Take the Limbaugh Challenge

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

What a load of old cheddar.

The only hypocrisy on this issue was committed by Rush. Whatever anyone here personally thinks about drug use, it has absolutely ####### all to do with Rush's words and actions on the subject.

None whatsoever.

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

Why is that VW and so many other Right Wing Nuts argue the same way? It's like they all missed out on Logic 101 back in college.

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

Why is that VW and so many other Right Wing Nuts argue the same way? It's like they all missed out on Logic 101 back in college.

apparently it escapes you how much the left wingers made light of gwb's drug and alcohol use.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

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.

Barry is the leader of the country. He has many moral failings and contradictions, which are not open to rational discourse. It is a pattern that any mention of his drug abuse will be consistantly labeled BS and diverted back to the issue of Rush and Bush because talking about his failings is less comfortable for libs and Dims than mindless battering of Bush or Rush, neither man, currently in elected office. Forgive me if I don't fall for this transparent red herring.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Barza Woman

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its definitely strange why Obama must be injected into a discussion about Rush Limbaugh.

I have no problem with someone using drugs, but that doesn't mean I should overlook someone whose words are in direct opposition to their actions.

Spitzer's reputation as an anti-corruption crusader was destroyed by his dalliance with prostitutes.

Unlike Spitzer Rush's career doesn't rely on his reputation and he has the luxury that there is no expectation that he be held to account for his words Vs. his actions. If nothing else Rush's behaviour Vs. his position on the drug issue certainly makes him a blow-hard.

But then that's probably no revelation to a lot of people.

[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.

Barry is the leader of the country. He has many moral failings and contradictions, which are not open to rational discourse. It is a pattern that any mention of his drug abuse will be consistantly labeled BS and diverted back to the issue of Rush and Bush because talking about his failings is less comfortable for libs and Dims than mindless battering of Bush or Rush, neither man, currently in elected office. Forgive me if I don't fall for this transparent red herring.

The only transparent red herring here is why can't you discuss Rush's undeniable hypocrisy without substituting him for Obama.

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

Why is that VW and so many other Right Wing Nuts argue the same way? It's like they all missed out on Logic 101 back in college.

apparently it escapes you how much the left wingers made light of gwb's drug and alcohol use.

Actually, whatever lampooning at Bush over his drug use, was more a less a reaction to how the Right Wingers made an example out of Clinton for admitting he puffed on a joint. How Clinton's character was a disgrace to the presidency. I think it's established now that GW Bush lowered that bar.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Its definitely strange why Obama must be injected into a discussion about Rush Limbaugh.

I have no problem with someone using drugs, but that doesn't mean I should overlook someone whose words are in direct opposition to their actions.

Spitzer's reputation as an anti-corruption crusader was destroyed by his dalliance with prostitutes.

Unlike Spitzer Rush's career doesn't rely on his reputation and he has the luxury that there is no expectation that he be held to account for his words Vs. his actions. If nothing else Rush's behaviour Vs. his position on the drug issue certainly makes him a blow-hard.

But then that's probably no revelation to a lot of people.

Spitzer is irrelevant to this discussion.

Any person can choose to listen to Rush or not to listen to Rush.

Few have the luxury of ignoring Barry. He is the champion of the libs, and Rush is a conservative icon. If you attack a prominent conservative as a hypocrite, just because, why find it "strange" that a prominent liberal gets the same treatment?

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.

Barry is the leader of the country. He has many moral failings and contradictions, which are not open to rational discourse. It is a pattern that any mention of his drug abuse will be consistantly labeled BS and diverted back to the issue of Rush and Bush because talking about his failings is less comfortable for libs and Dims than mindless battering of Bush or Rush, neither man, currently in elected office. Forgive me if I don't fall for this transparent red herring.

The only transparent red herring here is why can't you discuss Rush's undeniable hypocrisy without substituting him for Obama.

Can you do the same re Barry?

Edited April 1, 2009 by Barza Woman

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The thread isn't about Barry. Its about Rush.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its definitely strange why Obama must be injected into a discussion about Rush Limbaugh.

I have no problem with someone using drugs, but that doesn't mean I should overlook someone whose words are in direct opposition to their actions.

Spitzer's reputation as an anti-corruption crusader was destroyed by his dalliance with prostitutes.

Unlike Spitzer Rush's career doesn't rely on his reputation and he has the luxury that there is no expectation that he be held to account for his words Vs. his actions. If nothing else Rush's behaviour Vs. his position on the drug issue certainly makes him a blow-hard.

But then that's probably no revelation to a lot of people.

Spitzer is irrelevant to this discussion.

Any person can choose to listen to Rush or not to listen to Rush.

Few have the luxury of ignoring Barry. He is the champion of the libs, and Rush is a conservative icon. If you attack a prominent conservative as ahypocrite, just because, why find it "strange" that a prominent liberal not get the same treatment?

That line of argument would do Ann Coulter proud - disingenuous evasion via the assumption that criticism of a specific individual (in a thread about that individual, mind you) is an attack on an organized group of people and an entire ideology.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The thread isn't about Barry. Its about Rush.

It ain't about Spitzer or Bush either, but you were happy to take them on. Barry is much more relevant. He is an addict, and he is president. Rush is an addict and he is not president. Which man's view of the world affects your future more?

Its definitely strange why Obama must be injected into a discussion about Rush Limbaugh.

I have no problem with someone using drugs, but that doesn't mean I should overlook someone whose words are in direct opposition to their actions.

Spitzer's reputation as an anti-corruption crusader was destroyed by his dalliance with prostitutes.

Unlike Spitzer Rush's career doesn't rely on his reputation and he has the luxury that there is no expectation that he be held to account for his words Vs. his actions. If nothing else Rush's behaviour Vs. his position on the drug issue certainly makes him a blow-hard.

But then that's probably no revelation to a lot of people.

Spitzer is irrelevant to this discussion.

Any person can choose to listen to Rush or not to listen to Rush.

Few have the luxury of ignoring Barry. He is the champion of the libs, and Rush is a conservative icon. If you attack a prominent conservative as ahypocrite, just because, why find it "strange" that a prominent liberal not get the same treatment?

That line of argument would do Ann Coulter proud - disingenuous evasion via the assumption that criticism of a specific individual (in a thread about that individual, mind you) is an attack on an organized group of people and an entire ideology.

Is this thread about Ann Coulter now?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The thread isn't about Barry. Its about Rush.

It ain't about Spitzer or Bush either, but you were happy to take them on. Barry is much more relevant. He is an addict, and he is president. Rush is an addict and he is not president. Which man's view of the world affects your future more?

Its definitely strange why Obama must be injected into a discussion about Rush Limbaugh.

I have no problem with someone using drugs, but that doesn't mean I should overlook someone whose words are in direct opposition to their actions.

Spitzer's reputation as an anti-corruption crusader was destroyed by his dalliance with prostitutes.

Unlike Spitzer Rush's career doesn't rely on his reputation and he has the luxury that there is no expectation that he be held to account for his words Vs. his actions. If nothing else Rush's behaviour Vs. his position on the drug issue certainly makes him a blow-hard.

But then that's probably no revelation to a lot of people.

Spitzer is irrelevant to this discussion.

Any person can choose to listen to Rush or not to listen to Rush.

Few have the luxury of ignoring Barry. He is the champion of the libs, and Rush is a conservative icon. If you attack a prominent conservative as ahypocrite, just because, why find it "strange" that a prominent liberal not get the same treatment?

That line of argument would do Ann Coulter proud - disingenuous evasion via the assumption that criticism of a specific individual (in a thread about that individual, mind you) is an attack on an organized group of people and an entire ideology.

Is this thread about Ann Coulter now?

Apparently its about whatever *you* want to talk about.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The thread isn't about Barry. Its about Rush.

It ain't about Spitzer or Bush either, but you were happy to take them on. Barry is much more relevant. He is an addict, and he is president. Rush is an addict and he is not president. Which man's view of the world affects your future more?

Its definitely strange why Obama must be injected into a discussion about Rush Limbaugh.

I have no problem with someone using drugs, but that doesn't mean I should overlook someone whose words are in direct opposition to their actions.

Spitzer's reputation as an anti-corruption crusader was destroyed by his dalliance with prostitutes.

Unlike Spitzer Rush's career doesn't rely on his reputation and he has the luxury that there is no expectation that he be held to account for his words Vs. his actions. If nothing else Rush's behaviour Vs. his position on the drug issue certainly makes him a blow-hard.

But then that's probably no revelation to a lot of people.

Spitzer is irrelevant to this discussion.

Any person can choose to listen to Rush or not to listen to Rush.

Few have the luxury of ignoring Barry. He is the champion of the libs, and Rush is a conservative icon. If you attack a prominent conservative as ahypocrite, just because, why find it "strange" that a prominent liberal not get the same treatment?

That line of argument would do Ann Coulter proud - disingenuous evasion via the assumption that criticism of a specific individual (in a thread about that individual, mind you) is an attack on an organized group of people and an entire ideology.

Is this thread about Ann Coulter now?

Apparently its about whatever *you* want to talk about.

I just know smoke when I see it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The thread isn't about Barry. Its about Rush.

It ain't about Spitzer or Bush either, but you were happy to take them on. Barry is much more relevant. He is an addict, and he is president. Rush is an addict and he is not president. Which man's view of the world affects your future more?

Its definitely strange why Obama must be injected into a discussion about Rush Limbaugh.

I have no problem with someone using drugs, but that doesn't mean I should overlook someone whose words are in direct opposition to their actions.

Spitzer's reputation as an anti-corruption crusader was destroyed by his dalliance with prostitutes.

Unlike Spitzer Rush's career doesn't rely on his reputation and he has the luxury that there is no expectation that he be held to account for his words Vs. his actions. If nothing else Rush's behaviour Vs. his position on the drug issue certainly makes him a blow-hard.

But then that's probably no revelation to a lot of people.

Spitzer is irrelevant to this discussion.

Any person can choose to listen to Rush or not to listen to Rush.

Few have the luxury of ignoring Barry. He is the champion of the libs, and Rush is a conservative icon. If you attack a prominent conservative as ahypocrite, just because, why find it "strange" that a prominent liberal not get the same treatment?

That line of argument would do Ann Coulter proud - disingenuous evasion via the assumption that criticism of a specific individual (in a thread about that individual, mind you) is an attack on an organized group of people and an entire ideology.

Is this thread about Ann Coulter now?

Apparently its about whatever *you* want to talk about.

I just know smoke when I see it.

And I know bullshit when I smell it.

You're full of it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The thread isn't about Barry. Its about Rush.

It ain't about Spitzer or Bush either, but you were happy to take them on. Barry is much more relevant. He is an addict, and he is president. Rush is an addict and he is not president. Which man's view of the world affects your future more?

Its definitely strange why Obama must be injected into a discussion about Rush Limbaugh.

I have no problem with someone using drugs, but that doesn't mean I should overlook someone whose words are in direct opposition to their actions.

Spitzer's reputation as an anti-corruption crusader was destroyed by his dalliance with prostitutes.

Unlike Spitzer Rush's career doesn't rely on his reputation and he has the luxury that there is no expectation that he be held to account for his words Vs. his actions. If nothing else Rush's behaviour Vs. his position on the drug issue certainly makes him a blow-hard.

But then that's probably no revelation to a lot of people.

Spitzer is irrelevant to this discussion.

Any person can choose to listen to Rush or not to listen to Rush.

Few have the luxury of ignoring Barry. He is the champion of the libs, and Rush is a conservative icon. If you attack a prominent conservative as ahypocrite, just because, why find it "strange" that a prominent liberal not get the same treatment?

That line of argument would do Ann Coulter proud - disingenuous evasion via the assumption that criticism of a specific individual (in a thread about that individual, mind you) is an attack on an organized group of people and an entire ideology.

Is this thread about Ann Coulter now?

Apparently its about whatever *you* want to talk about.

I just know smoke when I see it.

And I know bullshit when I smell it.

You're full of it.

Ad homineums already? You ran out your relevancy faster than I thought you would.