To: brownie
I am not saying the Rush is Clinton. I'm saying, we should not fall into the trap of defending someone simply b/c he/she is conservative. I do not know, and neither do you, the facts in this case. I do know Rush is accused of breaking the law. If this is true, he should be prosecuted the same as anyone else. Now, if others committing the same crime do not usually get prosecuted, that is fine, but I don't think we should jump to his defense simply b/c he is conservative. At best, it is hypocritical. At worst, it is a sell-out of beliefs and values. Well take a look for yourself at the prosecution of a non-violent, non-trafficking, first time offender, who has agreed to treatment. The prosecution is almost nil. But what the hey, that fact doen't make for good copy in the liberal media or by those with an agenda on FR, IMO.
250 posted on
12/24/2003 9:49:58 AM PST by
Dane
To: Dane
Yes, I disagree with you, therefore I must have an agenda. I stated (very clearly) that I do not know what the typical prosecution of this type of crime is. I also stated that I don't know all the facts in this case (as I'm pretty sure you do not). But a reflexive defense of someone who had 2000 pills is hardly sticking to the values we allegedly have. But, I forget, he is conservative and therefore can do no wrong. It must all be a liberal conspiracy. We learned that defense from Hillary, did we?
257 posted on
12/24/2003 10:00:39 AM PST by
brownie
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson