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

Skip to comments.

Hooked on Rush
BitPig Online ^ | 2003.10.10 | BitPig (B-Chan)

Posted on 10/10/2003 4:42:38 PM PDT by B-Chan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 281-284 next last
To: B-Chan
Dear Mr. Gunslingr3: Please review the Forum Rules regarding ad hominem posts. Sincerely, B-Chan

Dear Mrs. B-Chan,

Have a link?

141 posted on 10/10/2003 5:56:06 PM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: truthandjustice1
My point was that it’s dangerous to idolize a radio talk show host. I'm sure I would agree with a lot of Rush's views. I’ve been reading posts where people believe there would be no conservative movement without Rush. That is total BS, Rush is popular for the simple fact that his views reflect the ideals that many people have. Rush is free to destroy himself, but in the end doing so is not going change the reason for his popularity nor should it have any impact on what people hold true.
142 posted on 10/10/2003 5:57:39 PM PDT by TBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
"Popular radio show host Rush Limbaugh revealed today that he is addicted to illegally-obtained prescription painkillers and is entering a rehabilitation program for substance abusers."

Get it right.

143 posted on 10/10/2003 5:57:58 PM PDT by k2blader (Haruspex, beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
The piling on is something else.


144 posted on 10/10/2003 6:00:43 PM PDT by rdb3 (Whoever said progress is a slow process wasn't talking about me. I'm an N-U-P-E.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Nice of you to add your prosthesis to something that should be an original post.

Currently the only people i know who change articles to fit their ideas of a situation are democrats and liberals if you wanted to "bash rush" why didnt you just write a vanity ? of course by adding that word to the thread you did write one !

I guess the original was'nt harsh enough you feel maybe a little more defimation of character would be fitting

Well im happy to see "your" character is showing

As for punctuation i really dont give a darn weather you like it or not you understood it !

145 posted on 10/10/2003 6:01:11 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: ChadsDad
.......careful of the common folk Yes, indeed! Besides, BRILLIANCE is in the eye and ears of the beholder.
146 posted on 10/10/2003 6:02:21 PM PDT by desertcry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: avg_freeper
True liberty and equality (not absolution from personal responsibility) meshes perfectly with conservatism. Thomas G. West explains this quite well in "The Conservatism of the Declaration of Independence".

Thank you for posting that interesting link. I disagree with West's analysis of equality, but his points are well-taken nevetheless. As a partial rebuttal, I refer you to “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” by James Fitzjames Stephen, who writes:

First, as to the proposition that justice requires that all people should live in society as equals. I have already shown that this is equivalent to the proposition that it is expedient that all people should live in society as equals. Can this be proved? for it is certainly not a self-evident proposition.

I think that if the rights and duties which laws create are to be generally advantageous, they ought to be adapted to the situation of the persons who enjoy or are subject to them. They ought to recognize both substantial equality and substantial inequality, and they should from time to time be so moulded and altered as always to represent fairly well the existing state of society. Government, in a word, ought to fit society as a man's clothes fit him. To establish by law rights and duties which assume that people are equal when they are not is like trying to make clumsy feet 1ook handsome by the help of tight boots. No doubt it may be necessary to legislate in such a manner as to correct the vices of society or to protect it against special dangers or diseases to which it is liable. Law in this case is analogous to surgery, and the rights and duties imposed by it might be compared to the irons which are sometimes contrived for the purpose of supporting a weak limb or keeping it in some particular position. As a rule, however, it is otherwise. Rights and duties should be so moulded as to clothe, protect, and sustain society in the position which it naturally assumes. The proposition, therefore, that justice demands that people should live in society as equals may be translated thus:--"It is inexpedient that any law should recognize any inequality between man beings."

This appears to me to involve the assertion, "There are no inequalities between human beings of sufficient importance to influence the rights and duties which it is expedient to confer upon them." This proposition I altogether deny. I say that there are many such differences, some of which are more durable and more widely extended than others, and of which some are so marked and so important that unless human nature is radically changed, we cannot even imagine their removal; and of these the differences of age and sex are the most important.

The difference of age is so distinct a case of inequality that even Mr. Mill does not object to its recognition. He admits, as every one must, that perhaps a third or more of the average term of human life--and that the portion of it in which the strongest, the most durable, and beyond all comparison the most important impressions are made on human beings, the period in which character is formed--must be passed by everyone in a state of submission, dependence, and obedience to orders the objects of which are usually most imperfectly understood by the persons who receive them. Indeed, as I have already pointed out, Mr Mill is disposed rather to exaggerate than to underrate the influence of education and the powers of educators. Is not this a clear case of inequality of the strongest kind, and does it not at all events afford a most instructive precedent in favour of the recognition by law of a marked natural distinction? If children were regarded by law as the equals of adults, the result would be something infinitely worse than barbarism. It would involve a degree of cruelty to the young which can hardly be realized even in imagination. The proceeding, in short, would be so utterly monstrous and irrational that I suppose it never entered into the head of the wildest zealot for equality to propose it.

Upon the practical question all are agreed; but consider the consequences which it involves. It involves the consequence that, so far from being "unfortunate necessities," command and obedience stand at the very entrance to life, and preside over the most important part of it. It involves the consequence that the exertion of power and constraint is so important and so indispensable in the greatest of all matters, that it is a less evil to invest with it every head of a family indiscriminately, however unfit he may be to exercise it, than to fail to provide for its exercise. It involves the consequence that by mere lapse of time and by following the promptings of passion men acquire over others a position of superiority and of inequality which all nations and ages, the most cultivated as well as the rudest, have done their best to surround with every association of awe and reverence. The title of Father is the one which the best part of the human race have given to God, as being the least inadequate and inappropriate means of indicating the union of love, reverence, and submission. Whoever gave the command or uttered the maxim, "Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land," had a far better conception of the essential conditions of permanent national existence and prosperity than the author of the motto Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

[Source]

I also recommend that you read The Conservatism FAQ by James Kalb. Food for thought may be found there.

Again, thanks for the useful link.

147 posted on 10/10/2003 6:05:13 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: LS
Not to mention the cocain snorting bent one, who has a perfectly healthy back, though have a wrecked nose.
148 posted on 10/10/2003 6:06:05 PM PDT by desertcry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
not on the level of Russell Kirk....... You sound like an elitist, though maybe not a liberal one. Somehow, I see a dis-connect here.
149 posted on 10/10/2003 6:10:19 PM PDT by desertcry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ChadsDad
Yes, you are right on the money!
150 posted on 10/10/2003 6:11:33 PM PDT by desertcry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: desertcry
You sound like an elitist...

I am an elitist.

151 posted on 10/10/2003 6:11:35 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
I have been a ditto head for 10 years and I must say that I am very dissapointed in Rush for 2 reasons. First he didnt come clean until he was caught. Consevatives have a major problem with people who admit to their problems and beg for forgiveness after they are caught. Rush knew he had a problem, he went to rehab twice,he should have come clean long ago. Like it or not Rush has made himself a public figure and he has a responsibility to his fans and his cause. Those of you who think he hasn't done consevatism any damage are living a dream. He may not have hurt true conservatives but he has damaged our credibility with those who are on the fence. They will now say that we aren't any different than the libs.
Second I am dissapointed that he continued to demonize drug use when he himself had a drug problem. Granted the drugs were prescribed and he had a physical problem but he should know better than to put himself in the position of being called a hypocrite.
Having said all of that I will pray for Rush and hope for his recovery. He can rescue his reputation if he handles his return with humility and humor. He should face whatever consequences of his actions like the man he is. If he has broken the law admit to it and pay the price. I shudder to think of a Rush with his mind not affected by drugs, he could do great things.
152 posted on 10/10/2003 6:12:11 PM PDT by gocats123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
Yes. Well said. I knew there had to be a good, if one can call it that, reason. Even now though, the libs are rejoicing. If I had to suffer chronic pain, and those kind of problems are very painful, I don't know that I wouldn't become addicted as well. How does one live with the pain? Maybe there are pain management programs which can help.
Anyway, from my heart, I wish him well.







153 posted on 10/10/2003 6:13:29 PM PDT by Sasha152 (Sasha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Again, thanks for the useful link.

The Claremont Institute has a number of well-written thought provoking articles.

154 posted on 10/10/2003 6:13:57 PM PDT by avg_freeper (Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
Clever of you to see this, Arth. I think you're right.
155 posted on 10/10/2003 6:15:33 PM PDT by Savage Beast (Has the Fall of California been averted--or merely postponed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: FreedomSurge
Why do you think that the liberal elites and the demonrat party are pouring it on? They are doing it to Rush what they have done to Arnold, the Terminator.
156 posted on 10/10/2003 6:15:48 PM PDT by desertcry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Just because you say it is the truth does not make it true. I continue to support Rush even in this time of difficulty.

You better hope you never have his kind of pain or problems.
157 posted on 10/10/2003 6:19:29 PM PDT by arjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
....... forbidden. No, Fair criticism is not forbidden, but you can expect a strong rebutal here in FR if you are unfair.
158 posted on 10/10/2003 6:21:13 PM PDT by desertcry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Rush is respected for what he believes and stands for. It's insulting and absurd to suggest those that listen are guilty of hero worship.
159 posted on 10/10/2003 6:22:04 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
Maybe I missed the part of Rush's statement where he stated these pills were illegally-obtained. He states "prescribed medication".
160 posted on 10/10/2003 6:22:30 PM PDT by phalynx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 281-284 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