Top 5 Myths about America

[suckseed]

Note: I found this on Craigslist's Best of Rants and Raves. If the facts are true, particularly about the founding fathers, as they're called, I find them pretty interesting.

http://seattle.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/163437715.html

MYTH 1: The US was founded on Christian principles.

TRUTH:

This is incorrect.
The Constitution never once mentions a deity, because the Founding Fathers wanted to keep their new country "religion-neutral." Our Founding Fathers were an eclectic collection of Atheists, Deists, Christians, Freemasons and Agnostics.

George Washington, the Father of our country, and John Adams (Second President of the USA) CLEARLY stated in the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli: "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion.”

G.W. rarely attended church and instead followed a popular 18th century philosophy called Deism—a Star Wars-esque philosophy that believed in a cosmic energy or big-ass universal "Force." The dictionary says that Deism is "a system of thought advocating natural religion based on human reason rather than revelation," that had nothing to do with Christian principles.

James Madison, original mastermind of our Constitution, was an Atheist to the core who loved skewering Christianity. In 1785 he wrote, "What have been [Christianity’s] fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

Thomas Jefferson, who sat down and authored The Declaration of Independence, rarely missed an opportunity to laugh at Christianity. In a letter to John Adams in 1823, he wrote: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus…will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

More ammo: In 1814, Tommy J. wrote about the Bible's Old and New Testaments, "The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful -- evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds.”

In fact, it was President Jefferson himself who first wrote (to a Baptist church group in 1802), "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State." Therefore, when Jefferson talked about “Nature’s God,” the “Creator” and “divine Providence ” in the Declaration that he wrote, he was being a hippie and referring to a general cosmic energy-- not the Christian God.

America is not a Christian nation. Period. Our Constitution derived from the post-Christian Enlightenment values of reason and truth...never from the paranoid yammerings of that otherwise compassionate cult leader who fucking died in the Middle Eastern desert 3000 years ago.


MYTH 2: US Conservatives tend to be patriotic, ethical Americans; liberals tend to hate America and are immoral.

TRUTH:

Liberals aren't the traitors to America. In fact, conservatives who insist on sending American troops into the Iraqi slaughterhouse to watch some blood-n'-guts "towelhead" ass-kickin' are the traitors. Most of them could care less about our troops, no more than Mao or Stalin cared about the safety of their own soldiers. In the neocons' view, these young boys and girls are expendable test dummies. They're dying for virtually nothing, so that the hicks in the Bush Admin can make good on their campaign promises to their buddies from the petroleum and infrastructure-rebuilding industries. By revving up the Arab threat, these MFs can scream "national security" and "freedom" as smokescreens, while getting their hands on a diminishing resource: Middle Eastern fossil fuels, which power everything from your lightbulbs and computer that you leave on all night, to your stupid gas-guzzler pickup truck.

Pro-war conservatives are the traitors to America. With only 29% of the public approving of Bush's policies now, it took a full 5 years for America to finally wake up in bed next to this disgusting fact.

Do liberals hate America? No, in fact they care so much about the USA that they fight so aggressively to make it better. They're not anti-American; they're just anti-stupidity. Do liberals hate American policies? Sometimes, but only the self-destructive ones that threaten human rights, liberty, democracy, justice, inquiry, excellence and reason-- the values that our country was founded upon.

As for conservative moral superiority? Frauds. Think of the child-molesting priests, money-scamming televangelist preachers, Jack Abramoff's friends in the Bush Admin, gay-hating Jesus lovers, the Christians who beat up the professor who opposed intelligent design, human rights violators like Lynndie England and her Abu Ghraib hick officer pals, Tommy "Scandal-icious" Delay, Scooter "Leaky" Libby, the entire K Street Project meant to hire only Republicans, FEMA's Michael "Yer doin' a heckuva job" Brownie, and so on.

Oh and by the way, conservative Red states have a divorce rate 27% higher than the liberal Blue states, the per capita rate of violent crime in Red states is 49 per 100,000 higher than in Blue states, the top 5 states with the highest rates of alcohol abuse are Red states, and the per capita rate of gonorrhea in Red states was 41 per 100,000 higher than in the Blue states. Time to unshelf the antibiotics for our "ethical," "God-fearing" conservative friends with their "traditional family values."


MYTH 3. The US has a liberal media.

TRUTH:

This is a paranoid Republican myth.
Reality check: the US media is a mix of liberal, centrist and conservative voices. Also, the US media is largely owned by 10 corporations who frequently push pro-conservative agendas to the American public. Evidence:

1. Even Republican Pat Buchanan confessed, "For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that." Neo-conservative pundit Bill Kristol also said, "I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

2. A 2005 study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics found that "coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media." Why? Partly because only four major corporate networks control American TV news-- up to 75% of the audience share. The "Big 10" media conglomerates who control the bulk of the entire US media are: AOL Time Warner, Disney, General Electric, News Corporation, Viacom, Vivendi, Sony, Bertelsmann, AT&T and Liberty Media. Yes, we have National Public Radio, but compare its public reach to that of Canada's CBC and the United Kingdom's BBC.

3. Eighty percent of all US newspapers are owned by corporate chains.

4. Liberals are virtually non-existent on talk radio stations nationwide. Rush and Dr. Laura, eat your hearts out.

5. Conservatives are very well accomodated for across FOX News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the New York Post, the American Spectator, the Weekly Standard, the Drudge Report, the National Review, etc. Even so-called "bastions of liberalism," e.g. the NY Times, MSNBC, WashPost and NPR make a concerted effort to be "fair and balanced" by bringing in right-wing views like those of David Brooks, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Charles Krauthammer and Cokie Roberts to have their say in these forums, respectively. This is in stark contrast to FOX News' claims to unbiased objectivity, which were easily demolished by Robert Greenwald in 2004.

6. Contrary to what some paranoid Republicans claim, most journalists are centrists, not liberals. A representative sample of 141 US journalists and bureau chiefs were asked in 1998, "On social issues, how would you characterize your political orientation?" Answers: Left 30%, Center 57%, Right 9%, Other 5% . Next question, same sample: "On economic issues, how would you characterize your political orientation? " Answers: Left 11%, Center 64%, Right 19%, Other 5%. Also, look at the total number of think tank citations in major newspapers, radio and TV transcripts: Conservative TTs: 7792, Centrist TTs: 6361, Liberal TTs: 1152.

7. Eric Alterman summarizes a 1999 research study from the academic journal Communications Research: "Four scholars examined the use of the 'liberal media' argument and discovered a fourfold increase in the number of Americans telling pollsters that they discerned a liberal bias in their news. But a review of the media's actual ideological content, collected and coded over a twelve-year period, offered no corroboration whatever for this view."


MYTH 4. The US doesn’t need improvement compared to other countries; it is the greatest country in the world.

TRUTH:
Wrong again. I'll only cite the statistics here.

USA Ranking on Adult Literacy Scale: #9
(#1 Sweden and #2 Norway)- OECD

USA Ranking on Healthcare Quality Index: #37
(#1 France and #2 Italy)- World Health Organization 2003

USA Ranking of Student Reading Ability: #12
(#1 Finland and #2 South Korea)- OECD PISA 2003

USA Ranking of Student Problem Solving Ability: #26
(#1 South Korea and #2 Finland)- OECD PISA 2003

USA Ranking on Student Mathematics Ability: # 24
(#1 Hong Kong and #2 Finland)- OECD PISA 2003

USA Ranking of Student Science Ability: #19
(#1 Finland and #2 Japan)- OECD PISA 2003

USA Ranking on Women's Rights Scale: #17
(#1 Sweden and #2 Norway)- World Economic Forum Report

USA Position on Timeline of Gay Rights Progress: # 6 (1997)
(#1 Sweden 1987 and #2 Norway 1993)- Vexen

USA Ranking on Life Expectancy: #29
(#1 Japan and #2 Hong Kong)- UN Human Development Report 2005

USA Ranking on Journalistic Press Freedom Index: #32
(#1 Finland, Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands tied)- Reporters Without Borders 2005

USA Ranking on Political Corruption Index: #17
(#1 Iceland and #2 Finland)- Transparency International 2005

USA Ranking on Quality of Life Survey: #13
(#1 Ireland and #2 Switzerland)- The Economist Magazine ...Wikipedia "Celtic Tiger" if you still have your doubts.

USA Ranking on Environmental Sustainability Index: #45
(#1 Finland and #2 Norway)- Yale University ESI 2005

USA Ranking on Overall Currency Strength: #3 (US Dollar)
(#1 UK pound sterling and #2 European Union euro)- FTSE 2006....the dollar is now a liability, so many banks worldwide have planned to switch to euro

USA Ranking on Infant Mortality Rate: #32
(#1 Sweden and #2 Finland)- Save the Children Report 2006

USA Ranking on Human Development Index (GDP, education, etc.): #10
(#1 Norway and #2 Iceland)- UN Human Development Report 2005


So much for those "socialist" Europeans and those "backward" Asians, hm?
We can do better than this.

Miscellany:
*Only 18% of Americans own passports and bother to travel outside of the US.
* 85% of US soldiers in Iraq believe that they are there to get revenge for 9/11.
* New international student enrollment in US grad schools has decreased by 6%, because of xenophobic post-9/11 US visa restrictions, jacked-up tuition fees and better educational opportunities in the EU and Asia. So no, not everyone wants to come here anymore, because it's become a land of incredibly limited opportunity, and we've lowered our educational standards.


MYTH 5: The US government loves to help other countries.

TRUTH:
This is a myth. The US government tends to be motivated by interests, not humanitarian principles.

Denmark gives the most amount of its GDP (1.01%) to developing countries; Norway gives 0.91%; the Netherlands give 0.79% and so on until the end of list, where the USA sits. Yes, America ranks DEAD LAST in foreign aid at a pathetic 0.1% of its GDP, compared to the other 21 nations listed as developed nations. The idea that the US government is a heroic bunch that runs around the world helping the poor and the disempowered is not backed up by the evidence. We have one of the stingiest governments on earth.

Most Americans believe the US spends 24% of its budget on aid to poor countries; the actual amount is well under a quarter of 1%. Our country also ranks #5 on asylum-seeker acceptance rates (#1 is Denmark and #2 is Canada).

For you self-congratulatory, redneck-inspired conservative fuckwads who will start to say, "B-b-b-but you're anti-American! M-m-m-moonbat! G-g-g-god bless the USA!" I answer, "Go fuck yourself. We can do better." Stop blindly believing everything your president tells you. Come back to us only when you start realizing that the $400 billion your president has allocated to his Roman Empire-style military overstretch could be better spent on correcting the sociopolitical and economic problems in the arenas that I've listed above.

For you liberal shit-heels who will start to say, "Yeah! Right on!" I answer, "Grow some fucking balls." That goes for women and the LGBT community too, and don't call me a sexist either: I'm more than comfortable with being a female, but I believe balls can be useful in situations like these. Instead, stop apologizing for being the "liberal elite," and start championing un-abashed excellence in everything, not mediocrity. Help your reps and senators take back Congress, and stop dithering while the political tides are turning in your favor right now. The conservatives are terrified now; TAKE advantage of that. And don't waste time trying to explain rational things to any homophobic Christians, or hyper-patriotic losers who wave and cheapen our American flag only for a self-esteem buzz, or those testosterone-filled, gullible, culturally-ignorant military recruiter robots who lack even a basic intelligence. THEY CANNOT BE REASONED WITH. They don't understand statistics, elaborate charts, legislative proposals or complicated scientific explanations. Just let them go. Let them go.

In the meantime, stop being SHEEP and get up and do something before some bright and ambitious Chinese, Indian and the European students grow up to be international leaders and make your lazy, self-absorbed kids irrelevant on the world stage.

[JRon]

Each myth was debunked correctly, although I personally wouldn't have used the same language. Learned about the founding fathers myth in HS, the rest sometime else between then and now.

Yes, liberals do need to grow a pair and shake the "northern elite pussy" reputation. And yes, the religious right and faux patriots can not be reasoned with, it's the moderates that need to be swayed. And yes, we need to do something about it.

Good post.

Either guys like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were evil white devils who owned slaves, or they weren't.

You guys can't have it both ways.

Liberals bitch and whine and moan about how America was founded by racist elitists, but give em the chance to cite the racists elitists in efforts to promote their anti-god agenda, and you'll see their two-faced cowardice in action.

You can't have it both ways.

Let's disect this nonsense.

George Washington was a member of the vestry for his EPISCOPALIAN CHURCH. And Episcopalian ain't the church of Joe Piscopo, it's a CHRISTIAN CHURCH set around Christian beliefs and the Bible.

Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.- George Washington


John Quincy Adams was a FOUNDER of the All Souls Church, which today describes itself as "having evolved from a liberal Christian tradition into a "rich pluralism.""... read "our founders founded us based on CHRISTIANITY but somehow along the way, we got stupid"

:D This makes me very happy!

On James Madison- In 1812, President Madison proposed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible. “ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia”

As a Christian, I have to say... bible? Yep, that's ours.

:lol:

James Monroe was another Episcopalian.

Andrew Jackson was brought up in a Presbyterian family. Although he had little interest in religion early on, Jackson became increasingly religious, eventually joining the Presbyterian church in 1838.

He became wise.

John Hancock... you're gonna really hate god over this one.

[i]“In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations." as Hancock declared a day of fasting, humility and prayer. April 15 1775







I could go on but I've firmly dismissed the desperate claim that this country was not founded by Christian men of Christian virtue. Next time you hear someone say "Put your John Hancock right here", you can get real pissed off that this country was founded by Christian men and on Christian beliefs...

Well, except for Thomas Jefferson :lol: :lol:

He was VERY anti-church and did not believe that Jesus was the son of God... but he also owned all them slaves and I heard he had an affair with this girl named Sally Hemings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_DNA_Data

[trish]

TFan exercises his liberal right to freedom of speech by bitching and whining and moaning about how he has to put up the expression of liberal ideas. He poses the dichotomy: "Either guys like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were evil white devils who owned slaves, or they weren't, " and then proceeds to tell us what great christians they were. hmmmm...seems that knife cuts both ways.

TFan exercises his liberal right to freedom of speech by bitching and whining and moaning about how he has to put up the expression of liberal ideas. He poses the dichotomy: "Either guys like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were evil white devils who owned slaves, or they weren't, " and then proceeds to tell us what great christians they were. hmmmm...seems that knife cuts both ways.


Where did I defend Thomas Jefferson?

LOL

And where did I say Washington was a good Christian? Where does it say all Christians are perfect?

Please tell me about how perfect Christians have to be. LOL.

I HAVE to see that!

[trish]

there you go again, TFan...whining like a true conservative. where did i say that you said they were "good" christians. i merely implied they were mediocre christians who did a great thing by establishing a democracy rather than a theocracy. you're the one claiming that being a member of the vestry is a big fuckin' deal. (oh yeah...i'm laughing my ass off)

[suckseed]

Look, personally I believe in God. I was raised as an Episcopalian myself, and my family remains so to this day. I don't attend. The rituals never attained much meaning for me, and I found church incredibly repetitive and boring. I find God everywhere I look, and human institutions seem to me to be more about community - but I respect the fact that it's really important to many. However - HOWEVER! - at the risk of quoting a cheesy pop song again - there is good and bad in everyone - and that goes for every religious group. I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state. It was a principle the country was based on, with good reason. And Christians who propose that the world is six thousand years old are just nuts, and an embarrassment to intellectual Christians everywhere. Same thing goes for televangelists. In fact, I'd say there are generally two types of Christians - those that seem like decent, intelligent, hard working and kind people, and those who seem like intolerant, hypocritical, anti-intellectual redneck nutjobs.
Unfortunately, many people don't distinguish between the two, and Christianity gets a bad name.
But Christianity will make its own way without the help of the government. Churches are already tax exempt, and bigger ones are being built all the time. A fact which I find rather disturbing, because there is something profoundly creepy to me about seeing a bunch of people making a public spectacle about their 'love for Jesus.' To me, spirituality is a personal and private thing. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the way I was raised, but to me, church is where people listen quietly, sing together, take communion, pray, reflect, and then greet one another afterwards, and not to call out during the sermon, keep an ecstatic expression on one's face, hold one's hands up and eyes closed like a vision is being experienced, or generally act like some kind of lunatic, or like a guy who has to always have his hands on his pretty girlfriend so everyone will know 'she's with me.' And how do I know there are people who do that? From televised church service, a thing which has about as much in common with the authentic experience as MTV's 'Next!' has to do with going out on an actual date. 'What Would Jesus Do?' Well, I'm pretty sure he's against selling silver bracelets in his name. The dumbing down of Christianity is a real shame. And it's that, and the abuses done in Christianity's name, and the lack of tolerance many Christians have, not to mention the fact that many people have other beliefs, that make the separation of church and state a good thing.
And finally - the Bible can be used to make any point, but in any case, I have no proof that it's not been altered or edited by men. It's also archaic and wrong in many places - but beyond that - if it, Jesus or indeed God never existed, I still would try to be a good person. Not for a heavenly reward or fear of hell, but just because I have an inner sense of right and wrong. I firmly believe that if God exists and even cares about what people do, then doing things for their own sake, and not to get the carrot or avoid the stick is key.

[JRon]

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

This is the best internet argument for the contention that our founding fathers were deists. There is an extensive bibliography at the bottom.

To say this country was based on spiritual values and a belief in God would be true...to say that we were based in Christianity would not.

there you go again, TFan...whining like a true conservative. where did i say that you said they were "good" christians. i merely implied they were mediocre christians who did a great thing by establishing a democracy rather than a theocracy. you're the one claiming that being a member of the vestry is a big fuckin' deal. (oh yeah...i'm laughing my ass off)


You didn't imply anything because you haven't said anything.

You didnt make a case for Jefferson as a good, bad or "mediocre" Christian.... "Mediocre"? LOL

You obviously don't understand Christianity.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

This is the best internet argument for the contention that our founding fathers were deists. There is an extensive bibliography at the bottom.

To say this country was based on spiritual values and a belief in God would be true...to say that we were based in Christianity would not.


Ok, I read that page. No real compelling arguments.

Care to cite something on that link and stand behind it?

[chefmike]

there you go again, TFan...whining like a true conservative. where did i say that you said they were "good" christians. i merely implied they were mediocre christians who did a great thing by establishing a democracy rather than a theocracy. you're the one claiming that being a member of the vestry is a big fuckin' deal. (oh yeah...i'm laughing my ass off)


You didn't imply anything because you haven't said anything.

You didnt make a case for Jefferson as a good, bad or "mediocre" Christian.... "Mediocre"? LOL

You obviously don't understand Christianity.

And you obviously don't understand hypocrisy. But here is a recent quote from the lovely and learned Ms. Starr, concerning bible-banging right-wing hypocrites who frequent TS boards...


I have said it before and I will say it again.

If you are ON THIS SITE, ANY PORN SITE, ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE SITE, or you practice any form of an alternative sexual lifestyle and you support Dubya and THIS ADMINISTRATION and consider yourself to be part f the right wing or moral majority-

YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A GOOD OLE' HYPOCRITE, IN THE CLOSET, YELLOW COCKSUCKER WHO LIKES TO TAKE IT IN THE ARSE, SWALLOW JIZZ, then politely wipe your mouth go home and kiss your wife- and then HAVE NERVE to talk shit about the homos and all the other rhetoric the right wing loves to spew out.

I know this type very well, because I have lived it. Believe you me, the ones out there talking shit about fags, trannys, rasing hell, fire, and brimstome, and trying to dictate morality- are the first ones to go suck a cock behind closed doors.

HYPOCRITES. Nothing but HYPOCRITES is all I can say.

LOL!!!!

You're a comedian.

We're having a serious discussion about the founding fathers religous preferences and what do you do??



POST CARTOONS?!!?

LMAO!!!

[JRon]

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

This is the best internet argument for the contention that our founding fathers were deists. There is an extensive bibliography at the bottom.

To say this country was based on spiritual values and a belief in God would be true...to say that we were based in Christianity would not.


Ok, I read that page. No real compelling arguments.

Care to cite something on that link and stand behind it?

I think you are misinterpreting a foundation in a belief in God to a foundation based in Christianity. Yeah of course this country, in the 1700s, was founded on a strong belief in a God. But no, it was not rooted in Christianity, per se.

To be honest, I thought this was basic, high school level understanding of our country's history, which is why I didn't look to hard for sources discussing how our founders were Deists. When I get home from work today, I will look through some of my old history textbooks if that will make you feel better or be more convincing.

This is rudimentary high school history stuff.

[trish]

you accuse me, TFan, of not saying anything:


You didn't imply anything because you haven't said anything.

that being the case, you must vacuously agree with everything i posted. i wonder why you bother to respond then? and with such disapproval.


You obviously don't understand Christianity. amen, brother.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

This is the best internet argument for the contention that our founding fathers were deists. There is an extensive bibliography at the bottom.

To say this country was based on spiritual values and a belief in God would be true...to say that we were based in Christianity would not.


Ok, I read that page. No real compelling arguments.

Care to cite something on that link and stand behind it?

I think you are misinterpreting a foundation in a belief in God to a foundation based in Christianity. Yeah of course this country, in the 1700s, was founded on a strong belief in a God. But no, it was not rooted in Christianity, per se.

To be honest, I thought this was basic, high school level understanding of our country's history, which is why I didn't look to hard for sources discussing how our founders were Deists. When I get home from work today, I will look through some of my old history textbooks if that will make you feel better or be more convincing.

This is rudimentary high school history stuff.


I don't understand what's so confusing.

Episcopalian, presbyterian.. heck, even the "All Souls Church" was, at the time, a Christian Church. Christian Churches which preached Christianity of the New Testament. Christian Churches which a large number of the founding fathers were members of.

You've got John Hancock using terms like "it becomes us, as Men and Christians" and you still want to mince words?

Is your effort so desperate as to ignore the obvious?

you accuse me, TFan, of not saying anything:

that being the case, you must vacuously agree with everything i posted. i wonder why you bother to respond then? and with such disapproval.

amen, brother.

Again, you have added nothing to the conversation other than word-play blather.

[trish]

i agreed with you! so by your own assessment, you said nothing.

[Knight8]

there you go again, TFan...whining like a true conservative. where did i say that you said they were "good" christians. i merely implied they were mediocre christians who did a great thing by establishing a democracy rather than a theocracy. you're the one claiming that being a member of the vestry is a big fuckin' deal. (oh yeah...i'm laughing my ass off)


You didn't imply anything because you haven't said anything.

You didnt make a case for Jefferson as a good, bad or "mediocre" Christian.... "Mediocre"? LOL

You obviously don't understand Christianity.

And you obviously don't understand hypocrisy. But here is a recent quote from the lovely and learned Ms. Starr, concerning bible-banging right-wing hypocrites who frequent TS boards...


I have said it before and I will say it again.

If you are ON THIS SITE, ANY PORN SITE, ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE SITE, or you practice any form of an alternative sexual lifestyle and you support Dubya and THIS ADMINISTRATION and consider yourself to be part f the right wing or moral majority-

YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A GOOD OLE' HYPOCRITE, IN THE CLOSET, YELLOW COCKSUCKER WHO LIKES TO TAKE IT IN THE ARSE, SWALLOW JIZZ, then politely wipe your mouth go home and kiss your wife- and then HAVE NERVE to talk shit about the homos and all the other rhetoric the right wing loves to spew out.

I know this type very well, because I have lived it. Believe you me, the ones out there talking shit about fags, trannys, rasing hell, fire, and brimstome, and trying to dictate morality- are the first ones to go suck a cock behind closed doors.

HYPOCRITES. Nothing but HYPOCRITES is all I can say.


Claiming your opponents are hypocrites does not address their arguments, and Allanah, nice lady as she may be, is just as guilty if she claims to be "tolerant" if the best she can muster is firsthand disregard of anyone she feels is a cum-sucking hypocrite. Being conservative does not preclude you from having sexual fetishes, and it is not at all conservative to call for burning people or mobbbing people, we have a word for that called utter stupidity.

And don't get started on the "dictating morality" shtick. Why is it "civil rights" when gay activists demand we give them benefits created for the security of children for engaging in a consensual adult relationship but if we dare try and prevent unelected judges from stuffing gay marriage from our throats via judicial fiat, it is "writing bigotry into the constitution."

Idiocy.

What I'm seeing in this topic are uncited quotes, lies, damn lies, and statistics. Anyone can write anything on the interweb, and this "myth busting" on craigs list is more interested in spewing invective then providing logical arguments.


Liberals aren't the traitors to America. In fact, conservatives who insist on sending American troops into the Iraqi slaughterhouse to watch some blood-n'-guts "towelhead" ass-kickin' are the traitors. Most of them could care less about our troops, no more than Mao or Stalin cared about the safety of their own soldiers. In the neocons' view, these young boys and girls are expendable test dummies.

No conservative ever argued any of this nonsense, this is nothing more than a stupid rant provided by someone with a clear liberal bias, who doesn't try to understand his opponent but instead creates straw men which he then busts down. The writer of this "myth busting" resides at strawman central.

[suckseed]

labels, shmabels. Both liberals and conservatives lose my vote when they start generalizing. TV news hours typically are about one thing: ratings. If our government was run as if it were a responsible, successful corporation, then we wouldn't have nonsense like unrelated issues being tacked on to bills (what does the minimum wage have to do with estate taxes?), lobbyists, horrendous waste, pork barrel projects, etc., ad nauseum. I dated a woman who was the town clerk for a suburb of Boston several years ago, and she said everybody starts out with ideals, and after a few years, it's all about getting yourself ahead. If you guys would stop villianizing each other and argue your points unemotionally, you'd be better off.
As the originator of this thread, my point was to find out if the CL post's facts were straight, and to talk about why some people seem to think that church and state shouldn't be separated.
What are their arguments for this? How do they justify imposing their values on those Americans who have other beliefs?
Maybe for many of you this is 'high school stuff', but for me, this is the one place where I can ask these questions. I'm hoping for something more enlightening than 'Noam Chomsky is an asshole!' I for one think he's a pretty compelling thinker. He makes me ask questions, and no, I don't buy everything he says. Rush Limbaugh was pretty irritating to me back in the day, and a terrible hypocrite to badmouth Kurt Cobain for drug use, but, again, occasionally he made me think. WHY do people constantly fall into these defensive positions where everyone is either this or that? Laziness?
Because to me, this inflexible thinking is at the root of every conflict. To think that people die every day because of a difference in opinion over whether this dead guy or that dead guy was or wasn't a prophet...fuck, I just don't get it. I'd rather have my half-assed spirituality than be some dogmatic by-the-numbers be-like-me-or-fuck-you kind of person.

[Nowhereboy]

Claiming your opponents are hypocrites does not address their arguments, and Allanah, nice lady as she may be, is just as guilty if she claims to be "tolerant" if the best she can muster is firsthand disregard of anyone she feels is a cum-sucking hypocrite. Being conservative does not preclude you from having sexual fetishes, and it is not at all conservative to call for burning people or mobbbing people, we have a word for that called utter stupidity.

And don't get started on the "dictating morality" shtick. Why is it "civil rights" when gay activists demand we give them benefits created for the security of children for engaging in a consensual adult relationship but if we dare try and prevent unelected judges from stuffing gay marriage from our throats via judicial fiat, it is "writing bigotry into the constitution."

Idiocy.

What I'm seeing in this topic are uncited quotes, lies, damn lies, and statistics.


Liberals aren't the traitors to America. In fact, conservatives who insist on sending American troops into the Iraqi slaughterhouse to watch some blood-n'-guts "towelhead" ass-kickin' are the traitors. Most of them could care less about our troops, no more than Mao or Stalin cared about the safety of their own soldiers. In the neocons' view, these young boys and girls are expendable test dummies.

No conservative ever argued any of this nonsense, this is nothing more than a stupid rant provided by someone with a clear liberal bias, who doesn't try to understand his opponent but instead creates straw men which he then busts down. The writer of this "myth busting" resides at strawman central.

Alright, let's play your game.

Let's start with Civil Rights. What are they, what does the term mean? According to one dictionary, the definition is "Rights pertaining to a person by virtue of his status as a citizen or as a member of a civil society." So, assuming that you accept that gays are members of our civil society, they are entitled to civil rights. Just establishing a basis for discussion here.

Now, gay marriage. You apparently define marriage as "benefits created for the security of children". Two problems, if not more. First, this would seem to deny the right of marriage to childless couples. My Aunt and Uncle have been married for 65 years, yet they had no children. Should they be denied the right to benefit from their marriage? According to your statement they clearly should. Second, until very recently, children were considered to be the property of the parents, specifically the father. Children had no rights to protect them from abuse at the hands of their parents and by abuse, I in no way mean to limit it to what we commonly think of as abuse today. Parents could hire their children out to work at very young ages and generally treat them as chattel. Explain then how marriage was created "for the security of children"

As to this almost compulsory referral to judges as unelected, I must then ask if we should be allowed to prevent unelected judges (The Supreme Court of The United States) from stuffing down our throats any number of actions "via judicial fiat"? Or is it only judges you disagree with that are to be 'prevented' from rendering decisions?

As far as stuffing gay marriage down your throat, I must assume then that you are a resident of Massachusetts for if you are not, it is not your throat that is being stuffed. If you are a resident of said state, than your remedy is to change the laws of that state, change the Constitution of that state. When you try to 'prevent' judges from deciding the cases brought before them, it is you who are trying to subvert the Constitution of that state.

"Idiocy" A tactic as old as time, if one disagrees with you, resort to name-calling and then accuse the opposition of lying; "uncited quotes, lies, damn lies, and statistics." Of course, you then fail to point out any lie, damn lie or statistic. We are supposed to be overawed by your trotting out this famous old saying with the addition of uncited quotes. Then, in order to give the veneer of scholarship you do two interesting things. First you quote an earlier post in order to make it look like support for your lies statement. The only problem is that the quote you present is clearly an opinion. Nowhere in the quote you furnished does it say that the sentiment expressed was argued for by anyone, anywhere. But your refutation is that "No conservative ever argued any of this nonsense". Maybe, maybe not, proving a negative is almost impossible, so this refutation, while in spirit perhaps true, can not be accepted at face value. It too is an opinion and opinion does not refute opinion. The second thing you do to provide that veneer of scholarship is to brandish the term 'strawman'. Yet, once again you provide no example of one, you again resort to that same statement of opinion. It sounds good but, in this case, it signifies nothing.

I eagerly await your reply.

[chefmike]

Being conservative does not preclude you from having sexual fetishes...

Don't look now, but your conservative sexual fetishes are the subject of a witchhunt, pilgram...

Attorney General Gonzalez has declared war on ALL porn...the chimp-in-chief is fond of him because he served as shrubya's legal counsel and execution czar while the shrub was guv of Texas... where Gonzalez specialized in advising the shrub in regards to the speedy execution of retarded people ( I guess it's lucky for shrubya that he never wound up on death row in Texas )...



U.S. Attorney's Porn Fight Gets Bad Reviews
Obscenity Prosecution Task Force will focus on Internet crimes and peer-to-peer distribution of pornography
Julie Kay
Daily Business Review
August 30, 2005


When FBI supervisors in Miami met with new interim U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta last month, they wondered what the top enforcement priority for Acosta and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would be.

Would it be terrorism? Organized crime? Narcotics trafficking? Immigration? Or maybe public corruption?

The agents were stunned to learn that a top prosecutorial priority of Acosta and the Department of Justice was none of the above. Instead, Acosta told them, it's obscenity. Not pornography involving children, but pornographic material featuring consenting adults.

Acosta's stated goal of prosecuting distributors of adult porn has angered federal and local law enforcement officials, as well as prosecutors in his own office. They say there are far more important issues in a high-crime area like South Florida, which is an international hub at risk for terrorism, money laundering and other dangerous activities.

Sources say Acosta was told by the FBI officials during last month's meeting that obscenity prosecution would have to be handled by the crimes against children unit. But that unit is already overworked and would have to take agents off cases of child endangerment to work on adult porn cases. Acosta replied that this was Attorney General Gonzales' mandate.

rest of this article here-
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1125318960389

Recruits Sought for Porn Squad

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 20, 2005; A21

The FBI is joining the Bush administration's War on Porn. And it's looking for a few good agents.

Early last month, the bureau's Washington Field Office began recruiting for a new anti-obscenity squad. Attached to the job posting was a July 29 Electronic Communication from FBI headquarters to all 56 field offices, describing the initiative as "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and, by extension, of "the Director." That would be FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.

Mischievous commentary began propagating around the water coolers at 601 Fourth St. NW and its satellites, where the FBI's second-largest field office concentrates on national security, high-technology crimes and public corruption.

The new squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against "manufacturers and purveyors" of pornography -- not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults.

"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."

Among friends and trusted colleagues, an experienced national security analyst said, "it's a running joke for us."

the rest of this article here-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901570_pf.html

Don't look now, but your conservative sexual fetishes are the subject of a witchhunt, pilgram...

Attorney General Gonzalez has declared war on ALL porn...the chimp-in-chief is fond of him because he served as shrubya's legal counsel and execution czar while the shrub was guv of Texas... where Gonzalez specialized in advising the shrub in regards to the speedy execution of retarded people ( I guess it's lucky for shrubya that he never wound up on death row in Texas )...



U.S. Attorney's Porn Fight Gets Bad Reviews
Obscenity Prosecution Task Force will focus on Internet crimes and peer-to-peer distribution of pornography
Julie Kay
Daily Business Review
August 30, 2005


When FBI supervisors in Miami met with new interim U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta last month, they wondered what the top enforcement priority for Acosta and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would be.

Would it be terrorism? Organized crime? Narcotics trafficking? Immigration? Or maybe public corruption?

The agents were stunned to learn that a top prosecutorial priority of Acosta and the Department of Justice was none of the above. Instead, Acosta told them, it's obscenity. Not pornography involving children, but pornographic material featuring consenting adults.

Acosta's stated goal of prosecuting distributors of adult porn has angered federal and local law enforcement officials, as well as prosecutors in his own office. They say there are far more important issues in a high-crime area like South Florida, which is an international hub at risk for terrorism, money laundering and other dangerous activities.

Sources say Acosta was told by the FBI officials during last month's meeting that obscenity prosecution would have to be handled by the crimes against children unit. But that unit is already overworked and would have to take agents off cases of child endangerment to work on adult porn cases. Acosta replied that this was Attorney General Gonzales' mandate.

rest of this article here-
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1125318960389

Recruits Sought for Porn Squad

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 20, 2005; A21

The FBI is joining the Bush administration's War on Porn. And it's looking for a few good agents.

Early last month, the bureau's Washington Field Office began recruiting for a new anti-obscenity squad. Attached to the job posting was a July 29 Electronic Communication from FBI headquarters to all 56 field offices, describing the initiative as "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and, by extension, of "the Director." That would be FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.

Mischievous commentary began propagating around the water coolers at 601 Fourth St. NW and its satellites, where the FBI's second-largest field office concentrates on national security, high-technology crimes and public corruption.

The new squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against "manufacturers and purveyors" of pornography -- not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults.

"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."

Among friends and trusted colleagues, an experienced national security analyst said, "it's a running joke for us."

the rest of this article here-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901570_pf.html


It's posts like this that leave me confident that liberalism is dieing a slow, mumbling death.

Let's look at some of the loon quotes in this post....


"Attorney General Gonzalez has declared war on ALL porn...the chimp-in-chief is fond of him because he served as shrubya's legal counsel and execution czar while the shrub was guv of Texas... "

This is nothing but limp-wristed hysteria. You professional victims want to paint yourselves in a corner and scream "persecution" whenever a political figure goes out and tries to enforce EXISTING laws on pornography (or is it that liberals are seriously stashing child pornography on their hard drives and don't want any government official sniffing around?)


Look at this liberal slant...

The agents were stunned to learn that a top prosecutorial priority of Acosta and the Department of Justice was none of the above. Instead, Acosta told them, it's obscenity. Not pornography involving children, but pornographic material featuring consenting adults.
More hysteria. Nowhere in the Bush Administration does it outline a "ban all pornography" agenda. What the agenda is, however, is to enforce age and identity requirements for pornography models.

The professional victims will rant about the expense of cataloging and verifying the ages of models, but that's something they're just doing to have to live with.

Record keeping in the real estate is also a major expense, but no broker goes about whining about it.... FUCKING GROW UP! Keep your records and your shit straight and stop your bitching.

[Nowhereboy]

This is nothing but limp-wristed hysteria. You professional victims want to paint yourselves in a corner and scream "persecution" whenever a political figure goes out and tries to enforce EXISTING laws on pornography (or is it that liberals are seriously stashing child pornography on their hard drives and don't want any government official sniffing around?)



You are damn right I don't want any government official sniffing around. I DO NOT have child pornography on my computer because I find it repulsive and very wrong. You just keep on slandering those that disagree with you, that is your entire tack. What about the Bill of Rights do you not understand?

How appropriate, or should I say inappropriate for you to use a homophobic slur (limp-wristed) on this site. It seems further evidence that you are only here to stir up trouble. I am beginning to think that you are some kind of Republican National Committee operative whose entire day consists of surfing the net, finding sites that likely contain people that disagree with the approved positions. Then your job is to mindlessly regurgitate the approved talking points for no reason other than to cause trouble.

Does it not seem so?

You are damn right I don't want any government official sniffing around. I DO NOT have child pornography on my computer because I find it repulsive and very wrong. You just keep on slandering those that disagree with you, that is your entire tack. What about the Bill of Rights do you not understand?

Where in the bill of rights does it say that all government efforts to enforce the law are forbidden?

This is simple law enforcements. Like the police cruising down the street or the IRS auditing your returns.


How appropriate, or should I say inappropriate for you to use a homophobic slur (limp-wristed) on this site. It seems further evidence that you are only here to stir up trouble. I am beginning to think that you are some kind of Republican National Committee operative whose entire day consists of surfing the net, finding sites that likely contain people that disagree with the approved positions. Then your job is to mindlessly regurgitate the approved talking points for no reason other than to cause trouble.

LOL!

You prove my point. The left LIVES on paranoia and conspiracy theory. No surprise here, illicit street drugs can do that to the brain. The party of "drugs, sex and rock and roll" seems to have become addicted to hysteria and rabble rousing.

LOL, the FBI is spying on you! Bush wants to outlaw trannies. Rove wants to jail cocksuckers. Cheney wants to convert you to Christianity! And now TFan is a high level Neocon operative sent here from Area 51 to modulate brainwaves!!! LMAO!!!

:lol:


Oh yeah, Bush planned 9-11 and stole the election!

LMAO!!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[chefmike]

This is nothing but limp-wristed hysteria. You professional victims want to paint yourselves in a corner and scream "persecution" whenever a political figure goes out and tries to enforce EXISTING laws on pornography (or is it that liberals are seriously stashing child pornography on their hard drives and don't want any government official sniffing around?)



You are damn right I don't want any government official sniffing around. I DO NOT have child pornography on my computer because I find it repulsive and very wrong. You just keep on slandering those that disagree with you, that is your entire tack. What about the Bill of Rights do you not understand?

How appropriate, or should I say inappropriate for you to use a homophobic slur (limp-wristed) on this site. It seems further evidence that you are only here to stir up trouble. I am beginning to think that you are some kind of Republican National Committee operative whose entire day consists of surfing the net, finding sites that likely contain people that disagree with the approved positions. Then your job is to mindlessly regurgitate the approved talking points for no reason other than to cause trouble.

Does it not seem so?

It seems to me that he is the kind of person who would have referred to himself as a "good german who was just doing his duty" during the Nuremberg trials.

[chefmike]

No surprise here, illicit street drugs can do that to the brain.

As opposed to drugs obtained through prescription fraud like right-wing hero Rush prefers?

[JRon]

No surprise here, illicit street drugs can do that to the brain.

As opposed to drugs obtained through prescription fraud like right-wing hero Rush prefers?

LOL

No surprise here, illicit street drugs can do that to the brain.

As opposed to drugs obtained through prescription fraud like right-wing hero Rush prefers?

I have full respect for a man who seeks recovery and follows through til full recovery.

Rush Limbaugh is a real man, a rarity in todays world of professional victim liberalism.

[chefmike]

No surprise here, illicit street drugs can do that to the brain.

As opposed to drugs obtained through prescription fraud like right-wing hero Rush prefers?

I have full respect for a man who seeks recovery and follows through til full recovery.

Rush Limbaugh is a real man, a rarity in todays world of professional victim liberalism.

Limbaugh was forced to go into recovery after his arrest. Limbaugh is a hypocritical piece of shit just like Hannity and O'Reilly.

No surprise here, illicit street drugs can do that to the brain.

As opposed to drugs obtained through prescription fraud like right-wing hero Rush prefers?

I have full respect for a man who seeks recovery and follows through til full recovery.

Rush Limbaugh is a real man, a rarity in todays world of professional victim liberalism.

Limbaugh was forced to go into recovery after his arrest. Limbaugh is a hypocritical piece of shit just like Hannity and O'Reilly.


That's not the language of "tolerance" that one would expect from proper young liberals. :lol:

It seems that your attempts to conceal the truth have led you to false conclusions.

Rush was not "forced" into a recovery program, he was in recovery well before any plea, settlement or decision from the courts came down.




"I am pleased to announce that the State Attorney's Office and Mr. Limbaugh have reached an agreement whereby a single count charge of doctor shopping filed today by the State Attorney will be dismissed in 18 months. As a primary condition of the dismissal, Mr. Limbaugh must continue to seek treatment from the doctor he has seen for the past two and one half years. This is the same doctor under whose care Mr. Limbaugh has remained free of his addiction without relapse.


LOL!!!

[chefmike]

You can tap dance all you want, but the fact is that Limbaugh didn't enter rehab until after he was exposed and knew that charges were pending. So he did what any competent lawyer would have told him to do, get into rehab and be humble, show remorse, etc. Until the moment of his public exposure and the knowledge that charges were pending, he was just another junkie, and a monumentally hypocritical and sanctimonious one at that. :roll: :lol:

[chefmike]

LMFAO!

The warrant alleges that sometime between February and August 2003, Limbaugh withheld information from a medical practitioner from whom he sought to obtain a controlled substance or a prescription for a controlled substance.

Prosecutors began investigating Limbaugh in 2003 after the National Enquirer reported his housekeeper's allegations that he had abused OxyContin and other painkillers. He soon took a five-week leave from his radio show to enter a rehabilitation program and acknowledged he had become addicted to pain medication. He blamed it on severe back pain.

Before his own problems became public, Limbaugh had decried drug use and abuse and mocked President Clinton for saying he had not inhaled when he tried marijuana. He often made the case that drug crimes deserve punishment.

"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," Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/28/national/main1561324.shtml

Attorney Roy Black said the deal will end a lengthy investigation into whether Limbaugh "doctor shopped," which is illegally obtaining prescriptions from multiple sources. Limbaugh acknowledged an addiction to painkillers in October 2003 after his former housekeeper told The National Enquirer she sold drugs to him. (Watch how Rush Limbaugh made a deal -- 2:56)

Following the revelation, Limbaugh left his radio show for five weeks while he attended a rehabilitation program.

The radio host turned himself in to the Palm Beach County sheriff's office on Friday and was released on bail before 5 p.m., a sheriff's spokesman said.

Although Black urged reporters not to call it an arrest -- because Limbaugh turned himself in and was never handcuffed -- a sheriff's spokesman said technically he was under arrest during his booking.

The single charge will stand until Limbaugh has finished 18 months of drug treatment. Then, under the agreement with the Palm Beach County state attorney, the charge will be dropped, Black said.



http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/28/limbaugh.booked/index.html

[chefmike]

Limbaugh Morphs into Clinton: It Depends on the Meaning of "Arrest"
Submitted by Bob Fertik on May 3, 2006 - 12:56pm.Media Right
Limbaugh denies arrest, charge on radio show

WEST PALM BEACH — Conservative king Rush Limbaugh opened his talk show Monday with an account of the agreement he struck with prosecutors and his quick trip to the Palm Beach County Jail Friday.

"There was no arrest. There were no handcuffs. There was no perp walk. There is no charge," said Limbaugh, trumpeting the message his public relations pros have telegraphed since Friday, that he was not arrested.

But according to the agreement, signed and finalized Monday, there is, of course, a charge: withholding information from a practitioner, doctor-shopping, a felony, hanging over his head.

And according to a jail official, Limbaugh's surrender on a warrant and his booking at the jail certainly is an arrest.

"It's all semantics," says Capt. Mark Chamberlain, a jail supervisor, about whether a person who surrenders can be called "arrested." "But it's definitely going to count in our booking statistics as an arrest."

http://democrats.com/depends-on-the-meaning-of-arrest

[chefmike]

Free Rush Limbaugh!

All right, the world's most famous doctor shopper is free already on a $3K bond, having the good fortune to have ready access to the that kind of scratch. Not the slang term "scratch," (meaning "semoleans"), but sources tell me he actually scratched his Vietnam draft-dodging anal cyst and that much money fell out.

Doubtless while trapped in one of those giggly, rolling-around-on-a-bed-of-money orgies. Lots of folks in that situation would have trouble meeting the bond, probably calling all kinds of relatives who didn't want to hear from them and offering fire-sale prices on whatever vehicles, guitars, or extant drugs they had. But not Rusty L., probably the wealthiest broadcaster in the hate-for-Jesus kingdom.

Do I, like many of my leftie friends, gloat over Trenchmouth's legal woes? A little, sure. But, being a liberal, I have to feel for the guy, too. Just because he's made a career of cruelty and bad education doesn't mean he's a heartless fool. Probably. Though there's no way for a listener to discern humanity in the Talent on Loan from God, the drug thing proves that there's at least a nervous system in there somewhere.

And that nervous system, despite being weighed down by a brain that revels in "self abuse," as he told an e-girlfriend years ago, expresses pain. Screaming buttloads of pain, apparently, given the number of pills he was hoarding. That or he was planning to host the Bush family for the weekend.

Which brings us to Florida (shudder), and the legal system there (for sale). If you're wealthy enough or dressed like a cartoon, you can always beat the law in Florida. In fact, the law itself in Florida is specifically skewed to favor the wealthy and mice, "protecting" wealthy people from having to pay judgments, even in famous, not-even-remotely-racially-charged-no-matter-what-certain-people-say wrongful death suits. Every felon or potential felon in The Sunshine State should change their name to "O.J. Limbaugh Bush," guaranteeing themselves years of unhindered lawlessness.

In Rush's case, the state legal system that empowered creepy breast implant display rack Katherine Harris dropped essentially all of the drug charges as long as he promised to duck into a church basement a few times a month and announce, "I'm Rush L. and I'm an addict." To which the other addicts respond, "Ditto, Rush."

But Rush's legal team knows they can't just go around crowing about their client's near-miss with responsibility. So they opt for the more heartstring-tugging, blatantly racist tack. "The idea is to help the person overcome the addiction ... There should be a recognition that people like Rush really should not be prosecuted." That's Limbaugh's attorney Roy Black, telling us "people like Rush" have a special kind of law. Who are "people like Rush," who "really should not be prosecuted?" Are they the same people who, like Limbaugh, say they're not interested in leveling the playing field in America? (And if you're only willing to play on an unlevel field, isn't that just admitting that you're too weak and George Will-level pansified to face actual competition? Somebody in the supernatural circuit needs to ask Reagan about this.)

So, yes, Florinda, the war on drugs is not just a war on Americans with drugs, as Sam Kinison said, but specifically and demonstrably a war on poor Americans with drugs. Particularly if they have accents and interesting skin hues. That should cause thinking people enough pain to spur a phenomenal rush on OxyContin dispensaries. (Tip: Shop around. It's okay.)

This article and it's links, including the Vietnam draft-dodging anal cyst, found here-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davis-sweet/free-rush-limbaugh_b_20068.html

You can tap dance all you want, but the fact is that Limbaugh didn't enter rehab until after he was exposed and knew that charges were pending. So he did what any competent lawyer would have told him to do, get into rehab and be humble, show remorse, etc. Until the moment of his public exposure and the knowledge that charges were pending, he was just another junkie, and a monumentally hypocritical and sanctimonious one at that. :roll: :lol:


Yet another flaw in liberalism EXPOSED!!!

The belief that good men do not act in good faith, but only under court order and threat of penalty.

This general feeling of mistrust is what motivates liberals to distrust family, business associates and leaders in all walks of life.

If this is how you believe men behave, I truly pity you.

[chefmike]

Nice try, jackass! I'm sure that we all agree that rush the junkie entering rehab after he was exposed was a coincidence...

Nice try, jackass! I'm sure that we all agree that rush the junkie entering rehab after he was exposed was a coincidence...

Ah come on! That's a "substance abuse" problem. Where is your tolerance?

LMAO!!!