Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Irony of Rush Limbaugh's comments today

I did the same shit that he is being charged with...Doctor Shopping and I got hit with 3 felonies. (Ya, I was a drug addict and a dumb ass....but getting arrested was the best thing that could have happened to me!)

So, I had to go into this pre-trial intervention program which basically runs from 12-18 months....drug tests, groups, meetings, court appearances....the best thing was that I did NOT get charged with any felonies...they got dismissed.

They could hit him with a shitload of felony charges....but, money and power go a long way in America.

Check out the documents:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/rushsearch1.html

Look at page 5, the dates, the drugs and the quantities. He wasn't sellling, he was using all that shit. It goes FAST. Trust me, I have been there.
 
Testosterone boy said:
Cloaking your vernacular in polysyllabic speech does not change the message.

Rush Limbaugh is the epitome of devisive, oppressive ideals and regulatory desires. See his thoughts on the drug war and how to deal with offenders. While you are at it you may reconsider saying that Limbaugh is anything but devisive.

You must be kidding? I already stated that his ideas on drug use are irrational and anti-libertarian, but one wrong ideal is not an across the board trend. You are trying to support your assertion that he holds despotic ideals because of his support for one regulation. His venom is routinely pitted against those who promote social regulation, such as Democrats, environmentalists, socialists, anti-industrialists, etc. These are individuals who proudly claim that government is the "great provider", that regulation equals freedom, that egalitarianism is equality.

Please show examples of other pro-government ideals which Limbaugh promotes, aside from the above.

I have listened to him on many an occasion and he DOES not hold to many views which are regulatory, aside from his erroneous view of drug use. There are obviously other points of contention that I have with him, but on the whole I find myself in agreement with him.

As for the devisive claim, I could really care less. Those he tends to attack are consistantly trying to divide the nation on issues such as rich/poor, capitalism/socialism, race, gender, etc. Each person has the right to hold to their point of view, no matter how wrong it is. What they do not have a right to is a world where no one expresses an opposing opinion, which is exactly where the label "devisive" tends to originate.
 
so making racist and homophobic jokes doesn't make him racist or homophobic? Am I understanding that correctly? Making fun of gays and african americans always kinda fell under my definition of being racist/homophobic...so I guess you have a different criteria. If you could show me one instance where he supports the advancement of equal rights for gays and lesbians then maybe I'd be inclined to agree with you that he isn't homophobic....but you can't.
Also...you said that I had no proof that he isn't a zealot...then I proved that he was a zealot and now you're saying that there is nothing with wrong with being a zealot....make up your mind as to what your argument is please.
Frankly I think there is something wrong with being a zealot because I believe Limbaugh's dogmatic beliefs get in the way of him having any true reasoning or compassion.
You say that he doesn't lie, how about the lie that he continually brings up about the supposed deal that Sudan was going to hand over bin Laden to Clinton???? That has been proven totally false, yet Limbaugh still touts it as gospel on his radio program.
Also Rush has a whole litany of lies about environmental issues, saying things like that we have more trees now than when the declaration of independence was written and other idiotic nonsense.
How about this one, "How about the myth of heterosexual AIDS? Despite endless predictions of an epidemic, it has not happened, yet each year we are hit by The Media with alarming new predictions."
The fact is that heterosexual AIDS is on the rise....Limbaugh just wants to use this issue to continue the stereotype that he and other conservatives like to use that AIDS is a gay disease and is gods punishment or some bull like that.
 
kingsbury said:
so making racist and homophobic jokes doesn't make him racist or homophobic? Am I understanding that correctly?

Yes, you are understanding this correctly. Your assertion that offensive humor automatically denotes racism is ludicrous, since the whole cast that creates South Park would be the most racist individuals on earth, not to mention a thousand other comedians who make a living being offensive.

Making fun of gays and african americans always kinda fell under my definition of being racist/homophobic...so I guess you have a different criteria.

Yes, we do. I don't live in the same PC world you do. I do not feel "threatened" when a black person or gay person says an off remark against whites or heterosexuals.


If you could show me one instance where he supports the advancement of equal rights for gays and lesbians then maybe I'd be inclined to agree with you that he isn't homophobic....but you can't.

What rights are you speaking of? What rights are gay individuals deprived of, pray tell? If you are speaking of "gay rights" then your argument is a non-sequitur, since there are no such things as "gay rights" or any rights special to any group. There are only "individual rights". I am sure you are speaking of marriage, which is not a right, but a government license, no different than the "priviledge to drive". Don't believe me, see if you are married without the approval of the state.

Also...you said that I had no proof that he isn't a zealot...then I proved that he was a zealot and now you're saying that there is nothing with wrong with being a zealot....make up your mind as to what your argument is please.

My statement was not that he was not zealous, but that the use of such terms, along with racist, homophobe, etc. are often the signs of a person who has a weak foundation against his opponent. These are terms thrown at an opponent in attempt to weaken his/her platform before they are even presented. It is a way to disregard the issue at hand and simply attack the speaker.

Frankly I think there is something wrong with being a zealot because I believe Limbaugh's dogmatic beliefs get in the way of him having any true reasoning or compassion.

You have to show that his reasoning is wrong, not claim that he is simply a zeolot. Debate issues, not people. As for compassion, who gives a shit? What does compassion have to do with a radio talk show, man? He is not out to care for the needy or the homeless, no more than you do in your profession.

You say that he doesn't lie, how about the lie that he continually brings up about the supposed deal that Sudan was going to hand over bin Laden to Clinton???? That has been proven totally false, yet Limbaugh still touts it as gospel on his radio program.

At least now you present some reasoning to your claims. I will not profess to know the details of the above events, so I cannot make a clear judgement.

Also Rush has a whole litany of lies about environmental issues, saying things like that we have more trees now than when the declaration of independence was written and other idiotic nonsense.

Can you provide evidence to disprove this? If you can then your argument stands.

How about this one, "How about the myth of heterosexual AIDS? Despite endless predictions of an epidemic, it has not happened, yet each year we are hit by The Media with alarming new predictions."

The fact is that heterosexual AIDS is on the rise....Limbaugh just wants to use this issue to continue the stereotype that he and other conservatives like to use that AIDS is a gay disease and is gods punishment or some bull like that.

I am in agreement with him on this. It is an issue of statistics. If there are 50,000 gay men in one year with HIV and the following year there are another 1000 cases. The increase in HIV in gay men is approximately 2%. If there are 100 heterosexual cases in the same year and the following year there are 200 cases, the increase in HIV is roughly 67%. Although the number of cases are drastically different, this is not what is reported, only the larger percent difference, due to its stronger effect on the minds of individuals. HIV, in the US, is a predominately gay male disease, and not the equal opportunity disease that so many profess. African HIV cases are drastically different than what occurs in the US, unless we have a large rash of sex with minors and "dry sex" becomes popular. The manor of sex affects the spread of the disease.

I have never heard him profess that HIV is "God's wrath", but I am sure you will find this quote, won't you?
 
spin721 said:
I did the same shit that he is being charged with...Doctor Shopping and I got hit with 3 felonies. (Ya, I was a drug addict and a dumb ass....but getting arrested was the best thing that could have happened to me!)

So, I had to go into this pre-trial intervention program which basically runs from 12-18 months....drug tests, groups, meetings, court appearances....the best thing was that I did NOT get charged with any felonies...they got dismissed.

They could hit him with a shitload of felony charges....but, money and power go a long way in America.

Check out the documents:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/rushsearch1.html

Look at page 5, the dates, the drugs and the quantities. He wasn't sellling, he was using all that shit. It goes FAST. Trust me, I have been there.

yeah, he could have gotten nailed for distribution. He was going through 5000 pills a month. all those opiates must have made him constipated like a mofo.
 
The Nature Boy said:


yeah, he could have gotten nailed for distribution. He was going through 5000 pills a month. all those opiates must have made him constipated like a mofo.

that explains why he was talking so much shit.
 
ACtually 55% of new HIV cases are from heterosexuals....the fact that there are less gays does mean that HIV infects a larger percentage of gays and lesbians, but HIV does not discriminate on sexual orientation.
There is a difference between the racist humor heard on say Howard Stern or South Park and the racist humor of Rush Limbaugh. Howard Stern and the makers of South Park make fun of everybody and they make it clear that this is just an attempt to make people lighten up. Limbaugh makes mean spirited and hateful comments against specific groups....never once have I heard him make a joke about stupid, rich white people. My point being, if you're going to make offensive jokes, you have to be an equal opportunity offender.
Actually gays and lesbians are denied a number of rights and priveledges. You are correct, some of the things which gays and lesbians are asking for are not constitutionally guaranteed rights. However, they are priveledges which are given to every other segment of the population. When you grant a priviledge to everyone else in a society except for a certain group, that is discrimination and that is what I'm speaking of. Also, it is currently legal for someone to be fired simply for being gay....as gays aren't included under the federal equal opportunity in employment act.
Your assertion that you aren't threatened when someone makes a joke about white people makes sense. As the majority you have nothing to fear when someone of the minority makes an offensive remark about you. However, it is quite a bit different in my opinion when you are part of an underpriviledged class in this country and someone of the more powerful class makes an offensive remark about you. Also, I don't see a long history of bias or hatred directed towards straight, white males...can you give me some hate crimes figures on how many white guys are beaten up for being straight white guys?
Rush's really big problem is not that he flat out lies all the time, its his way of ommitting certain contextual parts of statements and his way of twisting things that were said. He is a very talented orator, but should really label himself as more of an entertainer and not "a truth detector" or a respectable political commentator.
 
kingsbury said:
ACtually 55% of new HIV cases are from heterosexuals....the fact that there are less gays does mean that HIV infects a larger percentage of gays and lesbians, but HIV does not discriminate on sexual orientation.

Again, you used statistical analysis which can make a change appear drastic depending on how you present the data, as I showed before. Also, you did not show if this was US cases or worldwide. In the US, HIV cases are primarily confined to the gay male population. This can change, as gay male cases declined for a period of time, while the heterosexual cases increased, due to the prevalence and visible effects it had on the hardest hit group..people take notice of something that affects them hardest.

As for HIV discriminating, this is wrong. HIV's transmission is very dependant on manner of sex, which is why Africans and gay men have the highest rates of transmission, i.e. greater amounts of blood transmission.

There is a difference between the racist humor heard on say Howard Stern or South Park and the racist humor of Rush Limbaugh. Howard Stern and the makers of South Park make fun of everybody and they make it clear that this is just an attempt to make people lighten up. Limbaugh makes mean spirited and hateful comments against specific groups....never once have I heard him make a joke about stupid, rich white people.

But you admit to not listening to him. He often times makes fun of such people, admittedly they are the Hollywood left or other left leaning wealthy. But the whole point is that he does not attack skin color or ethnicity, per se, but ideology, which is why he attacks the NAACP, or NOW, or Hollywood elites, etc. He DOES despise their mentality, and I find nothing wrong with pointing out the danger in their philosophies. I despise them more so than he.

Also, pulling out quotes of Limbaugh and then assuming the remainder of its context can lead to misconstrued ends.

My point being, if you're going to make offensive jokes, you have to be an equal opportunity offender.

No you don't. That is weak minded fantasy crap. If I am a self-proclaimed right wing host, who do you think my targets are? Obviously those diametrically opposed to my view, the left.

Actually gays and lesbians are denied a number of rights and priveledges. You are correct, some of the things which gays and lesbians are asking for are not constitutionally guaranteed rights. However, they are priveledges which are given to every other segment of the population. When you grant a priviledge to everyone else in a society except for a certain group, that is discrimination and that is what I'm speaking of. Also, it is currently legal for someone to be fired simply for being gay....as gays aren't included under the federal equal opportunity in employment act.

Priviledges are not implicitly equal, they are often voted on by the majority and thus can be selective. As I stated before, marriage is a priviledge in the US, by the implicit nature of requiring a lisence, just a driving is. A man is not allowed to marry more than one wife, so polygamists are discriminated against. A 12 year old cannot drive, so 12 year olds are discriminated against. Priviledges are not inherent, they are granted.

While there is no codification of sexual orientation in the Equal Opportunity Act, this does not imply that there is no recourse for being fired solely for being gay. Even though the EOA states race, you still must go to court to prove that you were discriminated against because of race, same for a homosexual. And I know that cases of sexual orientation discrimination have been brought to court.

Your assertion that you aren't threatened when someone makes a joke about white people makes sense. As the majority you have nothing to fear when someone of the minority makes an offensive remark about you. However, it is quite a bit different in my opinion when you are part of an underpriviledged class in this country and someone of the more powerful class makes an offensive remark about you. Also, I don't see a long history of bias or hatred directed towards straight, white males...can you give me some hate crimes figures on how many white guys are beaten up for being straight white guys?

Your argument is way to general to be taken honestly. A person's experiences will affect him more than the demographics of a nation. A poor white child in a predominately black neighborhood will not think like a rich white kid in a wealthy white neighborhood, yet this is the scenario that all ethno-emotionalists like to present, that somehow ALL white individuals share some "rich white person" collective mentality and ALL black individuals share the "black slave" collective mentality. This is crap. White kids in black neighborhoods are persecuted daily.

Rush's really big problem is not that he flat out lies all the time, its his way of ommitting certain contextual parts of statements and his way of twisting things that were said. He is a very talented orator, but should really label himself as more of an entertainer and not "a truth detector" or a respectable political commentator.

On some things there is no doubt that he contorts reality to fit his ideology, but you have to present the ideas and not attack the person. I despise Bill and Hillary Clinton, not because of who they are, but what ideas they promote.

Intelligent people argue ideas, not people.
 
"If I am a self-proclaimed right wing host, who do you think my targets are? Obviously those diametrically opposed to my view, the left."

Its fine if Rush wants to attack the left, but its often racial and minority groups which Rush chooses to attack. Why is it that Republican has to equal racist and homophobe? Apparently I'm not allowed to use quotes from him according to you, but what point does it serve for him to not attack the left based on the merits of their arguments, but on racial, ethnic and minority stereotypes? In my previous posts I provided carbon copy examples of where he attacked people based solely on their race or minority group and not their ideology. Personally, I am not a racist and don't find racist jokes to be humorous....if you can find me someone who is also not a racist, but loves to tell racist jokes in a mean spirited fashion then you win.
Comparing gay marriage with polygamy is the same stupid argument republicans have been using ever since the issue has come up. Its apples and oranges....maybe next we'll have men marrying cows too. Its not the same thing and you know it.
You missed my point....all other things being equal, blacks and gays are still second class citizens compared to a white man with equal ability. You know this
How about also the Army's don't ask don't tell policy?
Its interesting that during the war the army discontinued discharging gays and lesbians for being gays and lesbians, but during peace time it is common practice for any known gay and lesbian to be dishonorably discharged. So in essence, gays and lesbians are good enough to die in the army, they just aren't good enough to serve and receive benefits. So theoretically, a soldier could serve bravely throughout the Iraq War and then following his break from duty and the end of the war he could be dishonorably discharged and receive no benefits for all of his service.
 
Top Bottom