Discussion:
Only Pussies Sympathize with Dope Fiend Ru$h!!!!
(too old to reply)
Enceladus
2003-10-16 20:36:40 UTC
Permalink
See, I told you so?
Curse of liberal wimpathy prohibits rubbing Rush's nose in it

BOSTON -- After all these years, I have finally come up with the
definition of a liberal wimp. It's someone who feels sorry for Rush
Limbaugh.
Here is a man who has kept 20 million dittoheads on a closed loop of
right-wing rhetoric for three hours a day, five days a week, for 15 years.
Here is a man for whom the word "bombastic" was invented.

Imagine what he would say about some "feminazi" caught popping 30
illegal pills a day. Imagine how forgiving he would be to an "environmental
wacko" scoring OxyContin while tree-hugging. Or any liberal who had to be
outed by the National Enquirer before he took "full responsibility for my
problem."

This is a man who created so many petards over the years, it's hard to
know which one to hoist him on. How about the title of his book: "See, I
Told You So." Or how about one of his many tirades against druggies: "The
answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict
them and send them up the river too." It's Rush, after all, who complained,
"We're becoming too tolerant, folks."

But everytime I rev up a rant, I imagine the demi-god of dittoheads
skulking around a Denny's parking lot to get his fix. I imagine the man
waiting, surely, for his housekeeper/drug dealer to drop a dime. I imagine a
lonesome, 275-pound guy who apparently never even told his wife when he went
into rehab and relapse twice. A man so hooked he may have sacrificed his
hearing to his little blues.

And I, gulp, feel sorry for him.

This is the curse of liberal wimpathy. Conservatives talk of right and
wrong. Liberals talk of strengths and weaknesses. The right thinks of drug
abuse in particular as a moral failing; the left thinks of it as a medical
illness. When one of ours goes bad, they jump on him like a churchyard dog.
When one of theirs goes bad, we tend to ... understand.

With a few exceptions, conservatives have shown some fancy footwork in
defending Rush. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum said, "I don't think any
less of him for having ordinary frailties." Gary Bauer, president of
American Values, made a moral distinction between getting addicted in order
to get high and getting addicted to kill pain. Rich Lowry, editor of
National Review, defended him to Don Imus because Rush never claimed to be a
victim. And a dittohead caller on his show said, "we all make mistakes."

Meanwhile opponents, like this wimpette, who would generally like to
put a sock in his mouth, are restrained to the point of gentility. Even Al
Franken, who wrote "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot," said, "I don't wish
that (drug addiction) on anyone." Joe Conason, author of "Big Lies," said,
"It's hard not to feel sorry for anyone whose suffering causes them to
hustle narcotics." And Howie Kurtz, the media voice of a favorite Rush
target, The Washington Post, wrote, "I suspect most people, even those who
can't stand the guy, will see a man struggling with his personal demons and
be careful about condemning him for his weakness."
nobody
2003-10-16 23:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enceladus
See, I told you so?
Curse of liberal wimpathy prohibits rubbing Rush's nose in it
BOSTON -- After all these years, I have finally come up with the
definition of a liberal wimp. It's someone who feels sorry for Rush
Limbaugh.
Here is a man who has kept 20 million dittoheads on a closed loop of
right-wing rhetoric for three hours a day, five days a week, for 15 years.
Here is a man for whom the word "bombastic" was invented.
Imagine what he would say about some "feminazi" caught popping 30
illegal pills a day. Imagine how forgiving he would be to an
"environmental
Post by Enceladus
wacko" scoring OxyContin while tree-hugging. Or any liberal who had to be
outed by the National Enquirer before he took "full responsibility for my
problem."
This is a man who created so many petards over the years, it's hard to
know which one to hoist him on. How about the title of his book: "See, I
Told You So." Or how about one of his many tirades against druggies: "The
answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict
them and send them up the river too." It's Rush, after all, who complained,
"We're becoming too tolerant, folks."
But everytime I rev up a rant, I imagine the demi-god of dittoheads
skulking around a Denny's parking lot to get his fix. I imagine the man
waiting, surely, for his housekeeper/drug dealer to drop a dime. I imagine a
lonesome, 275-pound guy who apparently never even told his wife when he went
into rehab and relapse twice. A man so hooked he may have sacrificed his
hearing to his little blues.
And I, gulp, feel sorry for him.
This is the curse of liberal wimpathy. Conservatives talk of right and
wrong. Liberals talk of strengths and weaknesses. The right thinks of drug
abuse in particular as a moral failing; the left thinks of it as a medical
illness. When one of ours goes bad, they jump on him like a churchyard dog.
When one of theirs goes bad, we tend to ... understand.
With a few exceptions, conservatives have shown some fancy footwork in
defending Rush. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum said, "I don't think any
less of him for having ordinary frailties." Gary Bauer, president of
American Values, made a moral distinction between getting addicted in order
to get high and getting addicted to kill pain. Rich Lowry, editor of
National Review, defended him to Don Imus because Rush never claimed to be a
victim. And a dittohead caller on his show said, "we all make mistakes."
Meanwhile opponents, like this wimpette, who would generally like to
put a sock in his mouth, are restrained to the point of gentility. Even Al
Franken, who wrote "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot," said, "I don't wish
that (drug addiction) on anyone." Joe Conason, author of "Big Lies," said,
"It's hard not to feel sorry for anyone whose suffering causes them to
hustle narcotics." And Howie Kurtz, the media voice of a favorite Rush
target, The Washington Post, wrote, "I suspect most people, even those who
can't stand the guy, will see a man struggling with his personal demons and
be careful about condemning him for his weakness."
Funny how all the liberals in here are having a field day with it. As is
usual with liberals, this guy is out of touch; even among his own type.



_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
The Enlightenment
2003-10-17 07:41:41 UTC
Permalink
"Enceladus" <***@saturn.net> wrote in message news:<yjDjb.960$***@iad-read.news.verio.net>...

Rush Libaugh is addicted to prescription pain killers which he was
placed upon by his surgeon after a failed spine opperation.

If you suffered from a herniated disk for the rest of you life would
you deserve any sympathy?

Here is the truth:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20031016.shtml

With half his brain tied behind his back
Ann Coulter (archive)

October 16, 2003

So liberals have finally found a drug addict they don't like. And
unlike the Lackawanna Six &#8211; those high-spirited young lads
innocently seeking adventure in an al-Qaida training camp in
Afghanistan &#8211; liberals could find no excuses for Rush Limbaugh.

After years of the mainstream media assuring us that Rush was a
has-been, a nobody, yesterday's news &#8211; the Rush painkiller story
was front-page news last week. (Would anyone care if Howell Raines
committed murder?) The airwaves and print media were on red alert with
Rush's admission that, after an unsuccessful spinal operation a few
years ago, he became addicted to powerful prescription painkillers.

Rush Limbaugh's misfortune is apparently a bigger story than his
nearly $300 million radio contract signed two years ago. That was the
biggest radio contract in broadcasting history. Yet there are only 12
documents on LexisNexis that reported it. The New York Times didn't
take notice of Rush's $300 million radio contract, but a few weeks
later, put Bill Clinton's comparatively measly $10 million book
contract on its front page. Meanwhile, in the past week alone,
LexisNexis has accumulated more than 50 documents with the words "Rush
Limbaugh and hypocrisy." That should make up for the 12 documents on
his $300 million radio contract.

The reason any conservative's failing is always major news is that it
allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy!
Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as
liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people
for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It's
an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers,
draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being
hypocrites.

At least Rush wasn't walking into church carrying a 10-pound Bible
before rushing back to the Oval Office for sodomy with Monica
Lewinsky. He wasn't enforcing absurd sexual harassment guidelines
while dropping his pants in front of a half-dozen subordinates.
(Evidently, Clinton wasn't a hypocrite because no one was supposed to
take seriously the notion that he respected women or believed in God.)

Rush has hardly been the anti-drug crusader liberals suggest. Indeed,
Rush hasn't had much to say about drugs at all since that spinal
operation. The Rush Limbaugh quote that has been endlessly recited in
the last week to prove Rush's rank "hypocrisy" is this, made eight
years ago: "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And
we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs,
importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing
drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and
they ought to be sent up."

What precisely are liberals proposing that Rush should have said to
avoid their indignant squeals of "hypocrisy"? Announce his support for
the wide and legal availability of a prescription painkiller that may
have caused him to go deaf and nearly ruined his career and wrecked
his life? I believe that would have been both evil and hypocritical.

Or is it simply that Rush should not have become addicted to
painkillers in the first place? Well, no, I suppose not. You've caught
us: Rush has a flaw. And yet, the wily hypocrite does not support
flaws!

When a conservative can be the biggest thing in talk radio, earning
$30 million a year and attracting 20 million devoted listeners every
week &#8211; all while addicted to drugs &#8211; I'll admit liberals
have reason to believe that conservatives are some sort of super-race,
incorruptible by original sin. But the only perfect man hasn't walked
the Earth for 2,000 years. In liberals' worldview, any conservative
who is not Jesus Christ is ipso facto a "hypocrite" for not publicly
embracing dissolute behavior the way liberals do.

In fact, Rush's behavior was not all that dissolute. There is a
fundamental difference between taking any drug &#8211; legal, illegal,
prescription, protected by the 21st Amendment or banned by Michael
Bloomberg &#8211; for kicks and taking a painkiller for pain.

There is a difference morally and a difference legally. While slamming
Rush, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz recently told Wolf
Blitzer, "Generally, people who illegally buy prescription drugs are
not prosecuted, whereas people who illegally buy cocaine and heroin
are prosecuted." What would the point be? Just say no to back surgery?

I haven't checked with any Harvard Law professors, but I'm pretty sure
that, generally, adulterous drunks who drive off bridges and kill
girls are prosecuted. Ah, but Teddy Kennedy supports adultery and
public drunkenness &#8211; so at least you can't call him a hypocrite!
That must provide great consolation to Mary Jo Kopechne's parents.

I have a rule about not feeling sorry for people worth $300 million,
but I'm feeling sentimental. Evan Thomas wrote a cover story on Rush
for Newsweek this week that was so vicious it read like conservative
satire. Thomas called Rush a "schlub," "socially ill at ease," an
Elmer Gantry, an actor whose "act has won over, or fooled, a lot of
people." He compared Rush to the phony TV evangelist Jim Bakker and
recommended that Rush start to "make a virtue out of honesty."
(Liberals can lie under oath in legal proceedings and it's a "personal
matter." Conservatives must scream their every failing from the
rooftops or they are "liars.")

As is standard procedure for profiles of conservatives, Newsweek
gathered quotes on Rush from liberals, ex-wives and dumped dates.
Covering himself, Thomas ruefully remarked that "it's hard to find
many people who really know him." Well, there was me, Evan! But I
guess Newsweek didn't have room for the quotes I promptly sent back to
the Newsweek researchers. I could have even corrected Newsweek's
absurd account of how Rush met his current wife. (It's kind of cute,
too: She was a fan who began arguing with him about something he said
on air.)

Thomas also made the astute observation that "Rush Limbaugh has always
had far more followers than friends." Needless to say, this floored
those of us who were shocked to discover that Rush does not have 20
million friends.

So the guy I really feel sorry for is Evan Thomas. How would little
Evan fare in any competitive media? Any followers? Any fans? Any
readers at all? And he's not even addicted to painkillers! This week,
Rush proved his motto: He really can beat liberals with half his brain
tied behind his back.


Ann Coulter is host of AnnCoulter.org, a TownHall.com member group.

©2003 Universal Press Syndicate

Contact Ann Coulter | Read Coulter's biography

Just released: Ann Coulter's latest!
Treason
The latest Ann Coulter book has finally arrived! In this stunning
follow-up to her #1 NY Times bestseller, Slander, Coulter contends
that liberals have stood with the enemies of American interests in
every major crisis from the fight against Communism to today's war on
terrorism. Order now to receive the book that is selling better than
Hillary's memoirs!
marbel
2003-10-17 14:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Enlightenment
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20031016.shtml
With half his brain tied behind his back
Ann Coulter (archive)
grin, Ann Coulter, isn't that the lady who on TV said that she would
not want her friends to be convicted for murder is they commited
murder? And Russ L., isn't he the guy who repeatedly argued that drug
addicts should be punished heavier - and seen how coloured addicts are
punished heavier the balans of justice would be best served by
convicting more upperclass white drug addicts?

Marjolein
--
www.noyce.nl
John Starrett
2003-10-17 18:17:29 UTC
Permalink
The Enlightenment wrote:
<snip>

Truth and Coulter in the same post? Aren't you afraid of an antimatter-
matter type annihilation?
--
John Starrett



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Loading...