 or so years :shrug:

But, even taking out the religious angle, which most assuredly is there (The crazy right wing religious conservative Ashcroft spent thousands to cover the naked marble breasts of the statues in the Dept. of Justice building :rolleyes: ) -- it was illegal to do what they did. Yet, the rules, once again, do not apply to the Bush Administration.

Are you saying that President Bush is more Coriolan than Egmont?

I wouldn't want to offend von Collin.

You won't offend him. He's long dead.


"Any notion that I was distorting the Bible in that speech, I think anyone would be hard pressed to make that argument," Obama told reporters on board his press plane Tuesday night.

Obama had an expensive education, & a lengthy one. Can he speak grammatical English?

"It is a speech that affirms the role of faith not just in my life but in the life of the American people, that suggests that we make a mistake by trying to push faith out of the public square."

I guess not.

"I do make the argument that it's important for folks like myself, who think faith is important, that we try to translate some of our concerns into universal language so we can have open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us," Obama said.

No again.

Isn't that "No[,] again" with some sort of punctuation :wavey:

How shall I put this? No.

There is no grammatical, rhetorical, or other reason that necessitates a comma in my adorable little elliptical phrase.

HURRY UP & RECORD WHAT YOU CAN OF EGMONT!!

I'm sure glad the Democrats wouldn't do something like this. :confused:

Though the D's are jerks in many other ways, anectdotal evidence suggest they never did this. Clearly, the R's were bold about it in this and other areas - with gall I might add.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I think they really feel that because they are "correct" they are above the law. It is the ultimate in arrogance.

Well, here's the proof :shrug:

I have to wonder would any of the far right people on this board like it if they were treated this way at their jobs.

July 29, 2008
Report Faults Aides in Hiring at Justice Dept.
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Senior aides to former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales broke Civil Service laws by using politics to guide their hiring decisions, picking less-qualified applicants for important nonpolitical positions, slowing the hiring process at critical times and damaging the department’s credibility, an internal report concluded on Monday.

A longtime prosecutor who drew rave reviews from his supervisors was passed over for an important counterterrorism slot because his wife was active in Democratic politics, and a much-less-experienced lawyer with Republican leanings got the job, the report said.

Another prosecutor was rejected for a job in part because she was thought to be a lesbian. And a Republican lawyer received high marks at his job interview because he was found to be sufficiently conservative on the core issues of “god, guns + gays.”

The report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general and its internal ethics office, centered on the misconduct of a small circle of aides to Mr. Gonzales, including Monica Goodling, a former top adviser to the attorney general, and Kyle Sampson, his former chief of staff. It also found that White House officials were actively involved in some hiring decisions.

According to the report, officials at the White House first developed a method of searching the Internet to glean the political leanings of a candidate and introduced it at a White House seminar called The Thorough Process of Investigation. Justice Department officials then began using the technique to search for key phrases or words in an applicant’s background, like “abortion,” “homosexual,” “Florida recount,” or “guns.”

The report focused its sharpest criticism on Ms. Goodling, a young lawyer from the Republican National Committee who rose quickly in the department to become a top aide to Mr. Gonzales.

Before a crush of cameras, Ms. Goodling testified before Congress in May 2007 at the height of the uproar over the firings of nine United States attorneys, admitting that she may have “crossed the line” at times in using politics in hiring decisions. But Monday’s report catalogued an effort much more systematic than Ms. Goodling described, leading some Democrats to charge that she, Mr. Sampson and Mr. Gonzales should be investigated for perjury.

Last month, the inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, and the Office of Professional Responsibility released a separate report that found a similar pattern of politicized hiring at the Justice Department in reviewing applications from young lawyers for the honors and intern programs.

The report released on Monday goes much further in documenting pervasive evidence of political hiring for some of the department’s most senior career positions, including immigration judges, assistant United States attorneys and even senior counterterrorism positions.

The pattern appeared most damaging in the hiring of immigration judges, as vacancies were allowed to go unfilled — and a backlog of deportation cases grew — while Mr. Gonzales’s aides looked for conservative lawyers to fill what were supposed to be apolitical jobs.

The inspector general’s investigation found that Ms. Goodling and a handful of other senior aides to Mr. Gonzales used in-person interviews and Internet searches to screen out candidates who might be too liberal and identify candidates seen as pro-Republican and supportive of President Bush.

One senior official, in describing Ms. Goodling’s strategy, likened it to a “farm system” used to fill temporary vacancies at the Justice Department with Republicans who could then move up.

The actions of Ms. Goodling, Mr. Sampson and other aides constituted official misconduct in violation of federal Civil Service laws and the department’s internal policies, the report concluded. Those who violated civil service laws cannot generally be prosecuted under criminal law.

All but one of the Justice Department officials cited in the report for misconduct have now left the department, meaning they are not subject to internal discipline. The report recommended that the Justice Department consider disciplinary action against the only remaining official, John Nowacki, who investigators found had drafted a statement to the news media concealing Ms. Goodling’s misconduct even though he knew the statement to be inaccurate.

Ms. Goodling and other lawyers named in the report could face disciplinary action from their local bar associations, including the possible loss of their bar licenses, officials said.

When interviewed by the inspector general, Mr. Gonzales said he was not aware that Ms. Goodling and other aides were using political criteria in their decisions for career positions. The report did not offer any direct evidence to contradict that assertion. Mr. Gonzales resigned last summer in the face of mounting accusations from Congressional Democrats that politics had corrupted the department.

His successor, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, said in a statement on Monday after the report’s release that he was “of course disturbed by their findings that improper political considerations were used in hiring decisions relating to some career employees.” His statement included a vow to prevent such actions from happening again.

A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said of Monday’s report, “There really is not a lot new here.”

A lawyer for Ms. Goodling, John Dowd, said he had not had time to read through the report in detail and declined to comment on specific findings. Mr. Dowd rejected the suggestion from top Democrats, including Representative John Conyers of Michigan, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that the Justice Department investigate possible perjury charges against Ms. Goodling. “I think it’s outrageous what he said,” Mr. Dowd said. “There was no perjury here.”

Mr. Sampson’s lawyer, Bradford Berenson, said that the report’s substance was consistent with what his client told Congress and that Mr. Sampson’s own role in using political considerations in hiring immigration lawyers stemmed from uncertainty about the law.

In her position as White House liaison for the Justice Department, Ms. Goodling was involved in hiring lawyers for both political appointments and nonpolitical career positions. Regardless of the type of position, the report said, Ms. Goodling would run applicants at interviews through the same batch of questions, asking them about their political philosophies, why they wanted to serve President Bush, and who, aside from Mr. Bush, they admired as public servants, the report found. Sometimes, Ms. Goodling would ask: “Why are you a Republican?”

In Ms. Goodling’s notes from the interviews, she would give a shorthand assessment of how well they fared on threshold political issues, as in the notation for one candidate who she wrote was aptly conservative on “god, guns + gays.”

In forwarding a résumé in 2006 from a lawyer who was working for the Federalist Society, Ms. Goodling sent an e-mail message to the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury, saying: “Am attaching a résumé for a young, conservative female lawyer.” Ms. Goodling interviewed the woman and wrote in her notes such phrases as “pro-God in public life,” and “pro-marriage, anti-civil union.” The woman was eventually hired as a career prosecutor.

Such consideration of political views would have been allowed in hiring candidates to political appointments, which make up a tiny part of the Justice Department’s 110,000 employees, but it was clearly banned under both Civil Service law and the Justice Department’s internal policies, the inspector general said.

The problem appears to have predated Ms. Goodling’s rise at the Justice Department. In one episode cited in 2004, when John Ashcroft was attorney general, Ms. Goodling’s predecessor as White House liaison, Susan Richmond, blocked the deputy attorney general’s office from extending the stint of one lawyer because she felt that the job should be filled by a political appointee loyal to Mr. Bush, the report said.

Stuart Levey, an aide in the deputy attorney general’s office, summed up his frustration in an e-mail message recounting his inability to keep the lawyer in his office. “I also probed whether there is something negative about him that I did not know,” Mr. Levey wrote. “Turns out there is: he is a registered Democrat,” he wrote, and Jan Williams, an official in the White House, “thinks everyone in the leadership offices should have some demonstrated loyalty to the President. She all but said that he should pack his bags and get out of Dodge by sunset.”

Such political consideration grew even more rampant when Ms. Goodling became White House liason in 2006. Ms. Goodling, with the apparent backing of Mr. Gonzales’ office, was able to override the wishes and recommendations of more experienced officials who far outranked her on paper. And her political influence in hiring decisions became so well known within the department that it generated complaints from senior officials who believed it was improper, long before the issue became a public controversy in 2007 following the firings of nine United States attorneys. The inspector general concluded that Ms. Goodling knew that questioning applicants to career positions about their political beliefs was improper.

In one case, for instance, Ms. Goodling slowed the hiring of a prosecutor in the United States attorney’s office in Washington D.C. for a vacancy because she said she was concerned that he was a “liberal Democrat.” After the United States attorney, Jeffrey Taylor, complained to her supervisors, he was allowed to hire the candidate anyway.

In another case, colleagues said that Ms. Goodling blocked the appointment of a female prosecutor in Washington because she believed the lawyer was involved in a lesbian relationship with her supervisor, according to the report. Ms. Goodling had heard unfounded rumors that the lawyer, Leslie Hagan, was having a relationship with her boss, Margaret Chiara, who was the United States attorney for the western district of Michigan, according to Ms. Hagan’s lawyer. Ms. Chiara was one of the nine United States attorneys fired from their posts for reasons that were never made clear to them. Some officials suggested that Ms. Chiara’s link to the case and Ms. Goodling’s objections may now explain her abrupt dismissal.

“There was no romantic relationship,” said Lisa Banks, the attorney for Ms. Hagan, “but the rumors were pernicious and grew legs, and it cost her the job.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/wa...ustice.html?hp

Bummer they can't be prosecuted in criminal court. I hope they get disbarred. You can't fire someone for being gay or allegedly being gay. This is America for f*ck's sake!

Actually, you can in the private sector in many states - Georgia, for example, is a fire at will state in the private sector. Note -- there are no EEO protections for gay people either.

Note - the Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order prohibiting firing someone for that reason. W has not rescinded that order despite pressure to do so. This likely is the only area in gay rights that he can be praised for.

Personally, if someone only wants to hire left-handed clowns with red hair, they should be allowed to do so. If a business ONLY hires gays or crossdressers, I have no problem with that, or the converse. If a black guy doesn't want to hire white people, why not let him? Or conversely? We shouldn't force people to be enlightened. People should be as free to be as stupid and ignorant as they please. As long as the expectations are made clear from the beginning, I don't see an issue. However, once someone is hired, people should be free from harassment. I don't believe in forcing people to hire people that they don't want to hire. We have laws in Washington preventing discrimination if someone is a cross-dresser. I have to give a drag queen the same consideration to come to work in women's clothing that I do if someone has a wheelchair, under my state's laws. That's a bit extreme. If there is a choice between two stores, where one I have to be checked out by a drag queen and another where I don't, I'm not sorry to go to the other store. I, as a consumer, shouldn't be forced into being made uncomfortable, nor should a business owner. We don't need the power of government to tell us how to run our lives or our businesses.

It happens on both sides of the isle. Each side stacks the deck in their own favor. It's just the nature of politics. I mean, Nixon wasn't any more corrupt than anyone else, he just got caught and someone like Johnson didn't. Both political sides are guilty of corruption. Since the R's were in power until 2006, their dirty laundry is coming out. Give it a few years and you'll see the same thing on the D side too. There just hasn't been enough time to become equally as corrupt, since they've only been the majority party since 2006.

Actually, I have been. I used to work for a very liberal guy and his son, who used to scream at me about the Iraq war, as if it was all my fault. My wife also worked for him and he would chew her out about what he assumed were her views, even though she actually would have agreed on some of the issues if he had bothered to listen to her. She stood up to him one day and was let go. I got left out of raises and other things, even though he said I deserved them. This same guy later on filed amended tax forms claiming I never worked for him and looted my social security. He also stuck me with one of his leases. I sued him over that one. I don't care so much about the discrimination part, I do care about his stealing the money he withheld from my paycheck. He sometimes changed my radio station to Air America when I was away from my desk. A more crude and angry station I have never heard. He used to worship idols in the office too. He was just a creepy guy. I just see no reason to go running to the government over his behavior. I chose to work for him and I chose to leave.

^^^

I honestly do not know the answer in the private sector (the govt. is a different story). On the one hand, I think the laws disallowing discrimmination in hiring practices have had a profound effect on the advancement of educating people that minorities and women could succeed in the workplace. On the other hand, those same las get abused all the time. Are they worth it? I have to conclude yes they are.

As for your statement "We have laws in Washington preventing discrimination if someone is a cross-dresser" -- please show me that law in the private sector. i suggest you cannot.

Why would anyone consider this appropriate work conversation?

Well, you continue to support it ans the people who let it fester to the the point prior to the surge and really even until know. You laid the card - don't be scared to play it :shrug:

:laugh: So Rush and his cronies are never as crude or cruder than AA -- goive me a break :laugh:

Actually, here is a link to an article on it. Gender Identity is clearly addressed in the bill. "Transgendered" covers people who dress as the other sex in the legislation.

http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/?aid=1095

"Why would anyone consider this appropriate work conversation?" I don't consider it appropriate work conversation. The guy was off his rocker. He would just walk around spouting this crap.

"Well, you continue to support it ans the people who let it fester to the the point prior to the surge and really even until know. You laid the card - don't be scared to play it :shrug:" The point is that I don't talk about it at work. Why should I have to deal with my voting habits with my boss? I thought you would be on the side of privacy here. I didn't bring any of this up with this guy or his nutty son. They brought it up to me.

":laugh: So Rush and his cronies are never as crude or cruder than AA -- goive me a break :laugh" Uh, no they are not. You might listen for a week straight and you might be surprised. He mostly focuses on issues and some cheesy egomania. Occasionally, he may veer off into stories, like that guy who got killed in Enumclaw at the bestiality ranch, but everyone did when that happened . He's not crude or generally angry. Air America was a lot of angry people. Michael Savage is a different story, then again, I stopped listening to him years ago. I don't like angry or crude people on the radio.

I thought you meant a Federal Law, that is what I was talking about. I do not know different states' laws.

Did you feel compelled to respond past though the point of something like "I am not talking about this at work." If they kept at it, then they were/are a$$holes despite their political views.

Here are some of Rush's better ones,

We have affectionately named a female-to-male sex-change operation the "add-a-dick-to-me," and we have news about "add-a-dick-to-mes" today…

Democrats will “bend over, grab the ankles, and say, ‘Have your way with me’” to African American and gay voters. Limbaugh then asked why Democrats don’t say “To hell with you, you wacko nuts in the base.”

:shrug:

. . . . though he likely does not remember them giving that he had thousands of OxyC tablets, but felt persecuted by the law when they busted him like a common dealer/druggie, which he was and though he openly advocated for years against people just like himself, to wit:

We're going to let you destroy your life. We're going to make it easy and then all of us who accept the responsibilities of life and don't destroy our lives on drugs, we'll pay for whatever messes you get into."

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec. 9, 1993

"I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say people are going to do drugs anyway let's legalize it. It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea and those who are for it are purely 100 percent selfish."

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"If (Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders) wants to legalize drugs, send the people who want to do drugs to London and Zurich, and let's be rid of them.

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. 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.

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995

What a fukcing hypocrite :rolleyes:

Here is what you actually said, "As for your statement "We have laws in Washington preventing discrimination if someone is a cross-dresser" -- please show me that law in the private sector. i suggest you cannot." I said Washington to begin with.

He acknowledged his hypocrisy and plead out. He did what he would have expected someone else to do. He never said he didn't do it, or that he changed his views. He said he was wrong and he was wrong. He's human. Unlike Obamessiah! :angel:

I did acknowledge he occasionally gets crude. He generally is not, he has moments here and there. He occasionally gets angry. Most of the time he's just being funny. The "addadickonme" stuff is supposed to be funny. Air America is crude ALL THE TIME and angry ALL THE TIME. I mean, Al Franken threw a folding chair at Michael Medved during a debate.

I was talking about Washington as in D.C. as demonstrated by the references to W and Clinton and the EEOC. I do not think I was unclear. But, if I was, now I am pretty sure I am clear :cool:

He could have moved to Zurich and/or volunteered to serve the jail sentence he openly advocated for others just like him to serve.

And - he did not just plead that out. He used his cohorts in the media to try to save his face by acting like the state was persecuting him for being Rush L. never mind the thousands of tablets of hillbilly heroin he had. Mind you, he had to openly and knowingly violate about 100 federal and state laws regarding the distribution of controlled substances.

Defending him in any capacity on that point (much less the non sequitor bait and switch to Obama) is ridiculous.

I was trying to be funny about Obama. Anyway, the prosecutor DID violate his civil rights on some levels. Remember, even the ACLU decided to take up his case. Just because Limbaugh did wrong does not mean that everything the prosecution did was right. I'm not defending his drug use. I'm saying that he was honest about it. Remember the flap about the viagra he had on his vacation? Releasing that info was a violation of HIPAA law. The prosecution leaked that information and it was illegal. He doesn't have cronies in the media, remember he calls them all the "drive by" media. They don't like him at all.

^^^

The ACLU had problems with the law enforcement exception of HIPPA, not really with Rush. I'd think you, based onb your previous posts, would support HIPPA's law enforcement exception. Interestestingly, I am sure Rush did in the context of the villified drug addicts prior to his arrests for the thousands of tablets :shrug:

Well, FOx sure defended him and he has appeared on FOx a few times.

That's different. Fox is actually neutral, the rest of the media just pretends to be. :lol:

Besides, Rush being an ex-junkie doesn't invalidate his opinions or make Air America any less abhorrent. You are employing ad homonym arguments to invalidate the guy instead of his opinions and how enjoyable his show might be. I mean, if we followed your train of thought there, we wouldn't watch anything or listen to anything because everyone is a hypocrite in one way or another. I mean, we're supposed to listen to Alex Baldwin's opinion on world events, or Madonna's, and they have their faults too.

Well, no I am not. I was responding to your statement "sometimes changed my radio station to Air America when I was away from my desk. A more crude and angry station I have never heard." So, I pointed out that Rush could be as crude. Then, I thought we had moved on from Air America, which I never said was not crude. They most certainly were. I did not like them at all. But, they were no cruder on average than Rush L. I thought we were on a side topic about Rush and his dirty little problem.

OK cool, then we really don't disagree that much. I mean, Rush being a pill popper doesn't make him as bad as Air America is my point. I think his show CAN be crude and I've heard him lose his temper, just vastly less than Al Franken or Janeane Garafalo might.

Umm - it does on his vitriole on drug addicts :shrug:

You see, I don't see him as being vitriolic.

He openly persecuted and taunted drug addicts and with contempt. That is the definition of the word :shrug:

And, he was an addict all the while, which makes him a rank hypocrite.

Interestingly, many of the most self righteous of the R's seemingly fall big time on the same ****te they persecute.

Still goes both ways. I mean, Congressman Jefferson?!