"Sandman" wrote in message
news
"John Stone" wrote in message
...
in article , Mikermckelvy at
wrote on 3/26/04 11:13 AM:
From: "clamnebula"
Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're
a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our
prayers
for your recovery.
You are of course referring to Rush Limbaugh. The fact is Rush never
once
said
that persons who become accidentally addicted to pain medication
should
be in
jail.
Where does he make any distinction at all about the kind of illegal
drugs
someone should go to jail over?
"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws
against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And
the
laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and
neighborhoods which become consumed by them. 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."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.
"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug
use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites
are
getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this
disparity
is
not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others
in
jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones
who
are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.
Looks pretty all-inclusive to me.
Yup. So when is Pig Boy gonna start doin his hard time?
When he gets convicted in a court of law, not when you think he should
because you don't like him. He has all the protections that you would want
for yourself, so why do you try to withhold from him. Could it be that you
disagree with his politics that you feel he should have no rights and if
this is so would you feel the same way if someone who agees with you was so
treated?
And wtf is he still doing on the air spouting his lies and hate (and
interviewing Dick Cheney on the air to allow Dick to spout absurd lies
about
Richard Clarke)?
Let's see if I understand this: Cheney's comments are lies because you
disagree with them and they are not verified. Clarke's comments are truth
because you agree and they are not verified. But wait, in other interviews
and testimony Clarke contradicted what he has said in his book. This would
verify Cheney's comments but not Clarke's. It would seem the only reason
that you assume that Cheney is lying is that you don't like what he says and
the only reason you believe Clarke, this time, is that you do like what he
is saying.
It seems that the comments by Clarke and Cheney are immaterial your just
stating your own opinion and they're just props.
Phil