Rush Limbaugh calls on conservatives to take back nation

[verasch]

Is it really wise to utilize a drug addict as a spokesman for a political organization

why not? we have a drug using president.

especially when the conservatives consistently warn against the lack of values in the liberals?

oh please. conservatives have a habit of over-forgiving. look at all those pundits they turn to who were 'formally gay'

Rush Limbaugh did not just become addicted to painkillers as prescribed by his doctor. He also purchased them on the street, and it was shown that he was "doctor shopping" in order to obtain large amounts of narcotics. This, in and of itself, is dishonest. Nor did he seek treatment until he was forced into the position of doing so. The fact that he was using prescription drugs does not mediate the illegal actions he engaged in to obtain those drugs.

Can't show a compassionless man compassion.

so you'll only give compassion to someone who chooses to help themselves? i have some bad news for you. most people with addictions are the last to know they have a problem. the biggest part of addiction is that it forces one to lose control over their actions.

i'm not condoning what rush has done, or what he says, but i think it's extremely small-minded to pull one's addiction out just to bash them, especially when it has nothing to do with the article.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Ganging up? WTF?

Iam responding to the topic of the thread and u bet your ass that I will say something about it because I have met some conservatives who preach to me about my cousin being a person without morals because she got addicted to meth and resorted to selling her body for more drugs. They said that she and others like her a shame to society.

This is not about Rush as an addict himself but about the kind of group of people who give him support but yet, refuse to give support to people like my cousin only just to shoot her and others like her down.

If I have to "gang" up against that belief again, I will be glad to do it.

Good job for making it into a personal attack when it wasn't in the first place. :roll:

I hear you, Shel. I knew a woman in college who was a conservative. We were friends until she made a statement to me that ripped me apart. My childhood sweetheart was a drug addict and ended up committing suicide. Not three weeks or so after the funeral, I had this girl over to the house for lunch and we were having a general discussion about crime and punishment, I think. I can't recall what we were discussing specifically. At any rate, she made a statement to me that I remember to this day. She said "All drug addicts should be thrown into a prison cell to withdrawal from drugs." This bitch saw the look on my face once she said that. Needless to say, it ended our friendship because I could NOT believe how cruel that statement was. I still can't.

Conservatives look at things in very black and white terms, and that is just not how the world works. There's a lot of "gray" in situations. There's exstinuating circumstances that need to be taken into account, and I don't think conservatives look for them. They are too quick to pass judgement.

It's sad.

 

[jillio]

?? is the above supposed to prove something?



Shel, do you base every conservative off of some idea that you have based upon your like or dislike of a Rush Limbaugh?
That is a biased view.
Would you feel like I was wrong and biased if I based my ideas of every liberal on here based on Bill Clinton, or Barak Obama, or Al Franken?
I would hope so because it would be.

Obviously you have a cousin that has suffered through a perscription addiction or something similar.
Instead of finding a common ground with a conservative on the forum you just assume any conservative would support a Rush Limbaugh but not support your cousin.
Why?

I am really sincere in my asking....Why would you feel that way toward me or any other AD member who happens to be conservative?

Just to refute your previous statement.

 

[jillio]

why not? we have a drug using president.

oh please. conservatives have a habit of over-forgiving. look at all those pundits they turn to who were 'formally gay'

What are you talking about?



so you'll only give compassion to someone who chooses to help themselves? i have some bad news for you. most people with addictions are the last to know they have a problem. the biggest part of addiction is that it forces one to lose control over their actions.

Sweetie, you are preaching the subject of addiction to one who is well versed in the psychology and physiology of such.


i'm not condoning what rush has done, or what he says, but i think it's extremely small-minded to pull one's addiction out just to bash them, especially when it has nothing to do with the article.

Since the article is about the consevative values Rush represents, and part of that is their stand on criminal prosecution of drug users, it has everything to do with the article.

Link for your photo, please.

 

[Bottesini]

Rush Limbaugh is not one I watch or listen to everyday but jillio started the thread and I did see the speech. Way to gang up Shel,jillio, and Tousi - certainly says more about you all than I.
Please enlighten me.

I believe Tousi intended to be on the conservative side. (just to enlighten you)

Tousi! Now that she hates you too, will you come over to the Dark Side??:P

 

[jillio]

I hear you, Shel. I knew a woman in college who was a conservative. We were friends until she made a statement to me that ripped me apart. My childhood sweetheart was a drug addict and ended up committing suicide. Not three weeks or so after the funeral, I had this girl over to the house for lunch and we were having a general discussion about crime and punishment, I think. I can't recall what we were discussing specifically. At any rate, she made a statement to me that I remember to this day. She said "All drug addicts should be thrown into a prison cell to withdrawal from drugs." This bitch saw the look on my face once she said that. Needless to say, it ended our friendship because I could NOT believe how cruel that statement was. I still can't.

Conservatives look at things in very black and white terms, and that is just not how the world works. There's a lot of "gray" in situations. There's exstinuating circumstances that need to be taken into account, and I don't think conservatives look for them. They are too quick to pass judgement.

It's sad.

Exactly. It is that dichotomous thinking they represent...until of course, the time comes to apply their recommendations to themselves.

 

[jillio]

I believe Tousi intended to be on the conservative side. (just to enlighten you)

Tousi! Now that she hates you too, will you come over to the Dark Side??:P

Poor Tousi. He has been found guilty by association.

 

[verasch]

yeah, that's a highly inappropriate remark to make at any point. aren't they doing something like that in mexico right now? i heard something about that on npr a few weeks ago.

Conservatives look at things in very black and white terms, and that is just not how the world works. There's a lot of "gray" in situations. There's exstinuating circumstances that need to be taken into account, and I don't think conservatives look for them. They are too quick to pass judgement.

you might be surprised to hear this, but not all conservatives think this way.

from the national review:

we deplore their use; we urge the stiffest feasible sentences against anyone convicted of selling a drug to a minor. But that said, it is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states. We all agree on movement toward legalization, even though we may differ on just how far.

from the same article:

If 80 million Americans can experiment with drugs and resist addiction using information publicly available, we can reasonably hope that approximately the same number would resist the temptation to purchase such drugs even if they were available at a federal drugstore at the mere cost of production.

there are others, but i dont want to beat a dead horse. i'm just saying don't lump everyone in the same boat because there is a bad apple in the bunch that makes a lot of stink.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

yeah, that's a highly inappropriate remark to make at any point. aren't they doing something like that in mexico right now? i heard something about that on npr a few weeks ago.



you might be surprised to hear this, but not all conservatives think this way.

from the national review:





from the same article:


there are others, but i dont want to beat a dead horse. i'm just saying don't lump everyone in the same boat because there is a bad apple in the bunch that makes a lot of stink.

I've yet to meet a conservative who didn't think in terms of absolutes.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Exactly. It is that dichotomous thinking they represent...until of course, the time comes to apply their recommendations to themselves.

Cruelty and hypocrisy. Two things I DO NOT want to wrap my mind around.

 

[DURAY]

Conservatives prefer solutions without government money or tax to solve problems. Liberals believed in tax-raise-spending-etc to solve problems.

Rush is not a hard-core drug users. Why help people who used cocaine or heroin or PCP??? If they want to die from drugs, that is their choice. 20/20 acutally profiled a few people who used drugs as their choice like it is ok to use them.....

Liberals want to shut down the DEA. Liberals want to stop the prevention of drugs but they prefer the treatment of drugs users....Raids on pot plants declined from 1993-2000 and now again. it was more enforcement from 1981-1992 and 2001 to 2008.

Look what the liberal President Obama want to do:

from Washington Times - Politics, Breaking News, US and World News

Charity tax limits upset many

Democrats and Republicans poured cold water on President Obama's budget plan to cut down on wealthy taxpayers' charitable giving tax deductions, the second of his ambitious cost-savings plans to earn lawmakers' scorn, and underscoring the legislative minefield he is entering.

By reaching so broadly with his $4 trillion 2010 budget plan, and the giant deficits it will incur, Mr. Obama put his hard-won election mandate on the line, saying if lawmakers want to do big things - from boosting education and clean energy technology to overhauling health care - they will have to find ways to pay for it.

From his plan to cut payments to farmers, which both parties all but ruled out this week, to his goal of a complex cap-and-trade system to control greenhouse gas emissions, lawmakers predicted Mr. Obama will have to survive challenges from political friends and foes alike.

"I work for the American people, and I'm determined to bring the change that the people voted for last November.And that means cutting what we don't need to pay for what we do," Mr. Obama said in announcing his budget.

Democrats pronounced the budget a good start and praised the president for undoing some of the budget gimmicks of the George W. Bush years. But they joined Republicans in worrying about long-term deficits, which increase from 2014 on through 2019, the end of Mr. Obama's budget projections.

"I think [Mr. Obama] himself has acknowledged that we've got to do more about the debt build-up that will occur over the following years. And so I think that becomes one of our significant ongoing challenges," said Sen. Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat and chairman of the Budget Committee.

He and members of both parties also fretted over the farm payment reductions, which Mr. Obama is counting on to save $9.8 billion over 10 years - part of the $2 trillion in savings Mr. Obama says he's identified.

Still, the charitable giving deduction reduction, which would limit deductions for couples making $250,000 or individuals making $200,000, provoked the most heat Thursday. Mr. Obama is counting on that provision to raise $179.8 billion over 10 years.

"Some of the reforms and offsets contained or referenced in the budget, such as the limitation on itemized deductions, raise concerns and will require more study as we determine the best policies for getting America back on track," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat.

Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said it's impossible to calculate the exact effects of all the tax changes, but said the overall result is clear - less philanthropic giving.

"This will lead people to give less to charities if they behave the way they've behaved in the past," he said. "We've already seen a drop in giving as a result of the economic collapse. On top of that, this will just reduce the amount of giving."

Asked about that, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Mr. Obama took care of that by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference.

"Contained in the recovery act, there's $100 million to support nonprofits and charities as we get through this period of economic difficulty," he said.

He disputed that giving would drop, and said an economic recovery will help charities, too.

Many of Mr. Obama's proposals broke down chiefly along party lines, meaning they have a good chance of passage with both the House and Senate controlled by his party.

Republicans lined up in opposition, praising Mr. Obama for some cost-cutting in Medicare but arguing he turns around and spends those savings on more government programs.

"I mean, basically, what's happening here is we're taking four steps back in the deficit fight, and then we're only taking two steps forward," said Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican.

Democrats cheered his plan to return the upper two tax brackets to the levels they were before Mr. Bush's tax cuts and Mr. Obama's plans to boost Pell Grants for low-income students to attend college. Republicans said the tax increases will hurt small businesses the most, killing job-creation, and protested making Pell Grants a new entitlement program, meaning Congress could no longer control yearly spending for it.

Mr. Obama's goal of tackling greenhouse gas emissions may be tougher still. He is counting on raising $645.7 billion over 10 years by auctioning off carbon-emitting permits to polluters, and has given until 2012 before the program has to be up and running.

But cap-and-trade schemes have proved messy in places they've been tried, such as Europe, and Mr. Obama has left the details of the plan to be written by Congress, where Republicans may join with Democrats from industrial states to hamper his goal of an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050.

Another proposal, permanently indexing the alternative minimum tax for inflation so it doesn't apply to middle-income earners, is popular with both parties - but so costly that Congress struggles each year to find money to do it.

Mr. Orszag told reporters they understand the challenge, but believe lawmakers will realize there's no choice.

"I think you're raising a fundamental question, which is we're on an unsustainable fiscal course. There's not a single line in the budget that won't have someone who cares about it very strongly. And yet, if we allowed all of those lines to persist and grow over time, we would wind up with a fiscal crisis," he said.

"We recognize that it is difficult to turn direction, to shift direction in the federal budget, but that's absolutely what we need to do."

 

[jillio]

Re: the William F. Buckley statement from 1996 posted above:

Buckley Bows Out of National Review - The Daily Beast

 

[jillio]

Conservatives prefer solutions without government money or tax to solve problems. Liberals believed in tax-raise-spending-etc to solve problems.

Rush is not a hard-core drug users. Why help people who used cocaine or heroin or PCP??? If they want to die from drugs, that is their choice. 20/20 acutally profiled a few people who used drugs as their choice like it is ok to use them.....

Liberals want to shut down the DEA. Liberals want to stop the prevention of drugs but they prefer the treatment of drugs users....Raids on pot plants declined from 1993-2000 and now again. it was more enforcement from 1981-1992 and 2001 to 2008.

Look what the liberal President Obama want to do:

from Washington Times - Politics, Breaking News, US and World News

Charity tax limits upset many

Democrats and Republicans poured cold water on President Obama's budget plan to cut down on wealthy taxpayers' charitable giving tax deductions, the second of his ambitious cost-savings plans to earn lawmakers' scorn, and underscoring the legislative minefield he is entering.

By reaching so broadly with his $4 trillion 2010 budget plan, and the giant deficits it will incur, Mr. Obama put his hard-won election mandate on the line, saying if lawmakers want to do big things - from boosting education and clean energy technology to overhauling health care - they will have to find ways to pay for it.

From his plan to cut payments to farmers, which both parties all but ruled out this week, to his goal of a complex cap-and-trade system to control greenhouse gas emissions, lawmakers predicted Mr. Obama will have to survive challenges from political friends and foes alike.

"I work for the American people, and I'm determined to bring the change that the people voted for last November.And that means cutting what we don't need to pay for what we do," Mr. Obama said in announcing his budget.

Democrats pronounced the budget a good start and praised the president for undoing some of the budget gimmicks of the George W. Bush years. But they joined Republicans in worrying about long-term deficits, which increase from 2014 on through 2019, the end of Mr. Obama's budget projections.

"I think [Mr. Obama] himself has acknowledged that we've got to do more about the debt build-up that will occur over the following years. And so I think that becomes one of our significant ongoing challenges," said Sen. Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat and chairman of the Budget Committee.

He and members of both parties also fretted over the farm payment reductions, which Mr. Obama is counting on to save $9.8 billion over 10 years - part of the $2 trillion in savings Mr. Obama says he's identified.

Still, the charitable giving deduction reduction, which would limit deductions for couples making $250,000 or individuals making $200,000, provoked the most heat Thursday. Mr. Obama is counting on that provision to raise $179.8 billion over 10 years.

"Some of the reforms and offsets contained or referenced in the budget, such as the limitation on itemized deductions, raise concerns and will require more study as we determine the best policies for getting America back on track," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat.

Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said it's impossible to calculate the exact effects of all the tax changes, but said the overall result is clear - less philanthropic giving.

"This will lead people to give less to charities if they behave the way they've behaved in the past," he said. "We've already seen a drop in giving as a result of the economic collapse. On top of that, this will just reduce the amount of giving."

Asked about that, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Mr. Obama took care of that by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference.

"Contained in the recovery act, there's $100 million to support nonprofits and charities as we get through this period of economic difficulty," he said.

He disputed that giving would drop, and said an economic recovery will help charities, too.

Many of Mr. Obama's proposals broke down chiefly along party lines, meaning they have a good chance of passage with both the House and Senate controlled by his party.

Republicans lined up in opposition, praising Mr. Obama for some cost-cutting in Medicare but arguing he turns around and spends those savings on more government programs.

"I mean, basically, what's happening here is we're taking four steps back in the deficit fight, and then we're only taking two steps forward," said Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican.

Democrats cheered his plan to return the upper two tax brackets to the levels they were before Mr. Bush's tax cuts and Mr. Obama's plans to boost Pell Grants for low-income students to attend college. Republicans said the tax increases will hurt small businesses the most, killing job-creation, and protested making Pell Grants a new entitlement program, meaning Congress could no longer control yearly spending for it.

Mr. Obama's goal of tackling greenhouse gas emissions may be tougher still. He is counting on raising $645.7 billion over 10 years by auctioning off carbon-emitting permits to polluters, and has given until 2012 before the program has to be up and running.

But cap-and-trade schemes have proved messy in places they've been tried, such as Europe, and Mr. Obama has left the details of the plan to be written by Congress, where Republicans may join with Democrats from industrial states to hamper his goal of an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050.

Another proposal, permanently indexing the alternative minimum tax for inflation so it doesn't apply to middle-income earners, is popular with both parties - but so costly that Congress struggles each year to find money to do it.

Mr. Orszag told reporters they understand the challenge, but believe lawmakers will realize there's no choice.

"I think you're raising a fundamental question, which is we're on an unsustainable fiscal course. There's not a single line in the budget that won't have someone who cares about it very strongly. And yet, if we allowed all of those lines to persist and grow over time, we would wind up with a fiscal crisis," he said.

"We recognize that it is difficult to turn direction, to shift direction in the federal budget, but that's absolutely what we need to do."

Rush is not a hard core drug user?

He bought drugs illicitly. He used drugs illicitly. He tried to hide his drug use. He has been to rehab 3 times. Oxycodone is an opiate, the same as heroin. The man was physically dependent and psychologically addicted.

Sounds like a hard core addict to me.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Conservatives prefer solutions without government money or tax to solve problems. Liberals believed in tax-raise-spending-etc to solve problems.

Rush is not a hard-core drug users. Why help people who used cocaine or heroin or PCP??? If they want to die from drugs, that is their choice. 20/20 acutally profiled a few people who used drugs as their choice like it is ok to use them.....

Liberals want to shut down the DEA. Liberals want to stop the prevention of drugs but they prefer the treatment of drugs users....Raids on pot plants declined from 1993-2000 and now again. it was more enforcement from 1981-1992 and 2001 to 2008.

Look what the liberal President Obama want to do:

from Washington Times - Politics, Breaking News, US and World News

Charity tax limits upset many

Democrats and Republicans poured cold water on President Obama's budget plan to cut down on wealthy taxpayers' charitable giving tax deductions, the second of his ambitious cost-savings plans to earn lawmakers' scorn, and underscoring the legislative minefield he is entering.

By reaching so broadly with his $4 trillion 2010 budget plan, and the giant deficits it will incur, Mr. Obama put his hard-won election mandate on the line, saying if lawmakers want to do big things - from boosting education and clean energy technology to overhauling health care - they will have to find ways to pay for it.

From his plan to cut payments to farmers, which both parties all but ruled out this week, to his goal of a complex cap-and-trade system to control greenhouse gas emissions, lawmakers predicted Mr. Obama will have to survive challenges from political friends and foes alike.

"I work for the American people, and I'm determined to bring the change that the people voted for last November.And that means cutting what we don't need to pay for what we do," Mr. Obama said in announcing his budget.

Democrats pronounced the budget a good start and praised the president for undoing some of the budget gimmicks of the George W. Bush years. But they joined Republicans in worrying about long-term deficits, which increase from 2014 on through 2019, the end of Mr. Obama's budget projections.

"I think [Mr. Obama] himself has acknowledged that we've got to do more about the debt build-up that will occur over the following years. And so I think that becomes one of our significant ongoing challenges," said Sen. Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat and chairman of the Budget Committee.

He and members of both parties also fretted over the farm payment reductions, which Mr. Obama is counting on to save $9.8 billion over 10 years - part of the $2 trillion in savings Mr. Obama says he's identified.

Still, the charitable giving deduction reduction, which would limit deductions for couples making $250,000 or individuals making $200,000, provoked the most heat Thursday. Mr. Obama is counting on that provision to raise $179.8 billion over 10 years.

"Some of the reforms and offsets contained or referenced in the budget, such as the limitation on itemized deductions, raise concerns and will require more study as we determine the best policies for getting America back on track," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat.

Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said it's impossible to calculate the exact effects of all the tax changes, but said the overall result is clear - less philanthropic giving.

"This will lead people to give less to charities if they behave the way they've behaved in the past," he said. "We've already seen a drop in giving as a result of the economic collapse. On top of that, this will just reduce the amount of giving."

Asked about that, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Mr. Obama took care of that by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference.

"Contained in the recovery act, there's $100 million to support nonprofits and charities as we get through this period of economic difficulty," he said.

He disputed that giving would drop, and said an economic recovery will help charities, too.

Many of Mr. Obama's proposals broke down chiefly along party lines, meaning they have a good chance of passage with both the House and Senate controlled by his party.

Republicans lined up in opposition, praising Mr. Obama for some cost-cutting in Medicare but arguing he turns around and spends those savings on more government programs.

"I mean, basically, what's happening here is we're taking four steps back in the deficit fight, and then we're only taking two steps forward," said Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican.

Democrats cheered his plan to return the upper two tax brackets to the levels they were before Mr. Bush's tax cuts and Mr. Obama's plans to boost Pell Grants for low-income students to attend college. Republicans said the tax increases will hurt small businesses the most, killing job-creation, and protested making Pell Grants a new entitlement program, meaning Congress could no longer control yearly spending for it.

Mr. Obama's goal of tackling greenhouse gas emissions may be tougher still. He is counting on raising $645.7 billion over 10 years by auctioning off carbon-emitting permits to polluters, and has given until 2012 before the program has to be up and running.

But cap-and-trade schemes have proved messy in places they've been tried, such as Europe, and Mr. Obama has left the details of the plan to be written by Congress, where Republicans may join with Democrats from industrial states to hamper his goal of an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050.

Another proposal, permanently indexing the alternative minimum tax for inflation so it doesn't apply to middle-income earners, is popular with both parties - but so costly that Congress struggles each year to find money to do it.

Mr. Orszag told reporters they understand the challenge, but believe lawmakers will realize there's no choice.

"I think you're raising a fundamental question, which is we're on an unsustainable fiscal course. There's not a single line in the budget that won't have someone who cares about it very strongly. And yet, if we allowed all of those lines to persist and grow over time, we would wind up with a fiscal crisis," he said.

"We recognize that it is difficult to turn direction, to shift direction in the federal budget, but that's absolutely what we need to do."

Rush is not a hard core drug user?

He bought drugs illicitly. He used drugs illicitly. He tried to hide his drug use. He has been to rehab 3 times. Oxycodone is an opiate, the same as heroin. The man was physically dependent and psychologically addicted.

Sounds like a hard core addict to me.

Jillio's right. Just because his drugs of choice were prescription meds doesn't make him any less of an addict then someone snorting heroin. In fact, it's the same thing. Vicodin (hydrocodone) and percocet (oxycodone) are opiates the same as heroin. You can become just as dependant on prescription drugs as you can the stuff you get on the street. There's no difference.

 

[Jiro]

Is it really wise to utilize a drug addict as a spokesman for a political organization, especially when the conservatives consistently warn against the lack of values in the liberals?

it's that simple. Don't listen to him. Anything he says - it doesn't warrant any reply from any sound minds.

 

[Reba]

I'm not speaking for anyone except myself.

I'm a conservative independent voter. I'm conservative in my spirituality, world view, life style, economics, and politics.

Rush Limbaugh is not my guru. I didn't elect him to any position of leadership, nor would I. I very rarely listen to his radio program. Even then, I prefer his program when he has a guest host substituting for him.

Even thought I don't care much for Rush personally, that doesn't mean I have to chuck out my conservative ideals just because he professes to have some of the same ideals. I'm not responsible for the behavior of anyone who wears the name "conservative." There's no licensing board that checks out people before they claim the name of conservative (or liberal) in America.

I don't agree with the Republicans choice of a radio talk show host for keynote speaker but that's their business.

Rush made some good points in his speech but they were good points despite who said them not because he said them.

 

[Bottesini]

I'm not speaking for anyone except myself.

I'm a conservative independent voter. I'm conservative in my spirituality, world view, life style, economics, and politics.

Rush Limbaugh is not my guru. I didn't elect him to any position of leadership, nor would I.

I don't agree with the Republicans choice of a radio talk show host for keynote speaker but that's their business.

Rush made some good points in his speech but they were good points despite who said them not because he said them.

Even though you only speak for yourself, it's a good rebuttal to ASLGal rabid defense of Limbaugh.

 

[Reba]

Even though you only speak for yourself, it's a good rebuttal to ASLGal rabid defense of Limbaugh.

I'm not a supporter of drug abuse whether it's on the street or in a penthouse. I do believe people can be redeemed from drug addiction if they "come clean" not just physically but morally. No excuses. If they truly turn their lives around, they can go forward. But I wouldn't put a former drug addict of any kind in any leadership position until he or she has proven a full repentance of the past life over a period of time. That's not punishment but wisdom.

If Rush has met that criteria, more power to him. If he hasn't, then I can't endorse him.

I would prefer to hear a conservative statesmen as speaker, not someone who has "star" appeal. Alas!

Again, that's my opinion, not law.

 

[Jiro]

I'm not a supporter of drug abuse whether it's on the street or in a penthouse. I do believe people can be redeemed from drug addiction if they "come clean" not just physically but morally. No excuses. If they truly turn their lives around, they can go forward. But I wouldn't put a former drug addict of any kind in any leadership position until he or she has proven a full repentance of the past life over a period of time. That's not punishment but wisdom.

If Rush has met that criteria, more power to him. If he hasn't, then I can't endorse him.

I would prefer to hear a conservative statesmen as speaker, not someone who has "star" appeal. Alas!

Again, that's my opinion, not law.

Too bad I cannot quote what Jesus said about judging people but I believe you know what I'm talking about.

 

[jillio]

I'm not speaking for anyone except myself.

I'm a conservative independent voter. I'm conservative in my spirituality, world view, life style, economics, and politics.

Rush Limbaugh is not my guru. I didn't elect him to any position of leadership, nor would I. I very rarely listen to his radio program. Even then, I prefer his program when he has a guest host substituting for him.

Even thought I don't care much for Rush personally, that doesn't mean I have to chuck out my conservative ideals just because he professes to have some of the same ideals. I'm not responsible for the behavior of anyone who wears the name "conservative." There's no licensing board that checks out people before they claim the name of conservative (or liberal) in America.

I don't agree with the Republicans choice of a radio talk show host for keynote speaker but that's their business.

Rush made some good points in his speech but they were good points despite who said them not because he said them.

I think we have reached that magical point called agreement. Isn't bipartisanism grand?:P