Florida State Attorney Persecuting Rush Limbaugh is Democrat--Liberal Media Not Telling.

JosephCamhi

[j.cam]

You say: "liberal hate? ROTFLMAO. Find another foil. Toodles!"

LOL. Liberals are simply nice and hate no one. They didn't hate Gingrich, Reagan, Nixon, Justice Thomas, Bush 41, and they certainly don't hate Bush 43. All the liberal pundits who are writing about the liberal hate for Bush currently, are only kidding, because liberals are too full of love and concern for the fellow man to actually hate anyone.

Except, of course, Ken Starr.

[Cacophonous]

Not a liberal shill. Also Rush has not been charged with anything; I said merely that there were allegations. Now, I admit to being wrong, and I'll take the heat and the hits for that.

But my point is this, and I will stand by it: IF Rush is guilty of a crime, he should pay the penalty, just as you should, or I should. We conservatives cannot be making exceptions, and cannot be guilty of selectively applying laws. Even if the laws are bad laws, and even if the liberals are guilty of enforcing or not enforcing at their own discretion.

We all know liberals are liars and hypocrites, and we all know they salivate at the chance to paint us with their brush. We have to make sure we don't give them the opportunity.

Oh, and pleae...if you are going to say things about me, please have the decency to include me in the conversation. Thanks.

[Cacophonous]

I still think the DA will quietly drop the matter.

[breakem]

and?

Is there some reason you need to tell me all this?

[j.cam]

You say, “Not a liberal shill. Also Rush has not been charged with anything; I said merely that there were allegations. Now, I admit to being wrong, and I'll take the heat and the hits for that.”

Not only did you come up with false allegations, but then you tried to defend them. Your defense of “extortion” was especially silly. I’m still wondering how you came up with bribes and extortion.

You say: “But my point is this, and I will stand by it: IF Rush is guilty of a crime, he should pay the penalty, just as you should, or I should. We conservatives cannot be making exceptions, and cannot be guilty of selectively applying laws. Even if the laws are bad laws, and even if the liberals are guilty of enforcing or not enforcing at their own discretion.”

Right. Before you claimed to agree that if these laws are regularly unenforced, as Dershowitz claimed, they should not be enforced against Rush because of his politics, even if they are on the books. Now you are back to your old mantra about protecting ourselves in the eyes of liberals. For any liberal who wants to call me a “hypocrite,” I have two words: “Anita, Juanita.”

You say: “We all know liberals are liars and hypocrites, and we all know they salivate at the chance to paint us with their brush. We have to make sure we don't give them the opportunity.”

So we throw Limbaugh to the lions? I don’t think so.

You say “Oh, and pleae...if you are going to say things about me, please have the decency to include me in the conversation. Thanks.”

This is a public forum. Of course you were included in the conversation. My guess is that you are saying that I should have included your name in the reply. Next time I will, but I just didn't think to do that because this is a public forum, and I figured you would see the post. I'm not used to being able to post to multiple people.

[j.cam]

Well, uh... because you posted me, silly liberal. Funny, you post people stuff, then whine like a feminist at a take-back-the-night rally when they post you back.

[Edit35]

You ask if I am anti-WOD. My answer is both yes and no.

First off, pot should be decriminalized for any amount under a half-pound or so. Instead of ruining a persons life with jail or expulsion from school, etc, a person caught with such small amounts should simply get a big fine or forced to do peace corp community service, or something like that. But jail?? Nah. That just turns the poor kid into a hardened criminal.

However, I think smugglers or maunfacturers of large amounts such non-regulated street drugs as methamphetamine, esctasy, cocaine, crack, heroin, and LSD, should continue to face tough penalties, even possible jail time.

That said, people caught with smaller amounts of "hard" drugs(as long as they didn't threaten with a gun, or strong arm their customers) should not face long sentences in a hardened prison, but incarceration at a half-way house or rehab.

Small drug users or dealers should always be kept separate from violent offenders, as long as they remain non violent.

If that means having a separate rehab or facility just for druggies, then so be it. If society continues to incarcerate drug users along with violent criminals, then we will continue to make the problems worse.

Just to wrap it up, how many people do you know who use their own (legal) drug of choice, be it alcohol or valium, yet they still throw dirt on the other guy who happens to be using a substance they consider to be unacceptable (such as hydrocodone in Rush's case).

Of course, there are problems in every so-called solution, even mine. (For example, what if someone sells drugs to a person, who later OD's and dies??)

Drug usage is not an easy problem to solve.

[gcruse]

Just to wrap it up, how many people do you know who use their own (legal) drug of choice, be it alcohol or valium, yet they still throw dirt on the other guy who happens to be using a substance they consider to be unacceptable (such as hydrocodone in Rush's case).

Just about everybody I know fits in that category.
I wonder if the law is really the only thing keeping us from becoming a nation of drug addicts, or if most of us have the sense to know heroin and coke can kill us one way or the other, and have no interest in it. 

What may be going on is the Authoritarian Mantra writ large.  That is, I'm okay, but the other guy can't be trusted to make up his own mind without someone telling him what to do, so let's get government to tell us all what to do.

I think the liberal/conservative spectrum should be dumped in favor of a line that runs from liberty to authoritarianism.  That way, oppression will be seen to be what it is, no matter if it comes from the left or the right.

[harpo11]

This unjust and venomous witch hunting of Rush Limbaugh I believe stems from the Clinton's vow for revenge against their political opponents. All these two know and cravenly practice is the "politics of personal destruction".

I always remember Rush saying he posed with and shook the hand of Mrs. Clinton in a picture at some New York High Society shindig, and always felt he never should of let the sslithering snake near him.

I do not understand why Rush Limbaugh is being persecuted by this 'out-of-control' (a little Clinton lingo we learned from the infamous Clinton Impeachment days) DA for becoming addicted to government FDA approved and legally produced painkillers for which rich drug company CEOs get superbly compensated for and shareholders receive dividends while employing thousands of people who get taxed on their income to fund the government?>p> I think Governor Jeb Bush ought to yank the DA's budget on this absolute waste of taxpayer money and tell this guy to really start fighting crime and stop picking on a guy who got himself addicted while becoming the most successful TOP GUN of Talk Radio.

It's not like Rush Limbaugh was a slacker dope addict in any sense of the word. He is a shining example of the American Dream!

Heck, wasn't it Janet Reno and Clinton's idea for us taxpayers to fund free needles to drug addicts and this DA is going after Rush?

[Cacophonous]

You misunderstand. I don't care about protecting myself in the eyes of liberals; they were lost long ago, and I have no interest in them anyway.

But there is a significant (10%? 30%?) portion of the population that is undecided, and it is those that will be lost through hypocrisy.

[j.cam]

In my last post to you I meant that I don't know how you came up with threats and extortion, you did explain the bribery though I disagree.

As for hypocrisy, I don't see how anyone could claim hypocrisy if the law is usually unenforced like Dershowitz said, and if the state attorney who is a Democrat is only enforcing it against Limbaugh because he is a conservative.

Who are the 30 percent independents going to vote for, Dean? You think they are suicidal and want to hand our national security over to France, a country that can't even secure itself? ;-)

[Cacophonous]

I told you I was wrong on the threats and extortion allegations; honestly, I don't remember what I heard or read or misread that put that idea in my head, but I was unable to find it again. That's why I cheerfully - though sheepishly - admitted my error.

Yes, there is rank hypocrisy on the side of the liberals. But it would be equally hypocritical for conservatives to insist that the liberals - on the one hand - enforce the law against their own; and on the other hand insist that they - the GOP - should not be prosecuted, especially on the basis that it is not enforced anyway.

And the 10-30 percent undecided (as distinct from independents) are going to support...well, that's why they are undecided. THEY are the ones who are up for grabs. The hard-core dems will never, ever support a conservative or a republican; they are lost and the GOP should not waste its time with them. The hard-core Republicans are safely in the conservative/GOP camp. But those that are questioning, waivering, not sure, undecided are the ones that need to be targeted.

Dean is nothing more than an old-school liberal with populist leanings with nothing to offer. He's leading now because frankly, he IS the best candidate in the dem field, but that is more an indictment of the democrat field of losers than an endorsement of him. Hilary has got to be salivating. Dean also looks a little like Leslie Nielson.

I still think the whole matter re Rush will be quietly dropped.

[j.cam]

You say: "Yes, there is rank hypocrisy on the side of the liberals. But it would be equally hypocritical for conservatives to insist that the liberals - on the one hand - enforce the law against their own; and on the other hand insist that they - the GOP - should not be prosecuted, especially on the basis that it is not enforced anyway."

You keep saying this again and again, but that is not what we are talking about. You don't even mention that fact that according to Dershowitz, who has no reason to lie for Rush, this law normally goes unenforced. It seems it is being enforced on Rush because he is a conservative. This is what makes me think you are a liberal shill. There was another thread calling into question the credibility of the Democratic state attorney. Anyway, if you have any evidence normally enforced against liberals, please show it, or cease and desist.

[j.cam]

In my last post to you I meant to say:

"If you have any evidence THAT THE LAW IS normally enforced against liberals, please show it, or cease and desist."


As for Dean. He is surely not the best the Dems have. He is just filled with the most hate, and is the most anti-American, anti-Bush, pro-UN of any of the non-joke candidates. That is perfect for the hardcore-liberal-Dem primary voters.

Besides, Dean had nothing bad to say, then or now, about Clinton for saying the same things about Iraq's WMD as Bush back in 1997, when Clinton bombed Iraq on impeachment day, and then simply left with the inspectors. According to you, the Independents make their decisions based on who they think is hypocritical. Therefore, they won't vote for Dean, right? LOL.

Hillary is too much of a divisive figure to win nationally.

[Cacophonous]

Listen - I agree, Rush is being picked out by a liberal DA because he (Rush) is a conservative. I've never denied that; to claim otherwise would be silly.

That doesn't change the fact that to claim some sort of exception to the rule is hypocritical. It starts down the "slippery slope" - what laws must we obey, and which laws can we claim persecution? No, the best path is to take our lumps.

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Just because Rush is a conservative icon doesn't give him any more of a free pass than a liberal icon. If the law is on the books, it needs to be enforced or removed. If it is not being enforced evenly, it is the fault of the enforcement, not the law.

I have not seen any statistics on how often - or against whom - these laws are typically enforced. Do you have any such info?

You also seem to think I have something against Rush (you called me a shill for liberals). No, I've been listening to Rush for 13 or 14 years and agree with almost everything he says. I give him - along with Ronald Reagan - exceptional credit for the resurgence of conservatism. He continues to be the best on the air because of his mass appeal - while the Sean Hannitys preach only to the converted, Rush actually converts people. I stack my conservatism against anyone's.

However, as much as I admire him - and I think no less of him because of his addiction - he still must be held accountable. IF he is charged, indicted and found to be guilty.

[Cacophonous]

No Dean is not the best the Dems have, but he's the best (a vastly relative term) of the bunch that have declared for the Presidency.

And while I think Hilary is evil (not a term I use lighlty), and agree she is too divisive nationally, don't be surprised to see her make a serious run. People and votes can be bought, elections can be rigged. Hell, it's how she wound up in the Senate. As we all know, rules and laws mean nothing to the Clintons.

[j.cam]

So you are advocating that we should support the enforcement of a law against Rush when they don't enforce it against others. You are advocating that we support them going after Rush because Rush is a conservative.

Then you claim you are not a liberal shill. LOL.

And let me remind you that that before you claimed that that would be political persecution, and you claimed to be against it. You can't even seem to keep your own positions straight.

[j.cam]

Why do you think Dean is better than Lieberman or Clark, not that either of those two are good.

[gatorbait]

In addition, the "War on Drugs" has made it a living hell for doctors to manage pain in this country.

Whether the law is good or bad, selectively applying the law on someone because of his politics is wrong.


Correct. The WoD has been mishandled and misapplied from the start, look at the seizure laws and the ridiculous zero tolerance debacles.

The prosecuter in this case is carrying the DNC's chamberpot for them,He knows, they know it and we know it.

[HennepinPrisoner]

Sorry...witch hunt or no witch hunt, if Rush did the crime, then he must do the time.

That by no means is a judgment of his innocence/guilt.

But to say that he shouldn't be prosecuted just because many others haven't been prosecuted for doing similar crimes is hypocrital and frankly wreaks of the whole Clinton-Lewinsky defense strategy.