More Bush Religious BS

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . They don't like him at all.

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

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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

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.

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.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, no I am not. 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.

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Besides, Rush being an ex-junkie doesn't invalidate his opinions . . . .

Umm - it does on his vitriole on drug addicts

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Umm - it does on his vitriole on drug addicts

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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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

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.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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?!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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

When and Who did he persecute on any comparable level?

I think he is a jerk, but he is far less self righteous than, say, Strom Thurmond, the far right religious zealots, and, for that matter, Rush. Interstingly, he also did not lie to send thousands of innocent soldiers to their deaths based on what he knew was a lie. So, while what he allegedly did (has their been a verdict?) was a bad thing -- I suggest that it is slightly less egrigious than fostering hate in people against one certain type of people when you are doing that very thing

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

When and Who did he persecute on any comparable level?

I think he is a jerk, but he is far less self righteous than, say, Strom Thurmond, the far right religious zealots, and, for that matter, Rush. Interstingly, he also did not lie to send thousands of innocent soldiers to their deaths based on what he knew was a lie. So, while what he allegedly did (has their been a verdict?) was a bad thing -- I suggest that it is slightly less egrigious than fostering hate in people against one certain type of people when you are doing that very thing

Oh, come on. How about Jack Murtha? Back in 1982, he was caught trying to take money for bribes. The only reason he wasn't put away with his other cronies is that he held out for more money, so he didn't actually TAKE any. He's the first guy to pounce on anyone else. Heck, the Keating 5, 4 of them were democrats. The Bouncing House Bank Transactions, all but one were democrats, Dan Rostenkowski, etc. Heck, Harry Reid and his land deals. Obama and his ties to Tony Rezco, etc. It happens everywhere and these people are the first to pounce on Republicans caught doing the same stuff.

The basic assumption that the WMD's was a lie is still highly questionable. No one knew there weren't any. Again, as has been pointed out, the Russians, French, British, Bill Clinton, and even Saddam's own generals believed he had the WMD's. No one lied, there is a difference between a lie and being wrong.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

The basic assumption that the WMD's was a lie is still highly questionable. No one knew there weren't any. Again, as has been pointed out, the Russians, French, British, Bill Clinton, and even Saddam's own generals believed he had the WMD's. No one lied, there is a difference between a lie and being wrong.

It is not the existence of WMD. I agree that the world unanimously thought SH had something or, at the least, needed to account for what he had in the past, which he was loathe to do. The issue arises with the exigency to invade. They had to sell that because the WMD excuse was not enough or else we would have invaded based on that alone.


So, W and his administration deliberately lied about the yellow cake. They needed to scare Americans and the world. There really is no disputing that.

Also, many of the larger players in that general fiasco as well as many Congressional and other investigations clearly demonstrate that W and his cronies also (on top of the lies) deliberatley manipulated the intelligence to the light most favorable for war.

What is confusing about that?

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

It is not the existence of WMD. It was the exigency to invade. They had to sell that because the WMD excuse was not enough.


So, W and his administration deliberately lied about the yellow cake. They needed to scare Americans and the world. There really is no disputing that.

Also, many of the larger players in that general fiasco as well as many Congressional and other investigations clearly demonstrate that W and his cronies also (on top of the lies) deliberatley manipulated the intelligence to the light most favorable for war.

What is confusing about that?

The confusing part about what you said is that it flat out isn't true. It's the stuff of the Huffington Post and other libby blogs.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

The confusing part about what you said is that it flat out isn't true. It's the stuff of the Huffington Post and other libby blogs.

Please find me anything that suports your proposition that W and his cronies did not lie about SH looking to procure the yellow cake.