[jaime1959]

> So, what you're saying is that Clinton apologists are the ones that are defending Rush Limbaugh? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. Could you please explain your theory. I'm truly intrigued! <

Cheezus! Are you really that dense?

I'm saying that a such reflexive attack on the messenger and blind allegiance to a person because they share your politics is reminiscent of how the libs behaved in lining up behind Clinton.

[Destructor]

"I'm saying that a such reflexive attack on the messenger and blind allegiance to a person because they share your politics is reminiscent of how the libs behaved in lining up behind Clinton."

No, I'm not dense. You're just doing a lousy job of articulating your point of view (must be a language barrier of some sort).

I'm amazed that you accuse me of "blind allegiance" to Rush Limbaugh when you've obviously jumped on the National Enquirer's, and mainstream Media's bandwagon. Have fun embarassing yourself!

[Hot Tabasco]

blind allegiance to a person because they share your politics

no, I dont think so. I prefer to follow the doctrine of innocent till proven guilty and prefer not to cast judgment on such a vague, unsubstantiated charge without having all the facts. And for those who profess to have all the facts in which to cast judgment on this issue, I have nothing but disgust.....