Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Case Against Limbaugh Called Weak
NewsMax.com ^ | 10/04/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on 10/04/2003 12:07:26 PM PDT by kattracks

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-210 next last
To: WackyKat
It's just ironic that when it's Rush's t#t in the wringer, he begins behaving in a way that is very, er, Clintonesque, shall we say?

How is he being "Clintonesque?" Clinton denied everything outright and got himself in deep doo-doo. Keeping quiet is smarter. And no it's not "ironic." Jeez.

81 posted on 10/04/2003 1:36:00 PM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Are you saying that a person addicted to drugs cannot express an opinion that drug addicted people shouldn't be held accountable for their own actions ? I would think that a drug addicted person could consistantly hold either posistion and not be hypocritical.

You know perfectly well that when Rush referred to "maggot infested" drug users he wasn't talking about himself- he was insulting people with drug problems because he felt himself superior to them.

If Rush is innocent, that's great.

If he has a drug problem, I hope he gets help and wish him the best.

My sole beef with Rush is his long-time support of the insane War On Drugs/War On The Constitution.

82 posted on 10/04/2003 1:36:32 PM PDT by WackyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
It is more than just a little big coincidental that this happens just as the left is trying to come up with their own talk radio host.

I do not believe in the Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or coincidences near election time.

83 posted on 10/04/2003 1:36:32 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows (Palestinia delenda est!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ShandaLear
The slimers have made their mark? I highly doubt this. I think once this blows over nothing will have changed. The people who support Rush will continue to support him and those who don't won't. If the Libs can support bloated load mouth lying alcoholics and former Klansmen, I have no problem supporting a perscription drug addict...especially one who makes a career of getting under the skin of rabid liberals.

Very well said.

84 posted on 10/04/2003 1:36:53 PM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
Just curious, does anyone REALLY think he didn't do it?

I can go either way. On a scale of 1 being yes and 100 being no, I'm currently at 51. The mention of identity theft pushed me past 50/50.

However, as a juror. No way.

85 posted on 10/04/2003 1:36:55 PM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: jbstrick
Slings, that was too funny LOL

Thank you. It's not so hard when you have this kind of material to work with.

86 posted on 10/04/2003 1:38:08 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows (Palestinia delenda est!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
Get it? No ....... I didn't think you could

I still don't understand if you're supporting Rush or attacking him. But please keep posting-I'm getting a good laugh out of them.

87 posted on 10/04/2003 1:39:21 PM PDT by WackyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: WackyKat
It's just ironic that when it's Rush's t#t in the wringer, he begins behaving in a way that is very, er, Clintonesque, shall we say?

And you think that the statement you recommended wound lot just fuel such claims? It's got holes all over it.

88 posted on 10/04/2003 1:41:10 PM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Interestingly, it is also those who have abused narcotics who are usually against the legalizaton of drugs. Not because they're hypocrites...but because they're aware of just how damaging the addicition is. And I'm not talking about marijuana, but rather the opium based derivatives/synthetics that are widely available throught legal prescriptions.
89 posted on 10/04/2003 1:41:21 PM PDT by cwb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: WackyKat
My sole beef with Rush is his long-time support of the insane War On Drugs/War On The Constitution.

You come accross as someone who has special issues with the WOD in general and that Rush is merely a focal point for your anger, which just might be misplaced. (Called projection).

When I was addicted to smoking, I had low regard for smokers and for my own habit. I didn't look for some national personality to project my self anger at though.

90 posted on 10/04/2003 1:41:32 PM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: WackyKat
It's just ironic that when it's Rush's t#t in the wringer, he begins behaving in a way that is very, er, Clintonesque, shall we say?

And you think that the statement you recommended would not just fuel such claims? It's got holes all over it.

91 posted on 10/04/2003 1:41:38 PM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian
"Rush's biggest mistake in this fiasco is hiring a loser for a maid and letting her get too close. Memo to Rush: do a better job vetting the hired help."

True. However, the supply of good-quality employees willing to be servants for rich people is not large. Rich people tend to expect a lot from their servants in terms of long hours and nit-picky demands. Because many people do not want that kind of job, it is not uncommon for small-time criminals to attach themselves to rich people through service jobs and then to steal from them or harm them. Just one example: Doris Duke may have been killed by a butler who got her to name him as executor of her estate (a very lucrative position), if I recall correctly.

92 posted on 10/04/2003 1:43:16 PM PDT by Irene Adler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
"When I was addicted to smoking, I had low regard for smokers and for my own habit."

Good thing you quit.

You were a danger to yourself.

No, or low self esteem?

Could'a been suicide material.

Glad you quit.

93 posted on 10/04/2003 1:46:31 PM PDT by G.Mason (Lessons of life need not be fatal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows
Yes, Satan was the first Democrat.
94 posted on 10/04/2003 1:47:13 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Either you are an American or you are a Liberal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Well he has signed a contract worth 250 million reasons for him not to screw up.

I straightened up for a lot fewer reasons.
95 posted on 10/04/2003 1:52:35 PM PDT by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: WHBates
I straightened up for a lot fewer reasons.

I agree, but Elvis and others didn't.

96 posted on 10/04/2003 1:55:41 PM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
You come accross as someone who has special issues with the WOD in general and that Rush is merely a focal point for your anger, which just might be misplaced. (Called projection).

Oh yes. I was waiting for that. Criticize the WOD and the Drug Warriors will accuse you of being a doper.

Just another sleazy tactic of the WOD.

And no, I don't use illegal drugs; in fact, I barely drink beer.

Weren't cheap personal attacks part of the Clinton Administration arsenal as well?

It sounds like some of the monster you opposed has rubbed off on you.

97 posted on 10/04/2003 1:55:58 PM PDT by WackyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: WackyKat
Lemme 'splain that to you WK.

"the never had sexual relations" thing was uttered by a master criminal who had no problems lying to his staff and the country.

He was impeached but not convicted.

The poster was trying to indicate to you that it is all too easy to make a statement like that.

If Mark Furman hadn't denied using the N word, all would have been well with him (well, it is now anyway, I'm glad to say).

Rush has hired a good lawyer. He has been hit with charges that are, in all probability completely bogus, but that must be dealt with. The best thing he can do right now is withhold comment and let the matter unfold.

Now, you apparently would be right out front screaming your innocence. So was Clinton.
98 posted on 10/04/2003 2:00:03 PM PDT by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
They problem with Clinton's pronunciation is that he did have relations with "that woman". Are you saying that ultimtely Rush will have to also admit to his charges. If such is the case, then why not open up now as he advised Clinton?
99 posted on 10/04/2003 2:00:11 PM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
But, But, But, I was just watching Brokaw, Rather, and Jennings last night and they said he was in big, big trouble!!This can't be true!

/sarcasm off
100 posted on 10/04/2003 2:00:44 PM PDT by rs79bm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-210 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson