• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Rush wants privacy for his private parts

passin thru

Well-known member
Boy you sure did a uturn here

This has nothing to do about his past problems

If it does not bother you then why worry about it. You are still missing the point........nothing illegal was done. Sounds like someone is just nosy.

This has nothing to do about his past problems

Nice try........ trying to change the subject. I was not doing anything about building his personality up. This is about the legality issue, not personality............quit trying to turn it into anything else
 

Econ101

Well-known member
passin thru said:
Boy you sure did a uturn here

This has nothing to do about his past problems

If it does not bother you then why worry about it. You are still missing the point........nothing illegal was done. Sounds like someone is just nosy.

This has nothing to do about his past problems

Nice try........ trying to change the subject. I was not doing anything about building his personality up. This is about the legality issue, not personality............quit trying to turn it into anything else

When the "rich" or the priveleged have more rights in this country than the poor, which is obviously the case with what Rush was able to buy with his money in his drug problem and the oxy on the street is illegal, and you stall on the definition of something that is "technically" legal, I put your arguments in the same category as Bill Clinton's definition of "is".

These are lawyer games to justify the subterfication (I just made up that word but as long as we are making things up here, I thought it sounded pretty good) of truth.

Do you want to employ the same tactics as Bill Clinton when it comes to these games just to edify a persona that seems to encompass your other views?

To me they are both wrong and play on the tendencies of people having to group things in order to understand them instead of analyizing each issue alone as to its validity. If you like Rush, fine. He isn't Christ and he is not perfect. You may have good reason to like the points Rush brings up but we don't have to demonize him on one end and turn him into a saint on the other. He has a little of both just like you and me. Take his good points and realize he has some faults.

It is okay to do that, you know.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Really I cant believe you guys actually care if somebody takes viagra or not.
But I did have a thought. We make truck drivers and pilots take drug/alcohol tests. Why not make our politicians do the same? Think about it. They are the ones who have all the power. I bet the results would be interesting if they did a random testing without warning.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
When the "rich" or the priveleged have more rights in this country than the poor, which is obviously the case with what Rush was able to buy with his money in his drug problem and the oxy on the street is illegal, and you stall on the definition of something that is "technically" legal, I put your arguments in the same category as Bill Clinton's definition of "is".

These are lawyer games to justify the subterfication (I just made up that word but as long as we are making things up here, I thought it sounded pretty good) of truth.

Do you want to employ the same tactics as Bill Clinton when it comes to these games just to edify a persona that seems to encompass your other views?

To me they are both wrong and play on the tendencies of people having to group things in order to understand them instead of analyizing each issue alone as to its validity. If you like Rush, fine. He isn't Christ and he is not perfect. You may have good reason to like the points Rush brings up but we don't have to demonize him on one end and turn him into a saint on the other. He has a little of both just like you and me. Take his good points and realize he has some faults.

It is okay to do that, you know.

oxycontin and the Viagra issues are just that, TWO seperate issues.

What part of legal do you not understand on the Viagra issue.

Bill Clinton..........same thing again, different issue

As far as whether I like Rush is not the point, it still goes back to what he did was legal I never said Rush or I had no faults.

There is nothing more I can say...............and pardon the pun..........it has been beaten to death.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
passin thru "Heck I wish I had his charm when I was younger"

Takes alot of charm to bag fat chicks and rape/sexual assault old ladies.


Hey Chief, Don't assume I like Rush limbaugh. Its not germain to this discussion, just another example of where you are WRONG.


I sorta had the same take as Ohreally, political persecution, but I'll really dislike Limbaugh if he folds up and moves.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Brad S said:
passin thru "Heck I wish I had his charm when I was younger"

Takes alot of charm to bag fat chicks and rape/sexual assault old ladies.


Hey Chief, Don't assume I like Rush limbaugh. Its not germain to this discussion, just another example of where you are WRONG.


I sorta had the same take as Ohreally, political persecution, but I'll really dislike Limbaugh if he folds up and moves.

"Whats the matter with Kansas?"
 

Latest posts

Top