Draginol Draginol

Hypocricy Wars: Limbaugh vs. The Left

Hypocricy Wars: Limbaugh vs. The Left

Selective Compassion

So who's the bigger hypocrite?

Rush Limbaugh for repeated condemnation for those people who become addicted to crack, heroine, and other illegal drugs.

Or

Members of the left who have preached compassion, understanding, and forgiveness as the answer to everything who demand now that Limbaugh should go to jail for his addiction to prescription pain medication?

33,059 views 59 replies
Reply #26 Top
russellmz,

You apparently believe all you read in the mainstream (controlled) media. Help yourself. We need worker bees who are incapable of thought...and you'll make a fine assistant manager at Burger King one day.
Reply #27 Top
This is rich. Usually my conservative views get me branded has an extremist, a racist, a bigot, and a homophobe by Liberals. Now we have someone who believes he is a conservative but is really a kook calling me a socialist and a tree hugger. I'm not even an environmentalist.
Reply #28 Top
Tech Cat, your friends are as clueless as you are.
They call you a racist and bigot? Are you? You could well be a racist but you aren't conservative. Conservatives DON'T shill for the globalist/socialist agenda, you do.
Conservatives DON'T put Israeli interests ahead of American, you do.
Conservatives DON'T follow the cues from neoconservative, Israel-first outlets like Rush, William Kristol or Charles Krauthammer. We read The AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE and CHRONICLES (two magazines I'd dare suggest you've never EVER seen), we support the AMERICA FIRST party, we want a moratorium on ALL immigration and the enforcement of immigration laws, we firmly believe that America is a REPUBLIC and NOT AN EMPIRE, we prefer armed neutrality as opposed to nation building, and we respect the sovereignty of ALL NATIONS knowing full well that to disregard the sovereignty of one nation opens us up to losing our own.
Reply #29 Top
And Tech Cat, if you truly want to correct your course I would STRONGLY ENCOURAGE you to subscribe to the AMERICAN FREE PRESS. With weekly reading you'll soon find that AMERICA FIRST is the only TRULY CONSERVATIVE philosophy to have. If you can't even put your own country ahead of ALL others you have no ground to stand on in the true conservative movement. Neoconservatism is NOT acceptable and is NOT conservative. The choice is yours, and somehow I suspect that you'd prefer to relocate to Tel Aviv than to dabble in REAL AMERICAN CONSERVATISM.
Reply #30 Top
Libertarian Party: ''America owes talk host Rush Limbaugh a debt of gratitude''




Press release: Libertarian Party

WASHINGTON, DC -- The entire nation owes radio broadcaster Rush Limbaugh a debt of gratitude, Libertarians say, because his ordeal has exposed every drug warrior in America as a rank hypocrite.

"One thing we don't hear from American politicians very often is silence," said Joe Seehusen, Libertarian Party executive director. "By refusing to criticize Rush Limbaugh, every drug warrior has just been exposed as a shameless, despicable hypocrite.

"And that's good news, because the next time they do speak up, there'll be no reason for anyone to listen."

The revelation that Limbaugh had become addicted to painkillers -- drugs he is accused of procuring illegally from his Palm Beach housekeeper -- has caused a media sensation ever since the megastar's shocking, on-air confession last week.

As the Limbaugh saga continues, here's an important question for Americans to ask, Libertarians say: Why are all the drug warriors suddenly so silent?...

"Republican and Democratic politicians have written laws that have condemned more than 400,000 Americans to prison for committing the same 'crime' as Rush Limbaugh," Seehusen pointed out. "If this pill-popping pontificator deserves a get-out-of-jail-free card, these drug warriors had better explain why."

Given their longstanding support for the Drug War, it's fair to ask:

Why haven't President George Bush or his tough-on-crime attorney general, John Ashcroft, uttered a word criticizing Limbaugh's law-breaking?

Why aren't drug czar John P. Walters or his predecessor, Barry McCaffrey, lambasting Limbaugh as a menace to society and a threat to "our children?"

Why aren't federal DEA agents storming Limbaugh's $30 million Florida mansion in a frantic search for criminal evidence?

Why haven't federal, state, and local police agencies seized the celebrity's homes and luxury cars under asset-forfeiture laws?

Finally, why aren't bloviating blabbermouths like William Bennett publicly explaining how America would be better off if Limbaugh were prosecuted, locked in a steel cage and forced to abandon his wife, his friends, and his career?

The answer is obvious, Seehusen said: "America's drug warriors are shameless hypocrites who believe in one standard of justice for ordinary Americans and another for themselves, their families and their political allies.

"That alone should completely discredit them."

But there's an even more disturbing possibility, Seehusen said: that the people who are prosecuting the Drug War don't even believe in its central premise -- which is that public safety requires that drug users be jailed.

"The Bushes and Ashcrofts and McCaffreys of the world may believe, correctly, that individuals fighting a drug addiction deserve medical, not criminal treatment," he said. "That would explain why they're not demanding that Limbaugh be jailed.

"But if that's the case, these politicians have spent decades tearing apart American families for their own political gain. And that's an unforgivable crime."
Reply #31 Top
An extremist zealot such as RonPaul4prez labeling conservatives as liberals is rather amusing; Ronpaul4prez exhibits the type of behavior that gives liberals the ammunition they need to demonize conservatives. Ron Paul 4prez is not a conservative he is a National socialist like his seig heiling friend Buchanan.
Reply #32 Top
Anthony, you're a little pud. Calling those with whom you disagree Nazis is inane and not a little retarded. You faux-conservatives are a laugh a minute. Keep it up.
Reply #33 Top
Reply By: RonPaul4Prez Posted: Friday, October 17, 2003
-----------
russellmz,

blah blah
insult
blah blah
no facts or arguments
blah blah blah
another insult
blah blah
-----------

you hurt me...deep inside...where i'm soft...like a woman...

i like how you immediately pull out the "worker bee"/"incapable of thought"/"sheep lead to the slaughter" card. and oh yeah, the "mainstream media is in on it" card. always a favorite of mine.

conspiracy theorists' tactics are always the same. thank for listing some nice examples:

- some bs article
- refusal to address points made by debunkers
- posting of some other bs article of tangential relevence at best
- mention of how mainstream press is untrustworthy and under control
- taking evidence, looking at it, then misinterpreting it to their advantage
- comments on the intelligence/sheep mentality of those who refuse to believe them
- bonus points for using the jews as the perpetrators, cliche as it may be

btw, this gives me an excuse to add another dig at izzy's use of facts that i missed before:
the passport was found IN the rubble, not on top. if i need clearsil as you say then you need reading glasses since in both the link i provided and in the comment i made it said "in", not "on top of". (not to mention the abcnews articles that are listed in the link that also say "in")
Reply #34 Top
You keep it up, your comments are extraordinary, it’s a mixed bag of things, you brain seems to have been tainted with a mixture of ideologies. You’re like a Nazi crossbred with a liberal.
Reply #35 Top
Oh Antoinette you're funny. A little off but funny.
If I'm like a "nazi crossbred with a liberal" you're a Rockefeller globalist/socialist imbred with a dainty little sheep. A born follower with a utopian streak.
Reply #36 Top
This is disturbing indeed, not only is RonPaul 4prez desirous that I should be a woman, ladies and gentlemen RonPaul 4prez has gone to the extreme in name calling, depicting me as French.
Reply #37 Top
Antoinette, you started the namecalling by labelling me a "nazi" and such. It's not my fault that you pimply twerps believe that neoconservatism, globalism, illegal immigration, empire-building and an Israel-First philosophy is "conservatism". All I've tried to do is correct the record, and for that I'm attacked.
Reply #38 Top
Clear Channel PRESSURES stations over Limbaugh.


WBAL flip-flops over Limbaugh
Station decides to use local hosts in his absence, then changes its mind
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Dan Thanh Dang
Sun Staff
Originally published October 18, 2003



Amid national chatter about conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh's addiction to prescription drugs, WBAL radio found itself at the center of an industry storm this week after it pulled his syndicated show from its usual time slot and then flip-flopped on that decision.

The Hearst-owned news talk station said it decided to move Limbaugh out of the key early afternoon time slot amid worries that substitutes for the top-rated host would not be able to sustain audience loyalty and crucial fall ratings, despite fierce devotion to the show.

Some listeners applauded the move, and many balked. WBAL's initial decision to pull the program and use local hosts - the first such move among 600 radio affiliates nationwide - raised alarms in an industry worried about financial fallout, a decline in ratings and the show's survival.

"Pre-flipflop, losing Baltimore's WBAL would clearly be a negative," said James Marsh, an analyst with SG Cowen in New York. "It just sends a bad signal. You just feel the momentum sliding. You don't want multiple stations dropping the show."

One other station followed suit. Citadel Broadcasting's WPRO News Radio 630 in Providence, R.I., said yesterday afternoon that it would temporarily replace the Limbaugh show with another host.

By 5 p.m., WPRO had reversed its decision.

California syndicator Premiere Radio Networks, a subsidiary of Clear Channel Communications Inc., said yesterday that it had negotiated intensively with both stations. Premiere said it has heard of no other stations dropping Limbaugh and that it has no intention of losing other affiliates even temporarily.

"Obviously, no one can replace Rush Limbaugh," said Allan Mayer, a Premiere spokesman. "We're very sensitive to those concerns. Affiliate relations are very, very important, and we're constantly in contact with all the stations to address their concerns."

"There is an expectation that particularly in a situation like this, Premiere always stands by its individual stations in good times and bad times and we would hope the individual stations would stand by Premiere."

In other words, industry experts said, a lot of money is at stake, including advertising dollars, programming contracts and Wall Street performance.

On Oct. 10, the day that Limbaugh told his 20 million listeners he was checking into a drug treatment center, radio stations including WBAL were also told that lesser-known radio personalities Tom Sullivan, Roger Hedgecock and Walter Williams, from other Clear Channel stations, would fill in.

WBAL wasn't impressed. The Baltimore station decided that day to go with local favorites Chip Franklin and Ron Smith in Limbaugh's 12 p.m.-3 p.m. time slot. Limbaugh's program with guest hosts would have run overnight.

WBAL would continue to pay the fee for the right to run the Limbaugh program and run commercials it was obligated to under contract, but executives said the station did not want to take any chances during Limbaugh's absence.

"We were disappointed," said Jeffrey J. Beauchamp, WBAL-Radio's vice president and station manager. "We have talent here that is better. If you have to have a substitute, they have to be interesting and compelling and someone that our audience wants to hear. It's based pure and simple on providing a compelling talk show host that the audience wants and good ratings.

"We told them we would fill the gap ourselves," Beauchamp said. "I guess they, the syndicators, heard our concerns."

In persuading WBAL to continue running the Limbaugh show in its usual time slot, Premiere promised to replace the colorful conservative with well-known guest hosts including Fox News channel's Tony Snow and Internet-based political gossip columnist Matt Drudge.

Beauchamp said Premiere also assured the station that it was negotiating with other well-known people to serve as guest hosts.

"We now feel the show is worth airing," said Beauchamp.

Industry experts say Limbaugh's five-week stint in rehabilitation probably won't hurt ratings or stock prices, but that an extended disappearance from the airwaves could be problematic.

Limbaugh is often credited with saving AM radio and starting the rebirth of the news talk format that began in the late 1980s.

The future of his show, experts said, depends on Limbaugh's detoxification and his overcoming an investigation by the state's attorney's office in Palm Beach County, Fla., where his maid said she was his drug connection.

"The show is slightly more damaged goods now," said SG Cowen's Marsh. "Premiere definitely would have gone to someone else in the Baltimore market if 'BAL didn't run the show because someone's got to carry Rush Limbaugh. But I'm sure Premiere would not want to renegotiate with another station while Rush is in rehab. It's not a vantage point."

Stations carrying Limbaugh might also suffer a slight revenue drop during his absence, experts said. That small loss might not be felt much by bigger stations, but smaller stations could get squeezed the longer Limbaugh is out, they said.

"WBAL's the first major radio station to do that," said Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers, a leading trade magazine for talk radio. "But the question is, who knows how quickly the others could, too? I don't think it will be widespread. Many stations don't have the resources to provide something better than the Rush Limbaugh show can provide. WBAL is a very highly regarded radio station in the industry and they are strong enough to do that.

"A station like 'BAL is not totally dependent on Rush Limbaugh," Harrison said.


Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun | Get home delivery
Reply #39 Top
posted by RonPaul4Prez:
---------------------
All I've tried to do is correct the record, and for that I'm attacked.
---------------------

...

posted by RonPaul4Prez, upstream in the comments:
--------------------
russellmz,

You apparently believe all you read in the mainstream (controlled) media. Help yourself. We need worker bees who are incapable of thought...and you'll make a fine assistant manager at Burger King one day.
--------------------

it's kinda sad when i don't even have to type anything to reveal the other guy as full of it.
Reply #40 Top
Let me indulge myself in trashing my self discipline for a moment and paint a picture. RonPaul4prez is about 55 or 60; you have to reach that age before you start accusing everyone you disagree with as being “young.” He adorns his body with a red checkered flannel shirt, blue jeans and various other redneck accoutrements. RonPaul4prez listens to Pat Robertson intently with a raised and inquisitive eyebrow. RonPaul4prez regularly blurts out tales of woe; he claims that conservatives are nothing of the kind, mostly because his definition of conservative is National Socialist. Most of RonPaul4prez’s buzzwords are direct quotes from his hero Pat Robertson, or the savior of western civilization Pat Buchanan.
Reply #41 Top
Antoinette,
Pat Robertson is a Zionist, I have no use for Zionists or Israel-Firsters, that's your department. Let's clear that up first.
Next, your age guess is roughly 20 years off. Nice try.
Third, speaking of "buzzwords", you're the one who falls for the language games, not me. Calling anyone to the right of Rush a "national socialist" is proof of that. Believing that neoconservativism is conservatism, that globalism is preferable to nationalism, that sovereignty is an anachronism and that the Republican party has a monopoly on conservative values are sad proof that you're one dim bulb.
Keep trying your hand at amateur psychology...you've got a long way to go to advance past 101.
Reply #42 Top
I would not attempt to psychoanalyze you; I would leave that to experts in that field. Pat Buchanan’s protectionist America first ideology would only be counter productive for US business. Buchanan’s policy would raise the costs of doing business, most businesses are engaged in international trade, that is how they remain competitive and cutting edge. What about foreign investment and how those investors would react to an isolationist policy? The consumer would find any imports extremely expensive due to restrictions or tariffs, limiting their choices. Just on trade policy alone Buchanan is a kook, then one has to look at his well documented anti Semitism, racism, sexism, and overall extremism.
Puke-anans bigotry

Reply #43 Top
Anthony R is right that an isolationist policy would hurt America. It would both hurt our economy and our foreign relations. I can never support a politician that does not respect my right as a consumer to choose foreign products as well as domestic. I like to use a mixed bag of quality products that are both domestic and foreign.
Reply #44 Top
Antoinette, I see that you've just completely abandoned your Pat Robertson angle which is good since you clearly share many of his opinions (Israel, nation building, globalism...) and were far off base.
I am saddened though to see you maintain your attacks on Pat Buchanan. The liberal leftist sympathies of yours come to the fore. Namecalling is proof that you don't have an argument. Call it what you want but the "isolationism" that you decry served us more than well for most of our nation's existence and is the only way we can survive as a nation...not that this matters to people like you who were weaned on a leftist mish-mash of globalist/socialist pablum by your limpwristed teachers. Following like sheeple the "standard bearers" of "mainstream conservatism" as you do, you wouldn't know any better but it's just this sickening trend that has moved the GOP to the middle and the left further afield. 40 years ago you'd be a commie-liberal beatnik and would be laughed out of the conservative world...now you're establishment. You mock and attack the true founders and leaders of real America First conservatism like the 60's radical left do and even use their buzzwords and catch phrases. It's truly remarkable and may be the end of our republic. You may not value your nation's sovereignty but many of us do and we're not going down without a fight.
Reply #45 Top
posted by RonPaul4Prez:
---------------
Namecalling is proof that you don't have an argument.
---------------

bwahahahahahaaha, stop it, you're killing me!
Reply #46 Top
I think that this thread may be educational to liberals that may stop in and read. The liberals bang a drum about Bush being a Gestapo or like Hitler, republican voters like me and apparently Tech take it seriously when we vote and we wouldn’t vote for someone like Buchanan, for all the reasons indicated by us and all the reasons indicated by RonPaul4prez himself. If I had a choice between Buchanan and a lowly Democrat I would probably vote Democrat for the first time in my life. If Buchanan became president I would move to New Zealand out of the range of the ICBM’s and hope that nuclear winters don’t wither my French womanly skin, I am very sensitive and use Lancôme products from Paris.
Reply #48 Top
Anthony R a few points to consider:
To paraphrase George Wallace, there ain't a dimes worth of difference between a nazi and a commie. A nazi is merely a nationalist commie. Hell even Hitler claimed in 1927 that he was a socialist, just a German nationalist kind as opposed to the internationalist type. Pat Buchanan is no conservative unless you define a conservative as one who believes that only white men should have political and economic power. Buchanan has no problem in restricting whom you buy from and what you can spend your money on just like your common variety socialist. Ever notice that the white power types have their own version of the vanguard of the proletariat?

Notice how Buchanan had no problem being an internationlist during the cold war. Did not mind keeping half of the Armed Forces overseas and spending more than half of the defense budget on proping up NATO and our ingrate allies in Europe. Never mind the trillions spent on defending them,doesn't bother him at all. And lets not forget the several hundred billion spent on the Arabs in the last few decades.
Or the at least one trillion dollars in US assets the Saudi's and other Arabs control. Nope that could not be a factor in pro-Arab views. I'm sure the enlighted Europeans are not at all influenced by 15 million Muslims living in Europe, being totally dependent on Arab oil and the vast amounts of money they have in invested in Europe. Nope, couldn't be.
"Izzy" and Ron simply cannot believe that Arabs are sufficently clever enough to pull off 9/11. No doubt they must think that slant eyed Japs could not have pulled off Pearl Harbor either. It must have been done by that cypto Jew Roosevelt to get America in the war. Since Reagan also was friendly to Israel that must also mean he is also a crypto Jew. They must have the highest admiration for the Jews to think that 5 million Jews occupying a sliver of land can oppress 500 million Arabs occupying ten percent of the world's landmass. Indeed the Prime Minister of Malaysia addressing a conference of 57 Islamic states - whose leaders are all in agreement stated that the Muslim world must concentrate all the collective brain power of 1.3 billion Muslims to their maximum effect in order to defeat the world's 12 million Jews.
Maybe he is on to something. Can anyone point out the number Nobel Prizes given out in the sciences and mathematics since their inception to Jews of all nationalities and compare that to the number given to Muslims of all nationalities? It would be an interesting comparison.
Perhaps the boys ought consider what Pitchfork Pat said on Crossfire years ago when he spoke on immigration. He said it was a lot easier to assimilate a million white Europeans than a million Zulus. Perhaps in light of the Nobel Prizes we should start encouraging Jewish immigration to the US to be in the US national interest and start encouraging Arab and Muslim emigration. Maybe Ashcroft is on to something. Even J. Edgar Hoover stated at the time that Japanese Americans represented no security threat to the US. Can that be said of the radical Muslims and their supporters in the US today? A fifth column indeed (another fascist concept).
The Libs and the left should take a cautionary tale from the fable about the little boy who cried wolf. Debasing the words racist and fascist will blind you for the day the real deal comes .

Reply #49 Top
Regarding Rush, I'm a diehard fan but in all honesty i have to admit he is a bit of a hypocrite regarding drugs. Nevertheless there is a universe of difference between taking pain killers as prescribed for pain and getting addicted to them and getting addicted to narcotics from recreational use.
Chronic unrelieved pain is a form of torture. not for nothing is the the administration of physical torture is conducted by inflicting severe pain. Pain that intense must be relieved and in desperation to relieve such pain that people suffering it take desperate measures. While not condoning it help and mercy is justifed for those suffering from addiction brought on by intractable physical pain. Indeed one can make the same argument for severe emotional pain such as the kind brought by the death of a loved one.

Where the Libs and the Libertarians go of the rails is addiction brought on by recreational drug use. No one who uses crack or narcotics can fail to be aware that using those drugs can only lead to addiction so why start? People who just want to get high for the fun and pleasure of it do not deserve much compassion. They knew the risks but did it anyway. Anyone who has dealt with them can attest to the fact that at the core the addict is a selfish self absorbed and immature individual who does not ultimately care enough about others only their needs, wants and pleasures which is why they engage in destructive behavior in the first place. Robert Downey Jr. fits the bill. And he was granted various chances before being jailed.
That is why I have sympathy for Rush who was driven by pain too addiction and not for Downy who was driven too addiction by hedonism.
Reply #50 Top
Cubanbob you think you're words are definitive but indeed you're wrong on so many counts that it reaches absurdity. Your stereotypical attacks on Buchanan couldn't be more off base. You claim he's a racist and that he believes that "only whites" should have "political..." power and apparently ignore (or more likely are just simply unaware) that his running mate for the presidency last time he ran was a black woman. That kills your inane racist argument. You claim that he's fully supportive of NATO but apparently ignore (or again never knew) that he is on record all over the place calling for us to pull out of NATO alltogether. (See his tome A REPUBLIC, NOT AN EMPIRE for quotes).
Personally I believe that "Arabs" are plenty "smart enough" to pull off a 9/11 but if you looked at WHO BENEFITS most from that day you'd see that is surely was NOT the Arab world. If you investigated AT ALL you'd see that there is much evidence of, at the very least, Israeli complicity in 9/11 and also evidence that the Bush administration ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN a'la Pearl Harbor in order to pull us into their globalist schemes. Hegalian Dialectic in action here folks.

You "5 million Jews occupying a sliver of land" line ignores the fact that Israel is propped up and armed by American largess to the tune of TRILLIONS over the years and their military (thanks to our generous and one-sided foreign aid) is 1st world while the rest of the Middle East's are at best 3rd world. Top of the line American military technology versus aging, rusting Soviet era technology is a great equalizer.

Your purposeful downplaying of the threats this administration pose to our Bill of Rights and Constitution, to American sovereignty and to our good name and reputation abroad are treasonous.
There can be no excuse for such an attitude.