Take the Limbaugh Challenge

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Hypocrisy: hy-poc’ri-sy, n.(LL. hypocrisies; G;R. hypokrisis, a reply, acting a part, feigning, from hypokrinesthi, to answer, play a part, pretend; hypo, under and krinisthai, to contend, dispute.) a feigning to be what one is not; the acting of a false part; a deception as to real character and feeling, especially as regards to morals and religion.*

“Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... 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,”

However, once his drug use was revealed, did Rush Limbaugh have to answer to the harsh penalties he demanded for other Americans? So far, the answer is a resounding ‘No!

On the contrary, after a very short few weeks in rehab, Mr. Limbaugh is back on the air, declaring his righteousness to radio listeners. How arrogant is it to declare that you, personally and individually, embody truth? Yet that is what Mr. Limbaugh did when he reopened his radio show after emerging from rehab.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME, how can you even listen to this lowlife. He should have been sent to prision like the common folk, if I had been caught with the amount of drugs he was holding, I would be in for twenty to life.

Obama was a drug addict. He willfully indulged in several types of illegal drugs. Does that make a difference about how he is perceived by libs? Apparently not. We now have a druggie president.

[panamania79 2]

Does Rush love lesbians more than he loves his narcs?

Maybe he had a 3-some and liked it. You know they were the bread,and he was the meat

[lucyrich 20]

Several years ago, I was on an extended vacation, driving around the western US for a couple of months. Most days, while bored behind the wheel, I'd listen to Rush (also to Dr. Laura, but that's for another thread).

He IS entertaining. He does try and simplify things, and his simplifications often make his points seem logical. Sometimes they ARE logical.

But he's also wrong a lot. He omits key facts that he has no interest in presenting. He tries to pump up his own point of view, and refuses to acknowledge facts that don't agree with his ideology. If a person is on his bad side, he refuses to acknowledge anything good the person does, and if a person is on his good side, he refuses to acknowledge anything bad the person does. He's a partisan politician in the worst sense of the term.

It's entertaining to listen to him. Sometimes he finds good reasons to criticize Democrats. He's good and finding the craziest things said and done by the craziest Democrats, and holding that up to ridicule. Occasionally he finds something really good to praise in Republicans. But mostly he grasps at straws, trying to pump up people who don't deserve it, and trying to put down others who don't deserve being put down.

[Danno 1,228]

Hypocrisy: hy-poc’ri-sy, n.(LL. hypocrisies; G;R. hypokrisis, a reply, acting a part, feigning, from hypokrinesthi, to answer, play a part, pretend; hypo, under and krinisthai, to contend, dispute.) a feigning to be what one is not; the acting of a false part; a deception as to real character and feeling, especially as regards to morals and religion.*

“Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... 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,”

However, once his drug use was revealed, did Rush Limbaugh have to answer to the harsh penalties he demanded for other Americans? So far, the answer is a resounding ‘No!

On the contrary, after a very short few weeks in rehab, Mr. Limbaugh is back on the air, declaring his righteousness to radio listeners. How arrogant is it to declare that you, personally and individually, embody truth? Yet that is what Mr. Limbaugh did when he reopened his radio show after emerging from rehab.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME, how can you even listen to this lowlife. He should have been sent to prision like the common folk, if I had been caught with the amount of drugs he was holding, I would be in for twenty to life.

1.It was well reported that Rushs addiction began with ongoing back problems. (not exactly Richard pryor freebasing)

2. Can you name any celeb who was found guilty of "Doctor shopping" (the charge against Rush I believe) or worse who did any time?

The only way a person will get a first time offense sentence is for distribution.

3. You said Rush was declaring his righteousness upon return to the radio, please share a quote so we might know what you are talking about.

From what I recall he seemed very humbled.

For me Rush is no different than anyone else in this regard, if he breaks the law (as he clearly did) he should get treated just like anyone else would or, as people in his position typically are.

In fact the DA in Palm county went after Rush, more aggressively than we have seen happen to other celebs with "multiple offenses".

Again name one first time offender (we would know) who got sent up the river?

* IT'S telling that Rush spends three hours a day using a variety of means to discuss "ideas",

yet the typical attack on Ole rush is .... not about his ideas but;

He's fat

He's a drug addict.

Kinda lame really.

[lucyrich 20]

Obama was a drug addict. He willfully indulged in several types of illegal drugs. Does that make a difference about how he is perceived by libs? Apparently not. We now have a druggie president.

Since this is an immigration board, note that NONE of our past three presidents would have had an easy time getting a US visa if they had been foreigners trying to get one, and accurately reporting their drug history. Clinton admitted smoking marijuana. George W. Bush had a cocaine habit. Obama smoked pot, and actually inhaled, because he thought that was the point. Their offenses were far enough in the past that they might have been able to eventually be declared admissible, but...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Several years ago, I was on an extended vacation, driving around the western US for a couple of months. Most days, while bored behind the wheel, I'd listen to Rush (also to Dr. Laura, but that's for another thread).

He IS entertaining. He does try and simplify things, and his simplifications often make his points seem logical. Sometimes they ARE logical.

But he's also wrong a lot. He omits key facts that he has no interest in presenting. He tries to pump up his own point of view, and refuses to acknowledge facts that don't agree with his ideology. If a person is on his bad side, he refuses to acknowledge anything good the person does, and if a person is on his good side, he refuses to acknowledge anything bad the person does. He's a partisan politician in the worst sense of the term.

It's entertaining to listen to him. Sometimes he finds good reasons to criticize Democrats. He's good and finding the craziest things said and done by the craziest Democrats, and holding that up to ridicule. Occasionally he finds something really good to praise in Republicans. But mostly he grasps at straws, trying to pump up people who don't deserve it, and trying to put down others who don't deserve being put down.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We now have a druggie president.

Bush snorted coke and was a self-admitted alcoholic. You're being selective with the definition of addict.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

We now have a druggie president.

Bush snorted coke and was a self-admitted alcoholic. You're being selective with the definition of addict.

You're selective in that you think Bush is still relevant. The election is over. We have a new druggie president, the one you like.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We now have a druggie president.

Bush snorted coke and was a self-admitted alcoholic. You're being selective with the definition of addict.

You're selective in that you think Bush is still relevant. The election is over. We have a new druggie president, the one you like.

What is difference between the two presidents in terms of their past drug use? If the past is no longer relevant, why do you bring it up?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

We now have a druggie president.

Bush snorted coke and was a self-admitted alcoholic. You're being selective with the definition of addict.

You're selective in that you think Bush is still relevant. The election is over. We have a new druggie president, the one you like.

What is difference between the two presidents in terms of their past drug use? If the past is no longer relevant, why do you bring it up?

The past president is no longer relevant. It's you who brought him up. Funny how Barry's drug use isn't relevant.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I could care less about who smokes, drinks or takes happy pills. Most people have done at least one of those things at some point - its a non-issue.

[Marilyn. 340]

I really don't remember people from either side making a big fuss about George W's drug habits... I didn't even know he had one...

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No big fuss about Barry's addictions either. A lot of libs apparently don't know he had one or they wouldn't always be hypocritically bringing Rush's drug use up.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We now have a druggie president.

Bush snorted coke and was a self-admitted alcoholic. You're being selective with the definition of addict.

You're selective in that you think Bush is still relevant. The election is over. We have a new druggie president, the one you like.

What is difference between the two presidents in terms of their past drug use? If the past is no longer relevant, why do you bring it up?

The past president is no longer relevant. It's you who brought him up. Funny how Barry's drug use isn't relevant.

Was Bush's past drug use relevant to you?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I really don't remember people from either side making a big fuss about George W's drug habits... I didn't even know he had one...

It certainly wasn't a big issue for me. But to indulge that line of argument is to buy into the BS tangent that Barza threw up.

The drug angle is only relevant in the example of Rush Limbaugh who notoriously went on a big diatribe about how drug addicts are the worst criminals ever and should be "sent up the river", all the while he was indulging an illegal drug habit of his own.

In that respect Rush has about as much moral credibility as Eliot Spitzer.