quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: BTW once a drug addict, always a drug addict; just a question of rehabilitated or not.

Are you making a semantic arguement or a point because I can't tell?

If you are trying to make a semantic arguement then why bother? We are all pretty much aware that an addict is always an addict.

But if you are trying to make a point then the only one I seem to be able to gleen from your post is that anyone who has ever been a drug addict or alcoholic is irrelevant for the rest of their lives and therefore we shouldn't listen to them. Kind of a stupid point. Did I misunderstand?

If not, don't forget to include alcoholics like Dan Rostenkowski, Louis Stokes, Bob Kasten, {insert your favorite first name} Kennedy, Harold Hughes, Bob Emerson, Gerald Klezcka, Russell Long, etc.

Then where's the Senate resolution condemning the Swiftboaters for attacking Kerry what with his Silver Stars, Purple Hearts, Green Clovers and Magic Balloons? Or anyone that says anything bad about an "American hero." It's stupid and the senate not only has better things to be doing but also has no business "condemning" what people say or print. And I'm not going to get into an argument about Kerry with you. That's a strawman, Toddster, so don't even try it.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Shock! Me too! Only I don't see the comparison between the MoveOn.org ad and the Limbaugh attack. Even though the Senate has better things to do than address either of these issues. But with the MoveOn situation the Senate Resolution was an attempt to come to the defense of the reputation of an American Hero with a Bronze Star, Dintinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit, and a whole lot of clusters. The Resolution condeming Limbaugh was Reid's attempt to do the exact opposite and smear and American Citizen. No real comparison.

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: Then where's the Senate resolution condemning the Swiftboaters for attacking Kerry what with his Silver Stars, Purple Hearts, Green Clovers and Magic Balloons? Or anyone that says anything bad about an "American hero." It's stupid and the senate not only has better things to be doing but also has no business "condemning" what people say or print. And I'm not going to get into an argument about Kerry with you. That's a strawman, Toddster, so don't even try it.

He's not a republican. You see we are a country divided along party lines. Everyone knows that the repubs are not favoring well... even the repubs know it. So what better way to bolster the dem agenda than to make the dems seem like that are on a house cleaning tyrade? These guys talk in the halls ALL DAY LONG about you do me this favor and I'll do you that one next time around.

While everyone is distracted by this repub said this and that dem did that the government is plotting the next move based on polls and public opinion.. The power just shifts from one to the other like water in a glass but it's still water.. Government is government no matter what party you subscribe to.

The next president or even politician I vote for will not be a lifer of politics.
I want real people, not some plastic promises gone unfulfilled by some power hungry anti constitutionalist who swears on a stack of bibles to uphold and defend the constitution then shitz all over it after he got the bras ring.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Only I don't see the comparison between the MoveOn.org ad and the Limbaugh attack. Even though the Senate has better things to do than address either of these issues. But with the MoveOn situation the Senate Resolution was an attempt to come to the defense of the reputation of an American Hero with a Bronze Star, Dintinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit, and a whole lot of clusters.

As the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Trying to shut someone up because they're saying something stupid is still trying to shut someone up. The defamation of General Petraeus' character is something to be determined by the courts, not the Congress.

Besides, I think the General can take care of himself. His credentials prove it.

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 10-11-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: Then where's the Senate resolution condemning the Swiftboaters for attacking Kerry what with his Silver Stars, Purple Hearts, Green Clovers and Magic Balloons? Or anyone that says anything bad about an "American hero." It's stupid and the senate not only has better things to be doing but also has no business "condemning" what people say or print. And I'm not going to get into an argument about Kerry with you. That's a strawman, Toddster, so don't even try it.

Good Question!

Congratulations kid, you stepped in it. WHY didn't the Democrats offer a resolution condenming the Swift Boat Vets.

VERY GOOD QUESTION!

Could it be because everything they said was true?

Yes Jeremiah, VERY VERY VERY GOOD QUESTION!

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 10-12-2007).]

Here you go!
http://stores.ebay.com/rush-letter-for-charity

Glad our senators could take the time out of their schedule to do this... not like they have anything better to do.

(edited link)

[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 10-12-2007).]

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Here you go! http://members.ebay.com/ws/...h-letter-for-charity Glad our senators could take the time out of their schedule to do this... not like they have anything better to do.

HA HA HA!

I'll be damned. Maybe some good will come out of this waste of taxpayer dollars after all. The Marine Corp Law Enforcement Foundation will likely get a healthy donation.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Your Tax Dollars at work trying to suspend the 1st Amendment! <insert perdy pics here>

Yeah yeah yaeh Todd... The defenders of the freedom of speech left the harbor a few years back.. sorry you missed the boat...

If you have a complaint you can file it at the complaint department... Tak a number and just be patient as they appear to be out to lunch. Should only be a few more seconds.

{Toddster's brain} OH CRAP! JEREMIAH MADE A POINT! Quick, make a reference to the fact that he's 10 years younger than me and John Kerry is the anti-Christ. WHEW. Fooled him. Now watch him chew on that one. Brwayawyawyway. Oh. And do the roll eyes thing. yeah. sweet. {/Toddster's brain}

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Good Question! Congratulations kid, you stepped in it. WHY didn't the Democrats offer a resolution condenming the Swift Boat Vets. VERY GOOD QUESTION! Could it be because everything they said was true? Yes Jeremiah, VERY VERY VERY GOOD QUESTION!

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: {Toddster's brain} OH CRAP! JEREMIAH MADE A POINT! Quick, make a reference to the fact that he's 10 years younger than me and John Kerry is the anti-Christ. WHEW. Fooled him. Now watch him chew on that one. Brwayawyawyway. Oh. And do the roll eyes thing. yeah. sweet. {/Toddster's brain}

Made a point!
BWAHAHAHA

Denial in it's rawest form!

Sorry Jeremiah but YOU asked the question. You can't duck and weave your way out fo this one. If Kerry didn't do what his fellow vets said then why didn't the Dems present a resolution condemning the Swift Boat Ads?

Hey, just to be clear, YOU asked the question.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 10-12-2007).]

Oh that's great! Good for Rush doing that. A piece of history indeed!

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: So you think that condemning an American citizen's First Amendment rights is part of the Senate's job description?

You missed the second part of my first sentence. Congress CAN pass non-binding resolutions all day long... "I love baseball" "I hate the color purple" etc. And I agree with everyone here, that such non-binding resolutions are a big waste of time. Impeachment would be a much more constructive use of the Congress' precious time.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Yes you did misunderstand, and you are again making too broad a generality. My point about Rush is that he has not been truthful about his drug abuse (blaming it on his housekeeper, etc.) and therefore his current truthfulness is in question. Point made.

Sooooo, why are you so deeply offended when somebody lies? after all, you are a democrat aren't you?

I don't think there was anything to misunderstand, you wrote it very clearly and Todd is not the only one to point this out, it was a basic attach the person instead addressing what he said. Dumascrap political strategy 101.

YOU obviously have not and do not listen to Rush, nor do you understand anything about addiction. An addict will always denies and lies about their addiction and blames everyone else at the beginning.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Sooooo, why are you so deeply offended when somebody lies? after all, you are a democrat aren't you? I don't think there was anything to misunderstand, you wrote it very clearly and Todd is not the only one to point this out, it was a basic attach the person instead addressing what he said. Dumascrap political strategy 101.

No doubt learned from the master liars, the Rethugliscums. Just following your lead, you know, name-calling, belittling, etc.

I made a valid point, and you attack me for it. Nice work, troll. Now scoot back under your bridge.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: No doubt learned from the master liars, the Rethugliscums. Just following your lead, you know, name-calling, belittling, etc. I made a valid point, and you attack me for it. Nice work, troll. Now scoot back under your bridge.

The point is that you did not make any point at all and are doing a piss poor job of trying to weasel out of it.
Yes my tone could have been better but the total endless hypocrisy bring it out, and you have not addressed one dam thing.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: You missed the second part of my first sentence. Congress CAN pass non-binding resolutions all day long... "I love baseball" "I hate the color purple" etc. And I agree with everyone here, that such non-binding resolutions are a big waste of time. Impeachment would be a much more constructive use of the Congress' precious time.

I must've misread the context then. My apologies.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Yes you did misunderstand, and you are again making too broad a generality. My point about Rush is that he has not been truthful about his drug abuse (blaming it on his housekeeper, etc.) and therefore his current truthfulness is in question. Point made.

Point taken. It's a lie. But I take your point. You hate Rush. It is that simple.

In the first place he is not a public official and therefore owes you nothing more than I would if I had a personal drug problem. He admitted guilt in a court of law to illegally obtaining the drugs, he got medical help, paid a hefty fine, and made a public apology to his audience (took full responsibility...didn't blame his housekeeper). What more should he do?

You've latched onto this issue as if it now somehow invalidates his points. I'll be the first to admit Rush is obnoxious and self egrandizing but he is also a private citizen with all the rights as any of us, like to voice his opinion. If you don't like his opinion then fine say so, but don't give me this drug addict crap. This thread is about the abuse of power of the US Senate attacking a private citizen for the one and only reason that they don't like him. THAT is a big deal! When our government gets to the point where they think they have the right to censure a private citizen and demand that he be removed from his job then we ALL have bigger problems than simple ideological spats.

I have to agree with Todd on this one. Look at the Don Imus debacle with his "nappy headed" comment. There was outrage and he was removed from his job. BUT, that outrage came from citizens and advertisers. In this case, our government is deciding they don't like what Rush said, and they're the ones calling for his removal. That is completely improper. If there is enough backlash against Rush that the PEOPLE complain to have him removed, that's a whole different story.

This has nothing to do with what he said, if he was lying, or if he's a drug addict. It has everything to do with the fact that the government is attempting to silence him.

Remember Harry Taylor? He's the man who gave President Bush a piece of his mind at a town meeting. THIS is why freedom of speech is so important. There was no GOP movement to have Mr. Taylor censured or condemned. He didn't "disappear" or was removed from his job.

Dan Rather's memo about George Bush was proven to be a lie. The government didn't do anything. He lost his job with CBS because of a business decision by CBS, not pressure from the government. That's as it should be.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Point taken. It's a lie. But I take your point. You hate Rush. It is that simple. In the first place he is not a public official and therefore owes you nothing more than I would if I had a personal drug problem. He admitted guilt in a court of law to illegally obtaining the drugs, he got medical help, paid a hefty fine, and made a public apology to his audience (took full responsibility...didn't blame his housekeeper). What more should he do? You've latched onto this issue as if it now somehow invalidates his points. I'll be the first to admit Rush is obnoxious and self egrandizing but he is also a private citizen with all the rights as any of us, like to voice his opinion. If you don't like his opinion then fine say so, but don't give me this drug addict crap. This thread is about the abuse of power of the US Senate attacking a private citizen for the one and only reason that they don't like him. THAT is a big deal! When our government gets to the point where they think they have the right to censure a private citizen and demand that he be removed from his job then we ALL have bigger problems than simple ideological spats.

Well, you missed something there. I do not hate Rush; I disagree with him on a lot of subjects, but I do not hate him. As for him having opinions, who cares! BUT, keep this in mind: he is on the public airwaves OUR airwaves, and according to the old fairness doctrine (before Reagan scuttled it) he has a public duty to state that his opinions are NOT facts. Too many of his dittoheads believe everything that comes out of his mouth is gospel, which is wrong. If the fairness doctrine were still in effect, there would be a rebuttal for every one of his opinions. As we all know, there is not.

And finally, I must repeat my previous point. Hold onto your hat...

I AGREE WITH YOU!!!

This whole business about rebuking a private citizen in a non-binding resolution is a complete waste of time. And I think the Dems were spineless to go along with the Reps in the Moveon.Org rebuke as well. But where was your outrage then? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and don't even pretend otherwise.

Yes, and to be clear you support the senate condemning the right to free speech when it's a democrat. I'm glad we cleared that up.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Made a point! BWAHAHAHA Denial in it's rawest form! Sorry Jeremiah but YOU asked the question. You can't duck and weave your way out fo this one. If Kerry didn't do what his fellow vets said then why didn't the Dems present a resolution condemning the Swift Boat Ads? Hey, just to be clear, YOU asked the question.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: BUT, keep this in mind: he is on the public airwaves OUR airwaves

Good point. This isnt a resolution regarding John Q Private citizen but rather about Rush Limbaugh the talk show host abusing his privileges.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Well, you missed something there. I do not hate Rush; I disagree with him on a lot of subjects, but I do not hate him. As for him having opinions, who cares!

Well, at least 12 million listeners I guess.

quote BUT, keep this in mind: he is on the public airwaves OUR airwaves, and according to the old fairness doctrine (before Reagan scuttled it) he has a public duty to state that his opinions are NOT facts.

This is where you lost me. How can you be for free speech and the unconstitutional (and inapproriately named) 'fairness doctrine' at the same time?

As for the accuracy of what comes out of Rush's mouth, I don't know where you get your facts (sounds like more hate to me) but the independent media monitoring group AIM found him to be accurate 97.9% of the time.

Princeton University (hardly a bastion of conservatism) found that the media is bias heavily to the left. Only 7% of all journalist identified themselves as conservative. And yet, even with this staggeringly overweighted bias towards teh left Hitlery and her facsist buddies want to silence the remaining handful of conservatives on the scarecly listened to AM radio band. The Fairness Doctrine is an attempt to control content by controlling the airwaves. If the government doesn't like what you have to say then they just take your license to broadcast away. You seriously support this unmittigated and unashamed naziism? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!

quote Originally posted by Toddster: And who are YOU to judge what Limbaugh says?

I'm a member of the public. He is abusing his privileges and should be censured for that abuse.

quote Once again the king of "free speech" contradicts himself. Oh wait, let me guess. It is only a right for YOU to have free speech. The rest of us are subject to being gagged when you don't like what you hear. Is that it Bill? What ever happened to "just turn of the radio" ?

Well you see.. I tried agreeing with you in another thread and you smeared my face in dogshit. I've argued at great length at how we need to put asside our difference of opinion and sacrifice them (and ourselves in the process) for the defense of rights in order to preserve them. IE. You chose to fight me and instead backed those who seek to destroy those rights.. for whatever good and just reason you can come up with.

IOW
You didn't rush to defend the "freedom of speech" when I thought it was necessary so as a consequence of your inaction I am not inclined to rush to "your" call to arms either, it's too late for that, you already sold out to the enemy.

quote Bill, you are as consistent as a a bowl of gumbo

So says Benedict Arnold.

------------------
"If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it." - Thomas Jefferson

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: I'm a member of the public. He is abusing his privileges and should be censured for that abuse.

I'll ask you again. WHO ARE YOU to decide what he can and can not say?

quote Well you see.. deranged drivel

Your'e a perfect liberal Bill. Can't answer the question so Invent an offense, place the blame for it on those that ask you legitimate questions, and then become indignant claiming you won't dignify it with a response because the OTHER person is a meanie.

Perfect.

You know NOTHING of Jefferson

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 10-14-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I'll ask you again. WHO ARE YOU to decide what he can and can not say?

I am your enemy. I oppose you and your call to arms in defending the freedom of speech. You were not there when I needed your support and instead voiced opposition so now I'm returning the favor. You actions in the past have allowed for the usurpation of another right to free speech. I vhemently argued that it is a matter of principal and the freedom of speech MUST BE DEFENDED... you sought to side with the enemy and allowed them to censure another citizen. So.. its too late. You gave the enemy of freedom a toe hold and now its a foot hold.

Dont worry Todd... it will get a hell of alot worse before it gets better.

quote [QUOTE] Well you see.. deranged drivel [QUOTE] Your'e a perfect liberal Bill. Can't answer the question so Invent an offense, place the blame for it on those that ask you legitimate questions, and then become indignant claiming you won't dignify it with a response because the OTHER person is a meanie.

Freedom of speech is a concept based on the principal that people can voice whatever opinions they want. You chose to ignore that right and you still choose to insult me for my stance on the issue which is BASED on the principal. You are stupid. You still dont get it and the statement below illustrates PERFECTLY how your ignorance is a serious problem.. It's either ignorance or arrogance, I cant figure out which one is more responsible

quote Perfect. You know NOTHING of Jefferson

Our house was on fire. I rose the alarm a long time ago and you chose to ignore it. Now you see the house ablaze.

I feel it is far to late to grab the bucket. It's too late Todd... It's a shame we will never agree but this is the democracy (the house) you wanted and you allowed the old one (constitutional republic) to burn to the ground.

Don't like it Toddy? Too bad, so sad... I'm glad... I'm glad you have finally awakened and realized the freedom of speech is "endangered" but your inaction in the past allowed for it. Better start thinking about rebuilding the house you let burn down because the new one sprang up in its place sucks. You let it happen Todd.

I warned you and as usual you ignored me, belittled me and insulted me. Some things never change Toddy boy and you can argue till you are blue in the face. Maybe one day you will grow up and see what I'm all about. Till then.. enjoy. I know I am.



------------------
"If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it." - Thomas Jefferson

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,"

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 10-14-2007).]

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: I am your enemy. I oppose you and your call to arms in defending the freedom of speech. You were not there when I needed your support and instead voiced opposition so now I'm returning the favor. You actions in the past have allowed for the usurpation of another right to free speech. I vhemently argued that it is a matter of principal and the freedom of speech MUST BE DEFENDED... you sought to side with the enemy and allowed them to censure another citizen. So.. its too late. You gave the enemy of freedom a toe hold and now its a foot hold. Dont worry Todd... it will get a hell of alot worse before it gets better. Freedom of speech is a concept based on the principal that people can voice whatever opinions they want. You chose to ignore that right and you still choose to insult me for my stance on the issue which is BASED on the principal. You are stupid. You still dont get it and the statement below illustrates PERFECTLY how your ignorance is a serious problem.. It's either ignorance or arrogance, I cant figure out which one is more responsible Our house was on fire. I rose the alarm a long time ago and you chose to ignore it. Now you see the house ablaze. I feel it is far to late to grab the bucket. It's too late Todd... It's a shame we will never agree but this is the democracy (the house) you wanted and you allowed the old one (constitutional republic) to burn to the ground. Don't like it Toddy? Too bad, so sad... I'm glad... I'm glad you have finally awakened and realized the freedom of speech is "endangered" but your inaction in the past allowed for it. Better start thinking about rebuilding the house you let burn down because the new one sprang up in its place sucks. You let it happen Todd. I warned you and as usual you ignored me, belittled me and insulted me. Some things never change Toddy boy and you can argue till you are blue in the face. Maybe one day you will grow up and see what I'm all about. Till then.. enjoy. I know I am. ------------------ "If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it." - Thomas Jefferson "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,"

Uh...yeahhhhhhhh. But the question was, WHO ARE YOU to decide what he can and can not say?

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: I am your enemy. I oppose you and your call to arms in defending the freedom of speech. You were not there when I needed your support and instead voiced opposition so now I'm returning the favor. ... Maybe one day you will grow up and see what I'm all about.

Wow.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 10-14-2007).]

So the person who cries about freedom of speech and the rights being taken away is advocating taking away the rights of others to speak?

quote Originally posted by Phranc: So the person who cries about freedom of speech and the rights being taken away is advocating taking away the rights of others to speak?

snicker, snicker, snicker...yup...snicker, snicker, snicker

LOL

Like ants in an ant farm. LOL

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Yup... Afraid so. I dont like Rush I dont like republicans therefore I'm all for the senate on this one. Maybe next time.

Wow! just wow! you have no lost all credibility. You may not no diddly about a work ethic or market forces but I have always considered you to have one of the firmest grips on the rights granted the people under united state constitution.
I sad sad day indeed when somebody is willing to throw it all to the wind because of some petty feud.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Wow! just wow! you have no lost all credibility. You may not no diddly about a work ethic or market forces but I have always considered you to have one of the firmest grips on the rights granted the people under united state constitution. I sad sad day indeed when somebody is willing to throw it all to the wind because of some petty feud.

That was my reaction as well. I'd always seen Bill as a steadfast supporter of individual rights, he's willing to throw away his convictions due to an argument on the internet.
The only rights Bill wants to fight for are Bill's rights, and he expects you to help.

That's not at all how I had Bill pegged before. I didn't think his convictions were so easily discarded.