My apologies to the forum members for not fully understanding the rules for posting new topics.

My new question is as follows:

Is personally attacking the character of individuals an acceptable form of public debate?

More specifically, should liberals use the allegations against Rush Limbaugh to attack his integrity?

The following is my opinion as referenced from Rush Limbaugh Drug Disgrace: Opportunity for All.

Why not, Rush does it all the time. In fact, it's classical Rush Limbaugh to attack the 'character' of 'liberals' to attack their integrity. What comes around goes around as far as I'm concerned.

Unless Rush is a member of America's Debate, I doubt that attacking his integrity, slamming his reputation, and dissing him as a right-wing nut would be consdered a violation of the rules as long as profanity or vulgarity are not used.

Could we get a Moderator to weigh in on this?

truthfully, he's just an entertainer. He's not an elected official so who cares. Hey, at least he's a functioning junkie...if he's a junkie at all. He pays his bills and isn't a drain on society.

I think attacking someone's character in political debate, can be legitimate, if the person can be proven to have broken the law, or seriously bent his ethical integrity, while lecturing others about the same thing. Hypocrisy, lying and law breaking are major violations in the integrity of the one doing the preaching.

That said, there is no evidence yet that this has happened in Rush's case. I know that he has spoken out about illegal drug users on his show, and if he has been proven to violate this himself, then he's fair game. But until that time, it's unfair, I think to trash him on this, just because of the allegation.

To piggy back...It is classic Ruch to attack someones character (He will probably find a way to link Clinton's sex scandals to Kay not finding WMD yet). But this is the game he is in and if you dish it you have to be able to take it.

On a side note....Doctors so freely pass out these pain medications that are highly addictive. It is a sad situation for anyone that has gone through a major surgery or problem where the doctor just keeps passing them pain pills. It becomes such a hard addiction to break

Oh, if it turns out to be true, everybody should go for the jugular, and if possible, catch him with the drug, throw him in jail for life in prison without possibility of parole. I have always loved to see self-righteous hate mongers get a taste of thier own medicine. It is very similar to the Swaggart thing, I loved it whent that particular piece of human offal bought it as well.

Rush Limbaugh is more than just an entertainer because he uses his act as a means to further a political agenda. He is an activist who may be proven to be a hypocrite. I don't wish anything bad on the man, but I hope this may serve to teach his listeners that there is no such thing as a perfectly moral person, therefore [B]NO ONE{/B] has the right to judge other people for what they do. I only hope that this becomes the death of his propaganda machine.

Absolutely. To not attack is to not be in the fight.

So, what liberals have attacked Rush? Have any politicians, journalists, commentators or whatever questioned his integrity? I suppose lots of folks have in AD, but what about those with broader audiences?

I called him a "blowhard" recently, and I stand by my assessment of character. He doesn't need a drug problem to be a blowhard either. Just a big mouth.

However, there's a better strategy here than attack. Just let him wallow in the mudhole of his own making. Revealing the truth about someone isn't an attack; it's just revealing the truth about someone.

This liberal doesn't feel anything in particular about Rush's alleged drug abuse. We ought to legalize all this stuff, but I do wonder how hardcore dittoheads feel about this. Betrayed? Defensive? Abused and confused? It's that darn liberal media again?

And I also wonder if this is a setup, not by the liberals but by the conservatives who have control. Maybe Rush isn't serving their needs any longer. Maybe they need to shut him up because the spins he puts out aren't in synch with the spins the controlling conservatives want to put out, whatever they may be.

I don't think the controlling conservatives really know.

It has been said that politics makes for strange bedfellows, and this seems to be true in this case. As distasteful as I find Mister Limbaugh's form of entertainment, I cannot find it within myself to condemn anyone who has become habituated to addictive substances as a result of attempts to control pain. We are all fragile creatures, and there is almost no limit to what we will risk in order to relieve our sufferings.

(Does anyone have any more facts about this situation? So far I only see allegations, and the principle of "innocent before proven guilty" should certainly apply.)

This is a private medical situation between Mister Limbaugh and his physicians. If illegal means were used to obtain these medications, this should be secondary to medical treatment for substance addiction.

hmmm, quite an emotional response CR.

It might interest you to know that Rush still has support...albeit from the "self-righteous war-mongers", so named by CR.

http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla...180&xlc=1064695

Emotional? Sure! I said hate mongers, not war mongers BTW- Rush has lived by attacking others, calling others drug dealers, telling listeners to "take the bone out of his nose" etc as a career. Poeple like that deserve what they get when it comes their way. Like I said, for all his "tough on drugs" stance and belittling addicts and whatnot. I hope they find out he has been doing it illegally and throw him in jail so HE can date the guy with the most cigarettes! Really, he should absolutely reap what he has sewn, after all, he has been dealing it out, let's see if he can take it.

I think Limbaugh escapes criticism from his targets simply because no-one except the extremely intellectually challenged could take him seriously. So they just ignore him, just as they'd ignore any other wacko shouting in the street.

CR, do you see the irony in your comments? I couldn't stop chuckling...


pheeler said:


I feel quite the opposite. For one, in the most exaggerated example, an absence of judgement would result in no justice system.

More practically, I think it is important that we do judge other people and their behaviors. If someone does the wrong thing, someone should say and/or do something about. For example, if no one mentioned the irony (hypocrisy?) of CR's previous statements, he would not have the opportunity to re-evaluate his position and decide for himself whether or not he is in fact acting in the same manner of which he is so critical of Mr. Limbaugh.

More specifically regarding the topic, I have a tough time buying the notion of addiction as a disease (at least in the traditional sense). You can't just stop having cancer but it is possible to not buy another pack of cigarettes or shoot-up a bit of heroin. (Of course, with that said, I am very careful. I have never smoked nor used illicit drugs and I drink in a controlled way - I have never been drunk. I understand I could be wrong about addiction and finding out the hard way just isn't worth the risk.)

However, when a person who touts personal responsibility as much as Rush does become an addict, it lends a bit more credence to the addiction is a disease notion. My criticism of Rush would be that he did not come forward and get help sooner. Someone of his supposed level of personal responsibility should have been more on the ball in this regard. (I imagine this would be a criticism he would acknowledge as having merit.) Also, had he or those around him who were of his situation been more proactive, he may have been able to get help before he found himself in legal trouble.

We should all be judgemental of our friends and family when they are doing the wrong thing. Doing so can prevent them from doing harm to themselves. Isn't that the point of the "Don't Let Your Friends Drive Drunk" campaign? Passing judgement and taking action on the state of another person before they plow into another vehicle or a lamppost?

Should he go to jail? If he broke the law and the nature of the crime dictates that sentence. Should he be raped (as CR suggested)? I think that is a tough position to defend, especially by someone who considers him or herself a compassionate individual.

M L Iserman


(For those interested, I had a rather interesting article and exchange which resulted in the alienation of a grandparent and aunt. They didn't like that I passed judgement on her {my aunt's} behavior as a parent.)
How Discipline Saved My Life

I am compasionate to those less fortunate than myself, but for those that has made a living of kicking poeple while they are down like Rush, that has never had to worry about his next meal, or worry about the electric bill being due, get some of his own medicine is great. Poeple that don't have money and have minor drug crimes, far more inane, get raped in prison every day. Considering Rush's multiple statements of moral and intellectual superiority over everyone ("talent on loan from God, should have said talent on loan from Oxycontin, which makes me feel like God") I would be very happy for him to get the very worst our prison system has to offer, with the stiffest sentence. I feel the same compassion I do for him as Swaggart and all his condemnation of sinners, while he was doing nasty things to hookers, which is to say, none. I love nothing more than to see these holier than thous get the worst that they could possibly get coming to them.

CruisingRam wrote:


An outstanding post CR and I couldn’t agree more. Similarly I think that people who make and enforce laws should get twice the maximum sentence when convicted of breaking those laws, but that is another issue all together. I personally don’t think that anyone should do ANY prison time for the personal use of ANY drug, legal or not. However, since we have these draconian laws and Rush has said that people who abuse drugs belong in prison (not a direct quote), then by his own statements that’s where he belongs. Do the crime do the time, no exceptions. Although I don’t agree with the laws, I know that it is illegal to smoke crack for example, and I know full well the consequences if caught. Therefore, if I wind up in prison for doing so, it is my own fault. I don’t think that Rush should go to prison any more than I think that a guy sitting in his home smoking a joint should, but the law is the law, right?

Yes, the law is the law. There is also a wide range of sentencing options. Normally someone with no priors, in a case involving illegal purchase of prescription drugs, does not get sentenced to jail, much less prison. Rush's personal opinion on the need to punish drug users is immaterial.

Yes, giving people harsher sentences, based on their political speech, is a wonderful idea. I guess the 1st Amendment does not apply to those who oppose the ideas of the modern liberal.

Hugo wrote:


According to Rush’s own “personal opinion” he himself “ought to be accused”, “ought to be convicted” and “ought to be sent up”, so I don’t see his opinion on this as immaterial at all.

That's so interesting that before this drug business perpetrated by syndicates of liberalism, according to themselves, they didn't care or agree with anything Rush said. Now they wanna live by his word like it was gospel .

Every human is a hypocrite. It's part of the human condition. Those who say they are not are just the same as those that accuse Rush. What Skeletons would we find in your closet?

Rush Limbaugh was engaging in political speech. The major purpose of the free speech section of the 1at Amendment was not to protect pornography, it was to protect political speech. Let us punish political speech, let us ignore the 1st Amendment. The Constitution is really getting in the way of throwing conservatives in jail.

No, they want him to live by his word. When confronted with someone whose actions contradict their words it's likely that someone will agree with one or the other, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't be critical of the inconsistency itself. It's the inconsistency itself, not the two inconsistent endpoints, that's objectionable.



Speak for yourself. Most of us do not surrender to hypocrisy but strive to avoid it.



Even if there were something, that would have no bearing. Tu quoque has been a recognized fallacy for millennia, and it's even more offensive when the supposed matching offense is only assumed.



I don't think anyone's saying he shouldn't be allowed to speak. There's a big difference between being prevented from saying something and being held accountable for what you say. Trying to present this as a free speech issue is disingenuous at best, but no less than we've come to expect.

Johnlocke wrote:


I'd say that Rush had a T-Rex skeleton in his closet! As for me, no skeletons, just a few bones! I don't "wanna live by his word like it was gospel", but given that Rush made this statement publicly, I certainly think that he should.

No, no one stated he should not be allowed to speak. They did infer he should be judged more harshly in a court of law due to his political speech. Trying to misinterpret another's statements is exactly what I expect from you. Go back to reading Capitalism Magazine. Maybe you can find some better hate the poor quotes.

PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED. .

Pahleeeease Platypus. Get real. Of course people strive to remain non-hypocritical but people are still human. You must never have looked at another woman other than your wife? Or been angered by another man? Or ever been jealous of anyone in your life? Yet I'm sure in all your liberal propagandizing lifestyle you've walked around talking about adultery being wrong, hatred for another me being wrong and jealousy being a bad thing. Oooh Platypus... are you a Hypocrite? Yup... you're human.

People know what right and wrong is and they don't always do what is right. Should a crack addict father not tell his son not to smoke crack because it would be hypocrtical?

And when will people see the difference between a crack addict and a pill addict. There is a difference. Relativity isn't just a theory.

"They" equals one person (CruisingRam) and it's a pretty weak inference. CR was clearly expressing a personal hope, not a general principle of jurisprudence, and it still had nothing to do with free speech.

I'm sorry Platypus, they equals more than one person.....on the previous thread other people expressed the same opinion and I think that is what Hugo is also reffering to.

On a side note.... Are you still beyond reproach in your personal life/history that you can attack Rush Limbaugh???

johnlocke,

Your argument is inherently circular. People are criticizing Limbaugh because he criticized others for being immoral while he was far from it yet now you turn to the same argument your opponents have used to accuse them of being "holier than thou."

Are you still beyond reproach in your personal life/history that you can attack Platypus???

Am I still beyond reproach in my personal life/history that I can attack johnlocke???

Give it up, try a new tactic because this one will got you nowhere.


Hugo,



You referenced the 1st Amendment which states:



Nowhere does it state that the government can not punish you for what you say, else why would there be slander laws? The 1st Amendment reads that Congress can not legislate to block free speech, but it can still legislate consequences to your exertion of that right. You mentioned it as evidence to support your point:



Platypus interpreted your statement perfectly, you just didn't understand what you were saying in the first place.

Pheeler,
My argument is circular by nature of my point; Throwing stones at stone thrower, still makes you a stone thrower .

I am not above reproach and I admitted that, my point to Platypus was that he said he was above rproach. I did not.

Are you above reproach? I think you might fail that test too.

So you're tired of cyclical attacks on character that get no one anywhere? Me too. Leave Rush alone until he perjures himself.

There's a technical term for statements like yours. Three letters, starts with L. Do I need to spell out the rest?

How did this turn into a liberal bash, i mean come on, if you saw some guy on the street getting arrested for pills, i doubt he would be a thread on here. Its the same thing with o.j Simpson, in that our legal system is rather flawed or corrupt when it comes to dealing with individuals like this, rush will not see any jail time or prison time, i imagine he will most likely have to do more rehab time, that is the thing that does bother me though on a bi-partisan level, rehabilitation.

I don’t know exactly but i heard that he purchased around 150,000 dollars worth of oxycotin, do you think that’s tax deductible, i wonder if the heat does actually come down on him if he will turn states evidence for reduced punishment, but in all actuality he is Rush Limbaugh, not average Joe.

Platypus,
You really butchered my post to the point where it's about nonsensical. Here's the actual quote:

I even kept my grammatic error .

And I don't get your riddle, so now you're smarter than me and above reproach, at least in your own mind . Preception is a fancy plaything for some I suppose.

I initially didn't care about Rush's problem one way or another. My biggest concern was that too many fellow lefties would be extreme in their attacks. However, as much media play as it has been getting, most of what I've been seeing was just off hand jokes and suggestions that he be less of a hypocrite in the future. And this is about a man that, whether "just an entertainer" or not, has slung mountains of mud and vitriol at both fellow addicts and anyone on the left.

Most of the posts here have focused on his hypocrisy, hoping either that he get what he asked for or that he comes back a humbled man. That's tame enough to not bother me, but the stonewalling by his defenders has finally made this whole thing get under my skin. We shouldn't criticize him unless we loved him? He's a public figure that's been using puke tactics against us for years. We're personally involved. The idea that his statements and actions comprise no more hypocrisy than anyone else is insulting to everyone, not just one man who made himself a target.

People like Rush have long been obsessed with attacking the morality of flawed leaders of the left as proof liberals in general are stupid, crazy, or morally inferior; that anyone who supports Clinton, Al Gore, or Ted Kennedy is devoid of character by dint of their political preference.

If something like this came out about Clinton, do you think those on the Right who loathe the man- the G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, and Rush fans- would have been as constrained in exercising their right to point out the illegal behavior of a public figure? Even if Clinton hadn't expressly singled the behavior committed out for scorn?

I have no doubt that many lefties in such a scenario would come to our man's defense, perhaps using the exact arguments Rush fans have here. But I think the fact the posts here have descended into personal accusations both ways gives credence to the idea that private issues should largely not reflect on public life. As suggested, Rush can be right on the drug issue while being a druggie. And others who've never done drugs can be more compassionate.

Where was all this enlightenment on the Right during the Clinton scandals? Clinton can't do family values while being a crappy husband, like Gingrich and Livingstone? When did Chelsea get caught trying to score some beer on a fake i.d.? We can't tell Bob Casey not to tick off our base at the national convention, but the TX delegation can humiliate a gay GOP member speaking about economic issues?

My point here is that such personal attacks don't mean a thing, all matters such as this should be settled in court as they are for any other citizen, and anything that isn't a proven, recent major crime shouldn't be given the same weight as a substantive policy critique. I think Arnold wouldn't have been elected if admissions of sexual assault had been weighed heavily by the Dems or Repubs that voted for him.

So, will Rushites now respect that someone can be a valid public figure and human in private? Even if there's no 'R' next to their name? I'm assuming that all the Liddy and North fans out there don't mind when Dem presidents do coverups, of course.

I was actually debating a point made by mopar. If you actually followed the thread of the debate you would know that. Personal attack deleted.

Hugo wrote:


So what exactly did you want to debate? I’m all ears!

Please do not derail this topic by addressing any personal attacks. If you feel there has been a violation, use the 'report' feature.

The original question for debate was:

Is personally attacking the character of individuals an acceptable form of public debate?

More specifically, should liberals use the allegations against Rush Limbaugh to attack his integrity?

Edited to add: Hugo - don't send personal attacks by PM - even if asked. mopar, don't ask for them. -Jaime

On one side of it you have the Republican Party, which strongly tows the line of morality and almost the idea of the perfect way or person among various other ideas. Then you have Rush Limbaugh whom is a staunch republican some could say and has probably voiced on such issues before. Then you have to also factor in not only the atmosphere of Americas debate, but the overall political climate that exists today.

More along the lines one could ask is character assassination ever a good thing, or is such strategies positive for any kind of realization about something. More to the point is it just an easy way to weaken and opponent in the realm of politics, law and in daily life. Such a remark could be, "why should we trust him, he steals from bums" as an example of this behavior or tactic in a social setting. Truly, does such really deal with a problem or address what is the problem.

Then you do have to deal with the fact a person illegally purchased 150,000 dollars worth of a synthetic narcotic. Should this person be above the law, or above standards held so deeply by the group he represents, and if so, what does that really say about a lot of things.

On a personal level, i wonder why someone like Rush Limbaugh would do this, he obviously is not poor and could afford other methods to deal with pain or an addiction in the first place, was he trying to hide it, what was the process or thought process that lead him to doing such?

Attacking character is bad. However, negative conditioning is good. When people do something that's bad, and persist in doing it, making them regret it can be the only way to make them stop. It also discourages others from imitating the bad behavior. As with so many things, there will always be those who fail or refuse to see a distinction between punishing and initiating bad behavior, but that's life.

In Rush's case, the bad behavior is not just attack-dog behavior, but hypocrisy as well. Some people's reaction is pure schadenfreude, but for others it's an important reinforcement of the lesson about glass houses and throwing stones. None of us is above reproach, but we don't all live in glass houses. Rush didn't become a high-profile media personality by accident. He worked hard for that status, he relished it, and I dare say many people considered him an example of something positive. Now he's a different kind of example, and neither he nor his fans have any right to complain about that.

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword, and Rush made a whole career out of character assassination. This is poetic justice, and maybe those who witness it will heed the lesson.

Yes, but without knowing how Rush Limbaugh thinks, the negative correlation you made might not pull off as one to him, or what kind of negative would it be and at what kind of a level, the same applies for followers and or people related. We would have to have breaking the law is bad, and punishment ensues for all those whom disregard the law, in an absolute, so its rather muddy waters i would imagine, just on the base of different perspectives or orientations.

If we have people that scapegoat it in there mind, or a related group that goes along with the bi-partisan conditioning, that is all it will pull of to be is more of the same, the bi-partisan battle. I do imagine some republicans that will stick up for rush, and others that will be consumed with utter disgust, so it would be hard to use one person to gauge overall opinion on the matter.

So one would have to find out rush’s activity with the drugs, relate it to his reasons for, being besides he is rush Limbaugh he is still a person in this society, then run them against each other for guilt and level of punishment, which is all open to human error, such as the accused individuals position in this society, and how the society works, the various people running the case from all levels and so on and so on. This of course all starts another thread.

Personally attacking the character of the individual is unnecessary in the debate forum.
We should focus our arguments on his actions, and what the punishment or consequences of those actions should be...

He should be punished according to the law, if found guilty. That is what any citizen deserves. He's a U.S. citizen.
His celeberity status should in no way factor into the equation, in terms of the law.

Now, as a public figure he opens himself up to judgment and ridicule by the
very nature of the field in which he works. If he is going to judge others based on their
beliefs, weaknesses, etc., then it is more than fair game to hold him to the same moral standards that he holds others.

Plus, when he signed up to be a "celebrity" he should have understood that the knife "cuts both ways".

Why would he buy $150,000 worth of illegal narcotics? He looks like a guy that had/has a problem with over-indulgence.
He was quite over-weight at one time, and lost a lot. I wonder if he traded one addiction (food) for another (pills).....??
Who knows, it's only speculation.

Apparently he had a bad back - he could have looked into acupuncture.

Nile, do you have a link to verify this "fact"? You referenced it twice now, I am sure you have something credible to back it up.

As I said earlier, Rush Limbaugh does not, in fact, rail against drug addicts as some kind of societal scum. The guy has been on the air for 3 hours a day, 5 days a week for 15 years. That's (3x5x52x15) hours. Even if he is only on the air for half that time (vacations or whatever) that is over 5,000 hours of commentary. What has been forwarded as "hypocritical" is a few quotes which are almost tangential to the issue at hand. There has to be something better out there.

For those that do not listen to Rush Limbaugh, let me do a quick history lesson for you. He does not, to my knowledge, comment about personal behavior done in the privacy of one's home. He does not focus on individual behavior which does not affect others. His focus is political, mainly about how the liberals in this country use government (in his view) to advance the wrong objectives. He has commented on the personal behavior of political leaders. Most of that did not involve drug use, of course. But doing so is newsworthy: informing people of the actions of those who they may choose to lead them. It is relevant to the discussion of politics.

The reason that drug use, rehabilitation, or other aspects of drugs is not discussed on the Rush Limbaugh Program is that it is rarely relevant to political discussions.

I am of the opinion that one does not need to be wholly free of sin to discuss the wrongness of sin. Weakness is a part of the human condition. I would venture to say that every human has done things that they would not recommend to others. Things that they would not advocate, even while they continue to participate.

What I find hypocritical is the liberal response to issues such as this. Robert Byrd, ex-KKK member and recruiter, is given a pass on his past actions, while a comment intended as a complement to a retiring Senator by Trent Lott is jumped on as an indication of the rampant racism of Republicans. Democrat Marion Berry is applauded for rehabilitating himself and running (and winning) the position of Mayor of Washington DC. Berry did not own up to his original addiction, he was investigated, convicted, and sentenced. Limbaugh comes forward with his problem (with a little incentive) and is assailed as a hypocrite. Because in the course of 5,000 plus hours of commentary he made a few comments that, not knowing the context, are taken as gospel that Limbaugh is adamantly anti-drug.

I do respect that some here at least see the virtue that comes along with admitting you have a problem, rather than covering it up until the law actually convicts you. I wonder about those that would sentence a person more harshly because of who they are, or what their stances on political issues might be.

Just because Rush is dealing with addiction doesn't mean he's any less moral or honorable then any one of us.

Standing up and speaking for God and stressing the need for better moral behavior and higher standards is always a good thing.

Talent on loan from God is a humble statement, showing you conservative hating anger mongers that he doesn't claim to be a higher power, he represents one.

Remember, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

It's funny to hear all the libs attack Rush. You folks are the ones that believe marijuana and all drugs should be legal. And if he was a liberal there wouldn't be a story about it anywhere. (well, maybe one that showed which is a better high, oxycontin or valium)

Dennis Prager said it right, liberals have no moral standards to live up to so it's easy for them.

At least when Republicans fall they get back up, admit their shortcomings, learn from their mistake and become more moral people.

Instead of admitting their shortcomings, the liberals say "darn, I got caught, that's a stupid law!"

You're right, I apologize, you should have seen the ones I edited out.

Missed that one

. . .thanks for a post that does an excellent job at making my case for me. You:

1.) Ignored the fact that most of us were criticizing the man's hypocrisy, not focusing on the behavior. Like Amlord's comment on Marion Berry, you disregard that the calls are for the wish that Limbaugh get what he himself suggested as proper punishment. Not only wasn't I aware of Berry claiming to be a moral leader, I also missed where Berry or Byrd were great heroes to liberals.

2.) Continued the lauding him for coming forward and admitting the problem, and only after two failed attempts at rehab and his maid going to the press! No wonder you believe he's God's chosen representative!

3.) Asserted that all liberals want to legalize all drugs, something that is actually pushed most by the Libertarian party, those lovable, tax-hating, gun-loving folks. Not so much on the Democratic party platform. Ask libertarians which main party they lean toward.

4.) Asserted there'd be no media coverage if he was a liberal. That's why we've never heard of Ted Kennedy's legal love for alcohol, or Bill Clinton's sex exploits, etc. That's right, the country's not politically divided b/c average folk see the Religious Right as the mellower cousins of the Taliban, it's b/c liberal media outlets like Fox News, the Washington Times, and the Wall Street Journal kill conservative whistleblowers with their black UN helicopters.

5.) You make an excellent point on our moral inferiority as liberals. I await the day when conservatives can clean up the country and install Limbaugh, Adm. Poindexter, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, fmr. Rep. Livingstone, Newt Gingritch, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, James Baker, Bill Bennett, etc. to guide our morals and laws. I was hesitant to make the blanket statement that conservatives assert moral superiority more than liberals due, but you heard it here, folks: if you're liberal, all those listed above are better than you, especially if they didn't practice what they preach, b/c that's a growing experience!

Anyway, back to the more serious post from Amlord:

Yeah, we don't know everything about the legality of what Limbaugh did, and probably won't for at least a month. But it doesn't look very good, does it? As for comments on drugs in particular and personal behavior in general, I'm sure he'd backed off drugs comments a little since his first attempt at rehab failed. I think he does deserve credit for whatever extent he did that, although we'll see how much he changes now. I have a great deal of trouble believing, however, that he'd not attack a similar admission by a non-politician outspoken liberal. I just don't think Rush's strong point is honorable restraint.

So, to the main question, I think the only legitimate use of Limbaugh's problem is in the interest of disclosure. Limbaugh wasn't forthcoming until his chestnuts were in the fire, but arguably did back off the drug issue (the quote I keep seeing was 1995). If he comes back a wiser, humbler man, kudos. But my beef is with my doubt that we'll see any diminishing in social conservative's dubious claims at moral superiority, despite their decrying character assassination at any criticism of anyone with the R beside their name.

I have just joined and if i make any mistakes or break any rules,please let me know.

I am an independent and try to be unbiased.

I also try to stick to the facts and not rumors.

It definitely is a fact that Rush Limbaugh has been very critical and arrogant to certain people on the liberal side. He has been quoted in 1995 as saying drug users and drug dealers should be in prison. I believe you could use the old saying 'live by the sword and die by the sword'.

Also I have noticed quite a few conservative talk show hosts are using the terms courageous and so forth. He was already caught with the goods and I can't see how that can be courageous.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak.

This is the exact brand of pseudo-religious high-road conservative thought-speak that's causing liberals everywhere (myself included) to jump for joy at Rush getting nailed. Liberals have no moral standards? Who told you that? Oh, right - another self-styled paragon of virtue just like Rush who undoubtedly beheads prostitutes in his free time. IMO liberals are generally much more moral than conservatives, in a Judeo-Christian sense, since they care about what happens to other people and don't make stone-casting their stock in trade. And, no, bashing Rush doesn't equal throwing stones. No one's saying he shouldn't have done drugs. He just maybe shouldn't have done drugs after mocking Kurt Cobain's and Jerry Garcia's deaths, making fun of Bill Clinton's non-inhaling, and talking about how all drug offenders should be "sent up the river."

You could of course attempt to embellish your rather unsound argument even further. For example. let's say just hypothetically that Rush had been caught in the act of raping someone and the evidence obtained from this incident pointed to his guilt to other rapes (or for that matter any other felony). Would you still attempt to be a Rush apologist based on the thinly-veiled defense that he should be let off the hook just because "people strive to remain non-hypocritical but people are still human"?

No, the difference is abundantly clear here. Rush acted irresponsibly and illegaly by his very actions and he did so repeatedly. What I question here is why on earth do you believe for a moment that Rush Limbaugh is somehow above the law??

Actually, there isn't a difference. At least no distinctions that involve "character" or "morality", as I think you mean. Both types of addicts get buried exactly six feet deep, there are no such distinctions in the graveyard.

Do you think there are two separate wings at the Betty Ford center, one for "pathetic losers", and one for rich men who get carried away with pills?

Everything Rush is (hopefully) learning in treatment contradicts your statement. If Rush is to recover, he will need to understand and accept the fact that all addicts suffer from the same disease, and they all face the same recovery. Making distinctions between one type of drug and another is counterproductive to recovery.

One very important aspect of all drug treatment programs is treatment and education for the family members. With 20,000,000 Dittoheads that's not practical, and it's a shame because many millions of them will only get their false beliefs about addiction and recovery reinforced (unless Rush "tells it like it is").

Maybe after Rush comes clean physically he will not only feel his pain but others as well and will choose his target more wisely. And who knows maybe he'll even be a Democrat after he gets out!

What I find disgusting is the fact that so many liberals that were silent about Bill Clinton, Marion Berry and so many others find their righteous anger (albeit in a godless athiest way) just now. Drug addicts were heroes before now; they were martyrs. All of the sudden, those that cared so very little about the president's not inhaling find the need to pile on to a mere radio personality. Rush may come across as a hypocrite, but the pilers-on are no less hypocritical themselves!

By the way, I think it's interesting that anyone who holds a firm conservative opinion is classified as "self-righteous," "holier-than-thou," etc. Personally, I find such liberals as Howard Dean to be imminently more arrogant than Rush ever was.