Why liberals are not hyprocrits - by Ann Coulter

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Straybow
[q] Originally posted by Berzerker
The drugs Limbaugh was taking were 100% legal and FDA approved. They were obtained and used without prescription, which is an illegal action. The difference between illegal drugs and abuse of legal drugs is quantified in law.

Your statement is either uninformed or deliberately twisted to "make your point." If you're going to get on a high horse, make sure your saddle strap is tight or you'll fall off on your face.

Typical leftie.

Am I misunderstanding the Rush case? I was under the impression that he was a drug addict who was repeatedly breaking the law in order to feed his addiction. Was that not the case?

[Theben]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
I love it when strong opinions are coupled with a total lack of self-awareness.

Sig material.

[Spiffor]

So, if I understand Coulter's argument, she's saying liberals don't have the same moral standards as conservatives, and therefore can not be called "hypocrites" when they're not doing what the conservative morals want them to do ?

Wow, what an impressive statement

As others said in this thread, there are numerous ways for liberals to be hypocrites, when they indulge in a behaviour opposite to their morality.

Just imagine the current white champion of anti-racism happens to belong to an all-white country club. Despite this behaviour not being condemned by the conservatives, they'll call him "hypocrite" in a matter of seconds. And he'll be likely dropped by his party if it becomes clear the scnadal can't be avoided.

[Berzerker]

Straybow -

It almost worked, missed this one the first reading. Do you really not know, or have you deluded yourself that falsifying your premise will go unnoticed if you hide it in enough verbiage?

The drugs Limbaugh was taking were 100% legal and FDA approved. They were obtained and used without prescription, which is an illegal action. The difference between illegal drugs and abuse of legal drugs is quantified in law.

Straybow, it is illegal to use prescription drugs without a prescription. It is illegal to obtain those drugs thru the black market. By definition, the drugs he was using were not legal. Didn't you know pot can be legally prescribed and there are people who have federal approval for pot? Does that mean the people who use pot without that approval are not using an illegal drug?

Your statement is either uninformed or deliberately twisted to "make your point." If you're going to get on a high horse, make sure your saddle strap is tight or you'll fall off on your face.

I see, you think the fact he used prescription drugs "illegally" means he wasn't using illegal drugs? Most of us here know the distinction you're making, but we also know it's a distinction without a difference.

Typical leftie.

Tell that to the liberals here because many of them are constantly calling me a right wing whacko... I happen to be so "conservative" I'd make you look liberal...

Drake -

Since when are your moral standards the ones other people should go by?

*sigh* I was using your example. You said a murderer is not a hypocrite for committing murder after claiming that murder is immoral and I said he is unless he comes out and reverses his condemnation of murder before contemplating murder. Limbaugh has never reversed himself regarding drugs, he may have merely toned down his rhetoric more recently.

He doesn't need to in order to avoid hypocrisy. I doubt he ever said that drug addicts should not use the legal system to try and avoid going to jail. He urged the authorities to place them in jail, which is a different argument.

So, does he now urge authorities to place him in jail?

No, it isn't. You can think that murder is immoral, **** up and kill somebody and still think that your act and murder in general are immoral afterwards. There's no hypocrisy there.

I said murder is inherently immoral. Even murderers don't want to be murdered. I didn't say a murderer must think that murder is immoral to be guilty of hypocrisy, only that the fact he doesn't want to be murdered while murdering someone else makes his act of murder inherently immoral.

Again, he isn't a hypocrite just because he doesn't go on national TV to call himself a piece of **** addict and beg for prison time. He would be a hypocrite if he attacked the authorities for prosecuting his alleged crimes, since he has urged them to do the same to others in the past, but I haven't seen him do this.

He's called other illegal drug users names, so, does he now refer to himself in those terms? No. He's called upon the authorities to jail drug users, so, does he now call upon the authorities to jail him? No.

[Berzerker]

Gimp -

Am I misunderstanding the Rush case? I was under the impression that he was a drug addict who was repeatedly breaking the law in order to feed his addiction. Was that not the case?

No, you got it. But Straybow seems to think that using a prescription drug without a prescription is an illegal action but the offender is not using an illegal drug. By his logic, pot smokers are not using an illegal drug because there are people who use pot with prescriptions and federal approval.

Spiffor -

So, if I understand Coulter's argument, she's saying liberals don't have the same moral standards as conservatives, and therefore can not be called "hypocrites" when they're not doing what the conservative morals want them to do ?

Umm...no, she's saying that liberals conveniently exempt themselves from charges of hypocrisy by not condemning the behaviors she cites. If they don't condemn, e.g., adultery, then they can't be guilty of hypocrisy for committing adultery. Of course, they are guilty of hypocrisy unless they want their spouses to cheat on them

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Once more, with feeling: liberals aren't immune to charges of hypocrisy. They are immune to hypocrisy on certain issues -- adultery, say -- because they've never come out against adultery to begin with. But by that token, conservatives are immune to charges of hypocrisy when it comes to, say, racism and sexism. If Mitch McConnell and Barbara Boxer both belonged to the same all-white country club, only one of them would be accused of hypocrisy -- and it wouldn't be the Republican.

What drives Coulter and her ilk nuts is that people are far more tolerant of political hypocrisy than they are of personal hypocrisy. And conservatives, with their all-consuming desire to control people's personal lives by demanding puritanical standards of behavior, continually set themselves up for that particular fall. That's why Clinton's approval rating kept going up during the impeachment, and why Gingrich, Livingston, and other conservatives ended up being the only ones damaged by that farce.

[Berzerker]

Rufus, I edited my post. Liberals are guilty of hypocrisy for committing or not condemning adultery if they don't want their spouses cheating on them.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Fair enough; I've removed your quotation from my post.

[Berzerker]

No problem, just wanted to correct myself and saw you had my original. The way comspiracy theories are flying, I thought I'd head off Straybow's accusation of a devious plot to trick him.

Straybow -

Do you really not know, or have you deluded yourself that falsifying your premise will go unnoticed if you hide it in enough verbiage?

Well now that is interesting, you missed what I posted and it's my fault. Yes Stray, it's all part of my plan... Grab the tin foil hat quick, they're coming...

[Straybow]

Here we go again

Yes, Berz, just ignore the legal difference between illegal abuse of otherwise legal prescription drugs and the use of entirely illegal drugs. You have indeed falsified you premise.
Thanks for making my point that you can only make yours by convenient ignorance.

certainly it is hypocritical for someone who uses "hillbilly heroin" to gripe about pot smokers.

Wrong again. That is when Oxycontin is crushed and injected. Oral use at normal dosages (a little more than 2/day for 6 years by the figures cited in I-forget-which-news-story-and-won't-bother-to-search-again) is simply use without a prescription. It isn't even covered by the same legislation. Do try and get your facts straight.

Before trying to remove the speck from your brother's eye, first remove the plank from your own eye…

Without thumping on it too much, Mt 5-7 / Lk 6 are a compilation of instructions and admonitions for the faithful, not condemnations. The tone is quite gentle. Compare to Mt 23 / Lk 11; that is stern condemnation of hypocrisy.

Rush claims to be a Christian and he has judged others for doing what he has been doing for the past 5-6 years - using illegal drugs

Again the factual distinction escapes you… I feel I must ride that point until you at least acknowledge that there is a legal distinction… and even were that not the case you are still wrong. Again, one statement 8 years ago, specifically directed about those drugs classified as illicit (heroin, cocaine, pot, etc), out of 15 years of this particular format of broadcasting. No comparison to Swaggart, I'll let you investigate those facts if they matter to you. Not a convincing argument; no sale today.

[previously stated by Berz] If liberals don't condemn these behaviors, they are by definition, not hypocrites. But that raises a set of different accusations regarding ther character...

Coulter's point is that they do condemn those behaviours, but only when spotted in a conservative. Which in fact makes them hypocrites by their own standards. They just refuse to live by their own standards, so they think they aren't hypocrites.
Get it? If not it is their logic or lack thereof at fault.

Didn't you know pot can be legally prescribed and there are people who have federal approval for pot? Does that mean the people who use pot without that approval are not using an illegal drug?

Those sticky factual distinctions still escape you. In any case, pot is not a product approved by clinical trial according to the FDA. There is no effective way to control dosage or monitor effects in a non-clinical environment, except by extracting essenses such as TCB or whatever and processing them. Pot is therefore not a legal drug. Oxycontin is a legal drug, meeting clinical trial standards overseen by the FDA.

If you think the last round of that legal battle has been fought you are sadly deluded.

[not addressed to me] He's called other illegal drug users names, so, does he now refer to himself in those terms?

Again, accusations without merit. Where does Rush use name-calling on those who become addicted to prescription painkillers? Only when he is applying the liberals' standard to their hero JFK, or whichever Hollywood champion of some cause celebre checks in to the Ford clinic. He does that all the time, turning liberals personal attacks back on them. That's half his schtick. He uses "ast" instead of "ask" because of "Ebonics," etc. Hmmm, kinda like what Coulter was doing.

He points out that if a conservative were to check in they'd call him/her a "junkie." Lo, and behold… Rush is right.
PS: If you are going to quote me, please add the back in. It's there for a reason.

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
If Mitch McConnell and Barbara Boxer both belonged to the same all-white country club, only one of them would be accused of hypocrisy -- and it wouldn't be the Republican.

Yeah, and only one of them would be called a racist—and it wouldn't be the Democrat.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Once more, with feeling: liberals aren't immune to charges of hypocrisy. They are immune to hypocrisy on certain issues -- adultery, say -- because they've never come out against adultery to begin with.

Do what? That depends on your brand of liberalism, doesn't it? I think you'll find many classic English liberals would disagree strongly with you on that point.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Re: Here we go again

Originally posted by Straybow
Yes, Berz, just ignore the legal difference between illegal abuse of otherwise legal prescription drugs and the use of entirely illegal drugs. You have indeed falsified you premise.

Though he did repeatedly and deliberately break the law in order to feed an addiction, right? Not some archaic joke law either.

[Straybow]

Berz' great drug war diatribe

Berz' great drug war diatribe

1) Wrong, it isn't immoral. There may be immoral things perpetrated by some involved, but that doesn't mean the whole is irrevocably tainted by the part.

2a) Wrong, the Second Amendment does not guarantee any and all individual practices of religion. Religions that use drugs as ancient tradition (e.g., peyote use in certain tribal spiritual rites) are specifically allowed in federal legislation. These are handled case by case.

2b) Complicating drug charges with weapons charges is just another way to raise the probability of conviction due to the level of evidence and proof required in our justice system. The right to bear arms is not to be confused with the right to use arms indiscriminately. Tying drug violence to prescription painkillers is a red herring.

2c) Quartering of soldiers is primarily an imposition equivalent to taxation, or to fines and deprivation of property (or its free use) levied without due process. It is basically a legalized form of pillaging. The side-effect of spying is secondary and I don't know of any specific mention in either the 3rd Amendment or the Federalist Papers and other commentaries on debate in Constitutional Congress. Not that I'm an expert, I have only read excerpts of FP. I reason that if they were to be found in those records they'd be brought out front and center. If I'm wrong, please cite the reference.

2d) "It was a no-knock raid with a deceitfully obtained warrant (based on the allegation of a meth lab) that caused the tragedy at Waco." Blatantly false, Berz! A whole army was camped on the edge of the cult's property for days. How can you claim this was a "no-knock raid?" Or maybe you are confusing "Waco" with some other event. Please clarify if that is the case.

2e) Please cite where due process is revoked. Your rhetoric here is empty without some facts.

2f) If you want speedy trials do not presume that the drug war is the only clog in the system. Maybe the lawyers who file endless appeals on behalf of DNA-confirmed, unequivocally guilty murderers, rapists, etc are the ones who should be on the receiving end of your ire. As for punishing those opting for jury trials and discouraging jury nullification, the practice antedates the drug war. Do not conflate widespread police and prosecution tactics with the drug war per se.

2g) No, conservatives argue that rights enumerated in the Constitution cannot be warped into anything the reader wishes, even if that reader be a Justice of the Supreme Court. The argument is that rights not enumerated are subject to legislation defining and modifying those rights. The typical example is abortion on demand, which had been regulated by states severally, but were then co-opted by the SCOTUS as a mythical "right to privacy" extrapolated from the Constitution.

2h) Federal laws in the drug war focus almost solely on the distribution end, which is by nature interstate. I suppose that if a defendant can establish that his particular case does not involve drugs grown, processed, or distributed from or through more than one state only that one state would have jurisdiction. For example, drugs in small enough quantity for self-consumption are routinely not treated as a Federal offense; the assumption of distribution does not apply in that case.

3) No, the other choice is to allow the drug cartels to set up petty fiefdoms that rule by might and intimidation as we see in numerous countries around the world. It is the height of naivete to say, "Why can't we all just… get along?" or "if we all just laid down our guns there wouldn't be any more war." Sorry, Virginia, there really are bad guys out there.

4) Agreed, asset forfeiture is widely abused. Do something specific about that instead of whining that the whole drug war is unfair. The case like Donald Scott is one where a claim against the government for redress can be petitioned through a Rep or Senator, either on the state or federal level. Elected officials responsible can be dealt with by various means—petition for recall comes to mind. You must know that actions against the government are going to be slow and difficult, but that is a necessary evil. For all I know the case you cited may have another side that you don't know about (or worse, that you ignore—not that I'm accusing you, but slanted cases start somewhere).

5) Tentatively agree. In a case where Mom is shacked up with some no-good drug pusher I hope a child reports this and can survive the ordeal that follows. Maybe what we need is more caring people to get involved in foster care so that it isn't such a nightmare. Are you volunteering?

6) I don't know statistics about direct causation of fatalities in the US. Are all drunk driving related deaths completely separate from illegal drug use? I don't know. Blood alcohol is often measured by "breathalizer" and no evidence of other drugs is sought. Alcohol and tobacco use are both far more widespread than narcotics use and probably more widespread than pot use. Neither pot nor tobacco can cause accute fatality, while both alcohol and narcotics can. The categories are even on that score. As a percentage of users I'd bet more die of narcotic OD that alcohol poisoning.

7) No comparison between drugs and guns. Ownership of guns is specifically protected. Use of pot and narcotics is not. Empty rhetoric.

8, 9) Post hoc ergo propter hoc: you are assuming that because the rises occured after certain laws were passed there is a causative relationship. Nobody can quantify what murder rates would have been without aggressive law enforcement tactics against narcotics distribution (or alcohol in the 20s). I can, however, cite the examples seen in other countries where smuggling cartels of many sorts are the de facto law.

Violence is not inherent, it is a choice made by those involved. In some cases the violence began as purely political revolution, which then turned to drug trade as an easy means of support. While the US may not have been as susceptible to the extremes seen elsewhere, yet the threat does exist.

In some cases the post hoc premise is flatly wrong. Gang recruitment of minors has always been around. I know a couple guys who were youths involved in gangs in the '50s. In this example the propter hoc does not apply either; minors are recruited for certain tasks in activities unrelated to drugs. All illicit activities can benefit from inconspicuous lookouts and delivery agents, and youths or even children are sometimes used.

10) "Just imagine tha crime wave we'd see if basic food staples were banned with a corresponding inflation of cost" Non sequitur, Berz. Weren't you just arguing that addiction was a problem with self control? You can't have it both ways. You die without food. You only feel like death withdrawing from an addiction.

Not only can you not compare drug price effects to staple prices, but you cannot blame the violence on the prices either. If you can't get enough money, then keep working at whatever you're doing until you can afford your "entertainment." Oh, unless drug use is indeed addicting (at least for a fraction of the population) and precludes the ability to hold out for an indeterminate time. Or unless drug effects preclude the ability to hold down a job. In either case you've just lost about ¾ of the argument. Even still, just about anybody, male or female, can whore for drug money. Commiting violent crime is a choice.

11) "Expansion of government" Which has expanded government more: entitlements, or drug enforcement? Go away, thou irrelevant argument. As for "spying" and reporting income, technically, even bartering is income that is taxable. Only that which you produce for consumption in your own household is not taxable, as long as you don't claim resources used as business expenses. Beat this drum in some other argument.

12) Like the FBI wasn't corrupted by anything else. No agency can long withstand corrupting influence of power. Pretend the drug war is to blame if you like, just don't trot this out as an argument here.

13) To the extent that opiate distribution is separate from other narcotics you have a point: the terrorism that comes from cocaine trade is focused in Columbia and spills over to neighbors. Since it doesn't affect us directly (unless you know people in those countries, as I do) we should mention that terrorism is a by product.

Inasmuch as money can be traced to individuals and countries we are using what resources we have to reduce the flow of oil revenues or other legitimate moneys into terrorism. Are you in favor of using drug policing tactics on a military scale against suppliers of terrorist funds? Sorry, can't be done. You have to either commit to war, or rely on diplomacy. There is essentially nothing in between. Yet another non sequitur.

14) As mentioned before, in S America the drug trade is controlled in part by those who opted for leftist military revolution in the first place, and only took to drug trade because it was easier and more profitable than kidnapping, or smuggling of low-value or low-volume goods. We are, in effect, helping a legitimate military response to infiltration and insurrection, and the conflict might well be worse without our aid.

/me thinks God, this drivel just goes on and on… Berz has obviously done this before. My ability to hash this out is diminishing, but I'll try.

15) Nonsense. Methanol poisoning was more common in the prohibition era, not ethanol poisoning. Overdoses are not caused by contamination. Only inattention on the part of the distributer or user, or possibly deliberate action by one of those parties, will result in OD. Do you have hard stats on drug poisoning due to contamination due to lack of regulatory attention that a legal drug would incur? Doubt it.

16) Berz says, "I don't think the drug war has done any good, therefore it hasn't done any good." Sell that line if you can, but I'm not buying.

17) Gateway behavior is well established in psychology. For example, being abused as a child sometimes results in the victim becoming an abuser later in life. Physical abuse, sexual abuse, even verbal abuse. We are delicate creatures in that respect. The combination of desensitizing and sociopathic pleasure are hard for some people to resist.

Violence in particular has this "gateway" effect, with one type of violent behavior sometimes leading to escalation. Non-violent rape (using alcohol or drugs to incapacitate the victim) does sometimes lead to forcible rape. Childhhood abuse of animals, especially mutilation, is often a "gateway" behavior for violent crime against humans.

Do children of smokers have a higher likelihood of smoking? What about other drugs? You cite examples about drugs being legal in certain countries not leading to an increase in use. Apparently legalization doesn't lead to a decrease either.

18) Continuing that argument, has decriminalization of pot led to a decrease in narcotics use? Obviously the gateway effect can't be explained by illicit status in that case, or by lack of supply of pot, so both arguments fail. What's more, the introduction of crack is the result of experimentation, an accidental discovery that cannot be tied to a specific cause. It cannot be analyzed probabilistically. Another non sequitur.

19) Freedom—the absence of coersion or restraint on your location. Last I saw, you were free to move to one of those countries where the drug of you choice is decriminalized. If it were really so important you'd move. You're welcome to whine about having to move, but otherwise don't whine about not having a choice.

20) Death and taxes. Get used to them. Find somewhere with less if either gets to you.

21) "Communism" get real. Barbarians rule by force of arms, civilized man rules by force of law. Choose one or the other.

22) $7+ trillion IIRC (a figure closely matching the federal debt) in the "war against povery" and we haven't "won" that one either. We have multi-generation drug "junkies," we have multi-generation welfare "junkies;" sometimes both at once. Sad, sad, sad.

In summation, the general bent of all your arguments is circulus in probando: after are assuming all visible effects are directly or indirectly caused by drug enforcement you use that assumption to "prove" that the drug war is eeevil. You have not proven that point, and in some cases you are entirely wrong.

You should just put your stuff up on a website. Easier for you to reference…
and easier for us to point and laugh.

Edit:
local federal in 4)
serves in 17)
are in summary

[Q Classic]

if coulter restrained herself from slanderous remarks against liberals that she herself complains about in her conservative totem "slander", maybe i'd accord her column with respect.

but as it stands, that hypocrisy and her linking of norman mineta, a japanese-american who was interned, with the bataan death march (which is, in most asian-american circles, perceived as a racist remark--whether it is or not, it is nonetheless racially charged) that makes me find much distaste for her.

by the way, her justification for why conservative slander is ok is because conservative insults are informative and useful in describing the opponent.

[Straybow]

Law is specific—nothing else

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

Yes, Berz, just ignore the legal difference between illegal abuse of otherwise legal prescription drugs and the use of entirely illegal drugs. You have indeed falsified you premise.

Though he did repeatedly and deliberately break the law in order to feed an addiction, right? Not some archaic joke law either.

Yes, Limbaugh repeatedly broke the law. He is therefore liable to the penalty for breaking that specific law, not for breaking some other law (use of an illicit narcotic). Most if not all aspects of the two cases are defined in separate codes of law.

He also repeatedly and flagrantly breaks the speed limit; so do I (and almost certainly you do as well). He did not, however, repeated break laws against murder. He and I (and 95% of drivers) are liable for the penalties of the former, but not the latter.

This is like antigun nuts who try claim the 2nd Amendment is only refering to hunting. Hunting is governed by a specific set of historical written and common laws, with terminology peculiar to it.

You "take prey," with bows, guns, traps, lures, etc. The term "bear arms" never appears in historical hunting terminology, it is unique to human warfare. "Bear arms" isn't even the terminology generally used for self-defense against burglars, etc. It is a phrase dedicated to military conflict.

The power of a Democracy stems from the people, and the people have a right to bear arms, even to the extent of resisting the people in government. Seems that's what Jefferson and some of those guys thought, anyway.

"I don't want to go on a rant here… yes I do!"

The law(s) Limbaugh broke are not laws against use and possession of illicit substances, but laws against use and possession of licit substances by illicit means. If he owns a CD player that's legal. But if he buys a CD player off the back of a truck and it turns out that CD player was stolen from me, he is in possession of stolen property. That is different from being in possession of something intrinsically outlawed.