RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!!

RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Owner59 -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/11/2009 11:40:29 PM)
Sure,they all say is was because of a Dr. But when you get your house keeper to score your drugs on the street,it`s a bit past the stage of innocents. Why do you think Oxiconton is called "hill-billy heroin"? It`s not because doctors do.... He was as high as a kite...

MasterShake69 -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/11/2009 11:57:11 PM)
If I remember right a lot of the housekeepers initial allegations were proven false. quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Sure,they all say is was because of a Dr. But when you get your house keeper to score your drugs on the street,it`s a bit past the stage of innocents. Why do you think Oxiconton is called "hill-billy heroin"? It`s not because doctors do.... He was as high as a kite...

MasterShake69 -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 12:07:09 AM)
Friday, Dec. 5, 2003: Roy Black, Rush Limbaugh's attorney, appears on NBC "Today show": "Sure. Does anybody really believe Rush Limbaugh went to an ear surgeon and had an implant put in his head so he could have an excuse to get prescriptions? I mean, when you think about this itit's really absurd. And look where this started. It started out, 'he's part of a drug ring, or drug trafficking.' Then, supposedly, 'he does money laundering.' Now they've gone all the way to say 'doctor shopping.' Every week it is something new. . . an elected public official in Florida simply could not ignore the name Rush Limbaugh. And guess what? He's being treated differently than anybody else I've ever seen in the history of this country . . . . Let me ask you this: Of all of the . . . millions of people who've become addicted to painkillers, some very well known people, have you ever seen search warrants served on their doctor's offices? Have you ever watched people on television leafing through records, calling out the names of their doctors and a list of medications they were using? Has anyone ever seen that before? The first person is Rush Limbaugh. And you have to ask yourself, why is that?"

MasterShake69 -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 12:22:05 AM)
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070511/NEWS/705110411/1036/BUSINESS01 Painkiller maker to pay millions Purdue Pharma hit with $634.5 million fine over misbranding of OxyContin By MARTIN ZIMMERMAN LOS ANGELES TIMES Published: Friday, May 11, 2007 at 3:41 a.m. Last Modified: Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 9:00 p.m. The maker of the painkiller OxyContin and three of the company's top current and former executives will pay $634.5 million in fines after pleading guilty Thursday to charges that they misled the public about the drug. A Justice Department spokeswoman said it was one of the largest financial penalties ever assessed against a drugmaker.Stamford, Conn.-based Purdue Pharma was accused of making claims that OxyContin was less addictive and less subject to abuse than other pain medications, despite warnings to the contrary from doctors, the media and members of the company's own sales force.

rulemylife -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 12:31:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 Friday, Dec. 5, 2003: Roy Black, Rush Limbaugh's attorney, appears on NBC "Today show": "Sure. Does anybody really believe Rush Limbaugh went to an ear surgeon and had an implant put in his head so he could have an excuse to get prescriptions? I mean, when you think about this itit's really absurd. And look where this started. It started out, 'he's part of a drug ring, or drug trafficking.' Then, supposedly, 'he does money laundering.' Now they've gone all the way to say 'doctor shopping.' Every week it is something new. . . an elected public official in Florida simply could not ignore the name Rush Limbaugh. And guess what? He's being treated differently than anybody else I've ever seen in the history of this country . . . . Let me ask you this: Of all of the . . . millions of people who've become addicted to painkillers, some very well known people, have you ever seen search warrants served on their doctor's offices? Have you ever watched people on television leafing through records, calling out the names of their doctors and a list of medications they were using? Has anyone ever seen that before? The first person is Rush Limbaugh. And you have to ask yourself, why is that?" There you have it! Case closed. Rush's attorney said it. Who could argue with that?

MasterShake69 -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 12:47:02 AM)
exactly :) unless you can prove that rush was #1 part of a drug ring #2 drug trafficking #3 money laundering

rulemylife -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 12:53:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 exactly :) unless you can prove that rush was #1 part of a drug ring #2 drug trafficking #3 money laundering HUH? Who said anything about any of these?

corysub -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 1:04:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: corysub In actuality, Obama's rating actually trail George Bush at this stage of their administrations, and are well behind Jimmy Carter, undoubtedly the worst President of the 20th century! It is funny that when you input your own thoughts that they fail dramatically. I would hope that the next time you ridicule any posting you actaully read what you are quoting. My comment that you so thoughtfully quoted' was that "at this stage of their administrations"..... and you use a survey done at the END of the Bush administration, a successful run for re-election, and keeping the country safe after 9/11. Lets hope that Barack at least keeps the country safe with his "new American strategy" of talking to "moderate terrorists". http://www.gallup.com/poll/113770/Bush-Presidency-Closes-34-Approval-61-Disapproval.aspx Bottom Line Bush has what most would consider the unwanted distinction of registering one of the lowest final job approval ratings of any modern president leaving office at the natural end of his term, and the highest disapproval. While his approval rating has improved since Election Day, the vast majority of Democrats and even most independents still disapprove of how he is handling the job. Only Republicans generally approve of the job Bush is doing, but that may, in fact, be just fine with a president who says his goal has been to do what he believed is right, not what would make him popular. http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/history/2009/02/17/historians-rank-george-w-bush-among-worst-presidents.htm The worst presidents, according to the survey, were James Buchanan at 42, Andrew Johnson at 41, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison, Warren Harding, Millard Fillmore, George W. Bush, John Tyler, Herbert Hoover, and Rutherford B. Hayes. [Mod Note: image removed] You are enough of a political science student to understand that these "polls" are moving targets and change signficantly as "historians" actually look back on history and not "current events". It should be remembered, I hope, that in 1962 Eisenhower was rated #22 and has moved up considerably as historian evaluate a man a greater time distance than two months according to the U.S. News survey you linked. Ronald Reagan will move up considerably as well as time goes on. Jimmy Carter....heck, he might not be remembered at all.I happened to be have suffered every day during the bleak period of the Carter presidency..a man who had no faith in the American people, a time that created a new word in the language "stagflation" and a "misery index". I think unwittingly you put your finger on the problem with American politics these days...which seems to reflect "polling" but only if the polling reflects their agenda. Just look at the focus this administration has given to Rush Limbaugh because of a "poll" by James the snake. Even leftist journalists like Camille Pagilia think they are a bunch of idiots for doubling the size of the audience Limbaugh has on a daily basis. Take that Chris Matthews... Ha!

MasterShake69 -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 1:11:35 AM)
then read what Rush's attorney said and also the housekeepers initial allegations ;) quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 exactly :) unless you can prove that rush was #1 part of a drug ring #2 drug trafficking #3 money laundering HUH? Who said anything about any of these?

VanessaChaland -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 3:03:59 AM)
Yes. quote: ORIGINAL: aravain Was that really necessary? Also, was it really necessary to quote the entire post? o.O

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 7:13:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 i ahve actually answered that question before in another thread about a month ago when people ganging up on me wouldnt beleive that liberals would have that reaction. ;) quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u So basically you actually answered that question, heh...I was just joking,I would never suggest that woman would flee you ,save for your dastardly political beliefs....sheesh!!!!! Really? People said that? Well, I guess I missed that thread, because I'd have backed you up. I have no problem admitting that I would have that reaction. I would never even consider getting involved with a woman whose political views are that far to the right of mine. It raises too many questions about both her intelligence and her character, and besides, what would we talk about?

CreativeDominant -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 8:01:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Do you do much else than spout back what you read in pro-Republican blogs, Cory? I mean, do you have opinions of your own ? A really funny question, given how many on the liberal side...forgive me, progressive...quote source after source that come from the left.

submaleinzona -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 9:23:09 AM)
Rush Limbaugh has been the designated whipping boy for the liberals, just like conservatives razz Ted Kennedy every chance they get. ("More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than _______.") Walter Cronkite was a liberal commentator who was often severely criticized by conservatives. This kind of rhetoric gets pretty ugly. I've always thought that it would be better if people discussed ideas rather than personalities and such. But it seems that hurling mud is a time-honored American tradition. It's not that I think that politicians and pundits should play nice or anything like that, but it's just far too distracting from the real issues out there. I really don't like either of the major political parties, so I can criticize them both with equal ferocity. But ideologically, they're really not that much different from each other. It's just that the issues where they do disagree are magnified so intensely that it almost seems like a facade to distract the public from more important issues. One thing that I've noticed that's quite common these days is an overall ignorance of how our system of government works, the Presidency, the bureaucratic tangle of the Executive Branch, Iron Triangles (lobbyists - Congress - bureaucrats). The Presidency is not one man, and when so many focus on the President as the be all and end all of power in our Federal government, then they're doing themselves a disservice and not really looking at their government in an objective fashion. I saw somebody with an "Impeach Obama" bumper sticker yesterday. I'll give the man a chance. Let's see what he can do. We've heard enough of his speeches, but now it's time for him to get some real work done. As I see it, the President's primary role should be to supervise his own Branch of government and clean up the waste, inefficiency, and corruption within the Executive Branch. The President is bound by the Constitution to execute the laws passed by Congress, so it's the President's responsibility to make sure that those under his direct supervision stop screwing around and do their jobs. If the President is unable or unwilling to do that, then it doesn't matter how good his ideas are or how eloquent his speeches may be. Talk is cheap, but you still have to do the work. Even the stimulus package won't be worth much if too much money ends up "missing" or funneled into some bureaucrat's pocket. The media's role as the Fourth Estate is to be a watchdog for the government. Ideally, they should be the public's eyes and ears, since most people don't have the time or the expertise to conduct their own personal investigations into government activities (and those who do can sometimes come up with some wildly implausible conclusions). Of course, the public could demand better from the mass media, but since they don't, then the public is likely to blame for wallowing in its in own ignorance. An ignorant public is a tyrant's best friend.

Owner59 -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 9:58:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Do you do much else than spout back what you read in pro-Republican blogs, Cory? I mean, do you have opinions of your own ? A really funny question, given how many on the liberal side...forgive me, progressive...quote source after source that come from the left. Credibility is what matters,regardless of the source.Truth actually matters to people.They want to know what the BS is and what the truth is.Period. Truth and credibility are the currency of debate and needed for resolution of our problems. If you have to bend logic ,common sense and make shit up out of the blue,you`ve lost credibility and the debate.

corysub -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 10:04:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Do you do much else than spout back what you read in pro-Republican blogs, Cory? I mean, do you have opinions of your own ? A really funny question, given how many on the liberal side...forgive me, progressive...quote source after source that come from the left. It's just an old trick...attack the poster personally but not his thought process. It would be a much better environement if we could share, explain and discuss our differences...but, I guess, it's much easier to post silly personal attacks instead of thoughtful analysis. Just look at all the hours of posting on the "Limbaugh Thread" about his taking persecription drugs....a two year old story. Yet no one comes on and says here is a "fact" that Rush gave out today on the Stimulus, Omnibus, nominations...or lack thereof,....only personal gossip talk you might have at a tea party in the boring suburbs.

slvemike4u -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 10:11:03 AM)
Not much that Rush says on any subject is "fact" cory...he is a right wing commentator...he occasionally comments on facts,but rarely produces any of his own,particularly on the subject of his addictions

kittinSol -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 10:40:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Do you do much else than spout back what you read in pro-Republican blogs, Cory? I mean, do you have opinions of your own ? A really funny question, given how many on the liberal side...forgive me, progressive...quote source after source that come from the left. It's just an old trick...attack the poster personally but not his thought process. It would be a much better environement if we could share, explain and discuss our differences...but, I guess, it's much easier to post silly personal attacks instead of thoughtful analysis. Just look at all the hours of posting on the "Limbaugh Thread" about his taking persecription drugs....a two year old story. Yet no one comes on and says here is a "fact" that Rush gave out today on the Stimulus, Omnibus, nominations...or lack thereof,....only personal gossip talk you might have at a tea party in the boring suburbs. Considering the quantity of egg that's on your face following your erroneous implications on the FBI arrests thread next door, your contribution above strikes me as particularly ironic. "Thoughtful analysis". Yeah, right [8\|] .

CreativeDominant -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 10:50:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Do you do much else than spout back what you read in pro-Republican blogs, Cory? I mean, do you have opinions of your own ? A really funny question, given how many on the liberal side...forgive me, progressive...quote source after source that come from the left. Credibility is what matters,regardless of the source.Truth actually matters to people.They want to know what the BS is and what the truth is.Period. Truth and credibility are the currency of debate and needed for resolution of our problems. If you have to bend logic ,common sense and make shit up out of the blue,you`ve lost credibility and the debate. True. Bending of the truth and making things up happens on both sides...take Al Gore's recent refusal to debate Global Warming with a scientist who publically disagreed with him. Gore's statement? "The science has been settled on this." No Mr. Gore, it has not. Part of the problem is that the liberals...excuse me, progressives...have their truth and the conservatives have theirs. What is probably the actual, honest-to-God truth lies somewhere in the middle but those voices of moderation are seldom heard. Hence you have R. Limbaugh on one side and Randi Rhodes on the other with their opinions receiving the most airplay.

slvemike4u -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 10:51:24 AM)
You tell him kittin...ps you have mail.

rulemylife -> RE: They can't "defend" Obama, and so they "attack" Limbaugh!! (3/12/2009 10:54:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Do you do much else than spout back what you read in pro-Republican blogs, Cory? I mean, do you have opinions of your own ? A really funny question, given how many on the liberal side...forgive me, progressive...quote source after source that come from the left. It's just an old trick...attack the poster personally but not his thought process. It would be a much better environement if we could share, explain and discuss our differences...but, I guess, it's much easier to post silly personal attacks instead of thoughtful analysis. Just look at all the hours of posting on the "Limbaugh Thread" about his taking persecription drugs....a two year old story. Yet no one comes on and says here is a "fact" that Rush gave out today on the Stimulus, Omnibus, nominations...or lack thereof,....only personal gossip talk you might have at a tea party in the boring suburbs. Thoughtful analysis? Is that what your rants against liberals are? I can't even begin to count how many times I've heard how the education system has failed me and everyone else who doesn't agree with your particular rant of the day.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875