Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies

That wasn't my post. If you're gonna call me names, you better get your facts straight.

The only reason I'm going to bother with you is because it is so much fun and easy to demonstrate your ignorance and the weakness of your arguments.

Your response about the difference between guilty and liable is just another example of you evading the point and trying to redirect the discussion when you talk yourself into a corner.

 

Wow.

America has progressed to such a level of ignorance that supposedly educated people don't understand the differnce between "liable" and "guilty," and, moreover, they ridcule the people who do understand the difference.

Look, I get it. You will always believe that O.J. was guilty and that Rush was innocent, despite your blather about "innocent until proven guilty."

Gee, I wonder why that might be?

 

Yes, I will always beleive that OJ committed murder. Don't you?

 

Perhaps it would benefit you to read some addictions studies by the addictionologist Judith A. Lewis.

 

Well, as Billy Preston said, "Here we 'round in circles,"so go we.

Time will tell about Rush and I am willing to wait.

Just as time caught up to Bill Clinton's sleeziness and lies, so it too will reveal the real Rush Limbaugh.

For sensible "conservative" thought I recommend Monica Crowley.

 

Yes, I do.

I also understand that the presumption of innocence is a LEGAL presumption. In terms of criminal law, O.J. is innocent of this murder. Not even "not guilty." Innocent.

The fact that he was found liable in a civil court has absolutely nothing to do with his innocence. It's not a technicality. As you have stated, in some twisted way, you believe that the fact that I understand this demonstrates my ignorance. What a laugh. Go back to junior high. There they will teach you that these are two separate parts of the American jurisprudence system.

In terms of O.J., morally, ethically, I think he's guilty. But I comprehend that legally, he is not.

But the point in this thread is Rush. No, he has not been legally convicted (as far as I know).

But that does not mean that I have to consider him innocent, any more than you have to consider O.J. innocent.

 

Whatever...It's impossible to have a discussion with someone with this sort of logic. I'm not even sure I can call it logic.

If you would like to debate facts, that's fine. I'll even discuss differences of opinion. But you do neither of those.

Your schizophrenic responses are based solely on emotion, the most prevalent one being hate.

As I said in a previous post, I enjoy exposing the weaknesses in your arguments. But I have grown tired of trying to keep up with your pointless meandering.

 

It is truly suprising that you can not understand the difference between civil liability and criminal guilt. It's also surprising that you can't understand the difference between a legal presumption and a political or moral or ethical presumption.

But even more amazing is that, based on your lack of comprehension, you call ME illogical.

That's hilarious.

 

These thoughts express mine regarding my statement Rush should be in prison.

I said Scott Peterson should be in prison before he was jailed and found guilty. I said O.J. should be in prison and stand by that. I think William Kennedy Smith should be in prison. I thought Mike Tyson should be in prison before he was convicted.

These are statements one makes based on what one thinks according to gut feelings, evidence, etc. Perhaps they are not fair, but most of us speak this way regardless.

I think Oliver North should be in prison as well and I think Bill Clinton and Hillary should be in prison alongside Susan McDougal.

 

Jimmy,
Just for discussion's sake, let's say Rush illegally obtained the painkillers. Do you really think that is deserving of a prison sentence? Especially if they were only used by him and not sold to others? I certainly don't. Not just for Rush, but for anyone.

BLD

 

my input: Rush is a captalist - looking out for the financial well being of Rush - he doesn't really care what anyone thinks about him or his philosophy as long as the ratings are up and the money keeps on a-comin. But then, what would you expect from someone whose qualifications include being an announcer for the Kansas City Royals baseball team. My slant, he is a comedian that is using people. Finis'

 

Barry,

Perhaps prison was too strong a term to use. Some jail time, like nearly all others who obtain illegal drugs are sentenced, is more appropriate.

I fall victim to using "jail time" and "prison" synonymously.

You know as well as I, Barry, that had it been you or I, we would already have had our day in court and either on probation or in jail.

Most of my argument for jail time for Rush comes from his own philosophy. He has admamantly condemned drug use, especially in the sports arena, and advocated jail for the users.

Granted, he has not been convicted. I just have a gut feeling based on having worked in the addictions field, he obtained them illegally.

Again, however, all my remarks and comments regarding Rush are opinion and feeling.

Rush just doesn't appeal to me that much although I agree with quite a bit of what he says regarding politics, religion, and morality but he is a hypocrite, in my opinion.

He has come across as a moral force yet he uses vulgar terms in his broadcasts. He talks about Clinton and instead of saying "oral sex" he acutally says "b... j.." Several years ago he talked about Clinton and Vernon Jordan talking about "p....y" on the golf course.

A moral force who condemns vulgarities on the part of others must practice what he or she preaches.

 

I do agree with you that Rush uses a number of vulgar terms that are completely uncalled for. He does more of this now than he used to, which is unfortunate.

I am not trying to be an apologist for Rush, just trying to be fair about things.

My favorite talk radio personality by far is Laura Ingraham. Not only is she RIGHT politically, but she is extremely funny and clean at the same time.

BLD

 

Yes, Laura is great. She is much less acerbic than Ann Coulter. Monica Crowley is still my favorite.

I like Neal Boortz but cannot stand Glen Beck!

 

What? You mean the Limbaugh Letter is not adequate?

 

Actually, I'm not sure of that at all. While Rush obviously has resources that most of us could never dream of, he also is a public figure who has people watching every move he makes just waiting for him to slip up. I doubt most DAs would have even pursued the case at all.

BLD

 

That's true. I really can't think of anyone who has done time for an addiciton to presc. drugs. Or has even been prosecuted, for that matter.

 

Ingraham is intelligent and funny. I don't often agree with her, but she certainly knows what she is talking about. And her humor is generally good-natured, unlike Rush's.

The biggest problem that I have with her is that she is such a hypocrite. She rails against "elites," and then says that she can't imagine why anyone would NOT fly first class, and refers to middle America as "fly-over country." It doesn't get much more elitist than that.

 

Well, Jeb's daughter got nailed for forging a prescription. She was send to pre-trial intervention for addiction therapy. Something Jeb is against usually.
She ran away BTW, but was given another chance. Just like all drug offenders;-)

 

That's right...I forgot about her. I can't remember what her story was, addiction or just recreational use? Was she charged with forgery of the script, or drug use?

I've long believed that stiffer penalties for drug users would reduce the sale of illegal drugs. It's simple economics. Lower demand = less profit.