 |
Or mail checks to or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com |
and say THANKS to Jim Robinson! IT'S IN THE BREAKING NEWS SIDEBAR THANKS! |
|
|
Or mail checks to or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com |
and say THANKS to Jim Robinson! IT'S IN THE BREAKING NEWS SIDEBAR THANKS! |
|
Well really about 100 times that many, but as Uncle Joe said, "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic".
Gotta wonder why the Rats are pissin in the wind then .....??? Never mind they always piss upwind.
Stay Safe....Good read !
Its also happened to well over 50%% of the Liberal entertainment indusry!
Stupid Ed Anser- Whatver happened to Mary Richards er I mean Mary Tyler Moores son?
It is a common human trait to confuse the message with the messenger and so infuse the messenger with the virtue or lack of it, which they perceive to be in the message. Hence, John Wayne was believed to be courageous because of his movie characters. Trial lawyers are perceived to be wicked because of the perceived guilt of their clients, even though the attorney himself might have acquitted himself quite honorably.
On the other hand the message is often highly valued because the messenger is revered. Mao and the Cultural Revolution come to mind.
Is the Gospel of Christ less real if brought to you by Elmer Gantry? Or more valid if you hear it from Mother Theresa?
So, Rush is what he is, a great entertainer, a broadcasting phenomenon who revolutionized the medium, a brilliant satirist, and a popularizer of the conservative cause who reshaped the political landscape. But he is not a moral icon, a man of letters, a great athlete, a success in his personal life, or a role model.
To believe that the validity of the conservative message depends on his moral rectitude is about as smart as buying a Buick because Tiger Woods endorses it, or buying a three wood because he can hit it. Nor should one believe that Rush is necessarily a noble person because he articulates a conservative philosophy. Some people might do well to concede the possibility that in private Al Franken, politics aside, might be far more charming than Rush Limbaugh.
Franken has been quoted as saying that a 12 step program will require Limbaugh to be rigorously honest and this means, if he is to recover from his addiction, that he cannot maintain his political views. This betrays Franken's myopia and illustrates how a little knowledge can be dangerous. I know of nothing of Limbaugh's opinions or of his broadcasting modus operandi which suggests that Limbaugh is dishonest. Indeed, the contrary is true because he operates from the record and exposes with satire the absurdity of the liberal posture. He has operates out of conviction while on the air.
I wish Rush well and want his voice back on the radio advancing my cause but I do not believe he can get me to heaven.
I have listened to Rush fairly often and have never heard him distinguish "recreational drug use" (whatever that is) from any other kind of illegal drug use. Rush's position has consistently been that the government can rightfully tell people what to do with their bodies even within the confines of their own home, and that illegal usage is illegal usage regardless of the drug or the cirsumstances, and illegal users should be incarcerated.
Thus, while I do not condemn Rush for his drug abuse, it is apparent that he is a first class hypocrite who has hired a high-priced lawyer, ratted on his suppliers, and checked himself into a rehab center in order to avoid taking the bitter medicine he has prescribed for others.
I especially liked this part:
If the truth be known, more than a few of those who are pointing fingers at Rush are indulging in the forbidden themselves. They love it when they can point their fingers and say, "See, he does it too." But he really doesn't, and deep down inside you people know it.
IF, they were bought in the fashion bantered about, IF, then no they were not Legal. IF this turns out to be the case, he's no different from any one of the several hundred thousand people sitting in prison today. Blackbird.
He starved roughly 7,000,000 in the Ukraine alone.
In Rush's case the drugs were legal and prescribed for the management of pain."
Worth repeating---and remembering.
The Ukraine was like a huge Nazi death camp, with about a fourth of all peasants dead or dying, and the rest so weak and debilitated as to be unable to bury the dead. On Stalin's orders, about 5,000,000 Ukrainians had been murdered through starvation, 20 to 25 percent of the Ukrainian farm population. Another 2,000,000 probably starved to death elsewhere, such as 1,000,000 in the North Caucasus alone. While Stalin intended the Ukrainian deaths, those elsewhere were the unintended by-products of the war on the peasants--collectivization.