Druggy Limbaugh turns himself in.

[bachanon]

and once again i realize the hypocrisy of my own statements. when i heard the big name sports guy say that he wasn't a role model i was disgusted, when i consider rush saying he's not a role model i'm forgiving (because i like him no doubt).

maybe slamming people who are press worthy is simply a bad idea. taking sides certainly isn't productive.

GREAT, my 1000th post is a mea culpa! damn!

[TheNiche]

huh? conservatives are, in my experience, pro federalists.

separation of church and state (a misnomer) in context is a determination that the government not promote or legislate a catholic regime, or a baptist regime, or a fundamentalist regime; however, the intent (imho) was not to negate the spiritual/christian values inherent in the constitution. a nonreligious government was NOT the intent. why would the same people who valued a nonsectarian government put "in god we trust" or the freakin ten commandments on judicial buildings if they intended judeo-christian values to be absent from the original contruct?!!!

It does get a little confusing, but a Federalist was someone who favored a strong central government, wheras an Anti-Federalist favored states' and individuals' rights; hence the Bill of Rights.

[johncoby]

if this were you or me we would've gone unnoticed like the millions of other prescription pill addicts the drug war is closing it's eyes to.

If it is illegal, it is illegal. No exceptions.

Rush would start his show off years ago with "A pinch of loaf from God"

Or what it a "Pinch of God"?

Something like that, but he doesnt do that anymore. At least not since the last time I listen to him and that was many years ago.

[RedScare]

It does get a little confusing, but a Federalist was someone who favored a strong central government, wheras an Anti-Federalist favored states' and individuals' rights; hence the Bill of Rights.

VERY confusing, considering in the 2000 election, the State's Rights Republicans went to the Supreme Court to overrule Florida, while the Big Government Democrats claimed State's Rights. Since then, the Bush White House has expanded the Federal Government at a record pace, while the Dems have sounded the alarm about big spending and deficits.

Neither party resembles what it was only 10 years ago, yet the voters and pundits still talk as if Republicans are state's rights and Dems are big government. I think both parties have included so many subgroups in their respective big tents that neither party really has an ideology anymore, other than getting into office, then staying there.

[DJ V Lawrence]

At least we know Rush isn't getting pregnant anytime soon. He's on the pill...

[johncoby]

I think both parties have included so many subgroups in their respective big tents that neither party really has an ideology anymore, other than getting into office, then staying there.

Well as Bush said in 2000 "Results matter" and the results of the republican controlled government are pretty horrible. Have they done anything right, except for, uh, uh, uh........someone help me out........

[nmainguy]

Well as Bush said in 2000 "Results matter" and the results of the republican controlled government are pretty horrible. Have they done anything right, except for, uh, uh, uh........someone help me out........

Yes, results matter. Gore won the general election in 2000. Bush did not. The Supreme Court appointed Bush. No one denies that. Now we have a popularly un-elected President that has waged an unprovoked war on a country that has now taken almost 3000 of our kid's lives.So once again, yes, results matter.

[DJ V Lawrence]

You know what throws me off? They showed a clip of Rush earlier on air admitting that he was addicted to perscription drugs, and what he would be doing to serve his sentence (rehab, basically). Even through all that, he still found a way to blame the Democratic party for all the media coverage and scrutiny

[bachanon]

It does get a little confusing, but a Federalist was someone who favored a strong central government, wheras an Anti-Federalist favored states' and individuals' rights; hence the Bill of Rights.

have you read the federalist papers? the federalists were for states rights and a weak central government.

[ricco67]

This is why I like listening to Glenn Beck.

He's just goofy and goes after everyone on both sides of the isle.

[TheNiche]

VERY confusing, considering in the 2000 election, the State's Rights Republicans went to the Supreme Court to overrule Florida, while the Big Government Democrats claimed State's Rights. Since then, the Bush White House has expanded the Federal Government at a record pace, while the Dems have sounded the alarm about big spending and deficits.

Neither party resembles what it was only 10 years ago, yet the voters and pundits still talk as if Republicans are state's rights and Dems are big government. I think both parties have included so many subgroups in their respective big tents that neither party really has an ideology anymore, other than getting into office, then staying there.

I really do agree with you on this. Good post.

have you read the federalist papers? the federalists were for states rights and a weak central government.

It is confusing because the meaning of the term changes over time (much like how the idea of what constitutes a 'liberal' has changed), but I like the way Wikipedia handles the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism

[editor]

Let's keep it on topic, or start a new one.

[nmainguy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/washington/30wiki.html

I would urge everyone to take what is published on Wikipedia with a grain of salt. After being made a fool of having used inacurate quotes from Wiki, I just don't bother using them as an accurate source.

[sorry, editor but I just wanted to post that as an aside instead of creating an entirly new thread]

[TheNiche]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/washington/30wiki.html

I would urge everyone to take what is published on Wikipedia with a grain of salt. After being made a fool of having used inacurate quotes from Wiki, I just don't bother using them as an accurate source.

[sorry, editor but I just wanted to post that as an aside instead of creating an entirly new thread]

And someone would edit the period definition of 'federalist' and 'anti-federalist' why?

Btw, editor, I think that it is in fact critical in judging Rush that we take into account a more refined view of his political and rhetorical approach. We haven't gotten that far off topic and I'm pretty sure that this tangent is settled.

[nmainguy]

Btw, editor, I think that it is in fact critical in judging Rush that we take into account a more refined view of his political and rhetorical approach.

What is the point of judging anything regarding Limbaugh? He is a far right radio talk show host [common as air] who doctor shopped for drugs and arranged a timely, Tom DeLay mug-shot opportunity on a late Friday afternoon to avoid media attention and blames his drug addiction and doctor shopping on Democrats:

"The Democrats in this country still cannot defeat me in the arena of political ideas, and so now they are trying to do so in the court of public opinion and the legal system. I guess it's payback time," Limbaugh said.

In addition he refuses to live by his own rules:

"Let's all admit something. There's nothing good about drug use. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs," he explained at the time. "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."

Trying to "defeat" him in the realm of "political ideas" would be akin to kicking a cripple. He has no new "political ideas". All he has is the same old schtick. Besides, my mom taught me never to kick a cripple.

No Democrat nor Republican got Limbaugh in the trouble he is in. Limbaugh screwed himself when he choose to become a drug addict.

[TheNiche]

What is the point of judging anything regarding Limbaugh? He is a far right radio talk show host [common as air] who doctor shopped for drugs and arranged a timely, Tom DeLay mug-shot opportunity on a late Friday afternoon to avoid media attention and blames his drug addiction and doctor shopping on Democrats:

In addition he refuses to live by his own rules:

Trying to "defeat" him in the realm of "political ideas" would be akin to kicking a cripple. He has no new "political ideas". All he has is the same old schtick. Besides, my mom taught me never to kick a cripple.

No Democrat nor Republican got Limbaugh in the trouble he is in. Limbaugh screwed himself when he choose to become a drug addict.

For someone to accuse him of having no new "political ideas" when he's been on the air since the 1980's (???) could easily be taken as a compliment. After all, what better image to portray than that of someone who can stick to their guns and fend off decades-worth of (at least semi-legitimate) criticism? I say 'semi-legitimate' because more than half of all callers' viewpoints seem to be pretty poorly thought out or at least poorly communicated...not that Rush's responses can't be terribly flawed at times, as well.

Aside from all that, I'm still not convinced that drug use is a bad thing. It has to bring pleasure to people or else they wouldn't do it...and I see no trouble in pleasure insofar as it does not adversely affect most people economic sense.

[nmainguy]

For someone to accuse him of having no new "political ideas" when he's been on the air since the 1980's (???) could easily be taken as a compliment. After all, what better image to portray than that of someone who can stick to their guns and fend off decades-worth of (at least semi-legitimate) criticism? I say 'semi-legitimate' because more than half of all callers' viewpoints seem to be pretty poorly thought out or at least poorly communicated...not that Rush's responses can't be terribly flawed at times, as well.

Aside from all that, I'm still not convinced that drug use is a bad thing. It has to bring pleasure to people or else they wouldn't do it...and I see no trouble in pleasure insofar as it does not adversely affect most people economic sense.

The ability to "stick" to your guns when it has been proven beyond a doubt that your "guns" have been clearly been aimed in the wrong direction-Limbaugh clinging to his blame of Democrats for his drug addiction; Limbaugh's and Bush's childish determination to insist that their lies leading us to war in Iraq [WMDs] are true-these are not falicies to be complimented on.

The drug addict that runs a red light and kills a loved one brings no pleasure to anyone-except perhaps the one that ran the red light. There are a thousand + ways to try to justify a person's irresponsibility-never the less, it is never really justified.

[MarthaG]

Aside from all that, I'm still not convinced that drug use is a bad thing. It has to bring pleasure to people or else they wouldn't do it...and I see no trouble in pleasure insofar as it does not adversely affect most people economic sense.

Boy, this statement clearly opens a whole other can of worms. Or perhaps a Pandora's box. Is it time to start a new thread?

[nmainguy]

Boy, this statement clearly opens a whole other can of worms. Or perhaps a Pandora's box. Is it time to start a new thread?

Ultimatly it all goes back to Limbaugh's drug addiction and the illegalities involved so no, I don't think a new thread is needed.

[MarthaG]

Ultimatly it all goes back to Limbaugh's drug addiction and the illegalities involved so no, I don't think a new thread is needed.

Again, I'm coming in on the end of a conversation, and I don't listen to Rush so I could not hold an intelligent conversation regarding his views, but when it comes to drug additions, and a statement like one The Niche made, it strikes a chord close to heart.

I

[johncoby]

Again, I'm coming in on the end of a conversation, and I don't listen to Rush so I could not hold an intelligent conversation regarding his views, but when it comes to drug additions, and a statement like one The Niche made, it strikes a chord close to heart.

I

[TheNiche]

The ability to "stick" to your guns when it has been proven beyond a doubt that your "guns" have been clearly been aimed in the wrong direction-Limbaugh clinging to his blame of Democrats for his drug addiction; Limbaugh's and Bush's childish determination to insist that their lies leading us to war in Iraq [WMDs] are true-these are not falicies to be complimented on.

The drug addict that runs a red light and kills a loved one brings no pleasure to anyone-except perhaps the one that ran the red light. There are a thousand + ways to try to justify a person's irresponsibility-never the less, it is never really justified.

But to the extent that Rush is a sort of Toohey, his support of the war was a political necessity. Just as you'll never hear him going off on Pat Robertson, you'll never hear him criticize the war in Iraq. Such issues carry too many blocks of both listeners and voters, and the only way to keep them all listening to his show and voting Republican is to back the Republican leaders under most circumstances. Besides, these are hot-button issues of the day yet are essentially peripheral in that they don't define (in and of themselves) or adhere to a more wholistic political philosophy.

Aside from all that, if you said that Rush hadn't had any "new political ideas" isn't accurate if you fail to account for these peripheral hot-button issues. Barring some psychic ability, I sincerely doubt that Rush had been touting the idea of a new Iraq War ever since he first got on the radio.

When I speak of "new political ideas", I'm really talking more about the forest than the trees.

Again, I'm coming in on the end of a conversation, and I don't listen to Rush so I could not hold an intelligent conversation regarding his views, but when it comes to drug additions, and a statement like one The Niche made, it strikes a chord close to heart.

I'm very sorry to strike that chord, but I think of drug abuse in a couple of different ways. The first is that no matter what a society does to try and prevent it, some people will always find a way to circumvent the laws, often in ways that end up inadvertently funding untaxable criminal enterprises rather than legitimate businesses. The second is that if we were a more open society, where drugs measured and regulated in incremental doses were available (and heavily taxed) at Wal-Mart, the whole subculture of drug use would be defeated. How many middle and high school kids have used and abused drugs only to fit in with what they perceive that the cool crowd does? And wouldn't going to Wal-Mart completely eliminate the macho 'coolness' of obtaining and using contraband?

[MarthaG]

I'm very sorry to strike that chord, but I think of drug abuse in a couple of different ways. The first is that no matter what a society does to try and prevent it, some people will always find a way to circumvent the laws, often in ways that end up inadvertently funding untaxable criminal enterprises rather than legitimate businesses. The second is that if we were a more open society, where drugs measured and regulated in incremental doses were available (and heavily taxed) at Wal-Mart, the whole subculture of drug use would be defeated. How many middle and high school kids have used and abused drugs only to fit in with what they perceive that the cool crowd does? And wouldn't going to Wal-Mart completely eliminate the macho 'coolness' of obtaining and using contraband?

I agree with you to a point. I think it depends on the drugs to be available legally. If your talking pot, then I think making it legal could be benificial. However, I think it should be sold in more like a liquor store instead of Walmart. Same type laws, must be 21 to buy and tax the hell out of it. Actually for the user the result would be great. Better quality product (who know what they are sparying on the pot in those fields it is now grown in) and cost should be about the same as they are paying now since the drug lords are cut out of the loop. Also, same type laws with regards to intoxication in public, driving, etc. I do not think drugs like cocaine or crack or extacy or any of that should ever be legal in any way. It's not the drugs I blame, it's the abusers.