Why liberals are not hyprocrits - by Ann Coulter

[Straybow]

I don't know any details of the norman mineta thing, QQQ, but thanks for at least explaining the emotion component for your particular distaste of her style.

I think her style is a case of turn-about. The libs routinely accuse cons of racism, greed, etc without the slightest proof. It is guilt by association, and not even factual association but only the associations in the libs' minds. "They're Republicans, therefore they are greedy racists."

So she delights in hammering away at whatever factual faults and hypocrisies the libs expose themselves on. Jesse Jackson, the racist who sees only the color of peoples' skin, not the content of their character. Hillary Clinton the cattle futures baron. Bill and Hillary, the real estate grifters. Robert Byrd, Knight of the KKK.

The list is nearly endless because the left are hypocritical. They can't be honest about their own character or they'd never get elected.

I think she goes over the top with it, but…

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Straybow
So she delights in hammering away at whatever factual faults and hypocrisies the libs expose themselves on.

Factual. Riiiiiight. Like in her book Treason, where she repeatedly accuses liberals of treason -- but, when asked point-blank to name a single liberal she would consider guilty of treason as that crime is defined by federal law, she hems, haws, and ultimately refuses to answer the question? Factual like that, you mean?

She's an opportunist and an idiot, and that has nothing to do with her politics; your admiration does not speak well for you, I'm afraid.

[Stefu]

It's always amusing when people begin the "Ooooh, they're the big old meanies here and we are just finally replying in kind" game. There's currently quite nice an article at Reason.com about it: Bipartisan Coulterism

[Straybow]

Yeah, that's why Slander is so much better for a title. Calling them treasonous is just mockery, whereas slanderous is much closer to the mark.

"Opportunist and idiot" eh? Kinda like Al Franken, who can't sell a book unless it has Limbaugh or O'Reilly in the title.

Admiration? Naw, more like curiosity. It's a schtick, and it makes me wonder what's going on behind the public facade. She apparently has lots of friends who aren't exactly intellectual dwarves, so there is something to her besides the battle-axe persona.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Straybow
"Opportunist and idiot" eh? Kinda like Al Franken, who can't sell a book unless it has Limbaugh or O'Reilly in the title.

You can make that comparison just as soon as you can quote Franken calling for the assassination of Federal officials (as Coulter did with Norm Mineta). Until then, Coulter's in a class by herself. (Well, not entirely by herself; those nutjob Michigan Militia types are pretty fond of calling for the assassination of government officials, too.)

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Re: Law is specific—nothing else

Originally posted by Straybow
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.

Fantastic! We're fixed on that point.

Next point- you aware, I take it, that the clinical difference between many legal and "illegal" drugs is next to nothing? I could, with a prescription, legally obtain heroin, morphine, cocaine, amphetamines and barbiturates.

I could also obtain these powerfully addictive drugs through illicit means. Like Rush did.

Like every junkie, Rush had a choice. He could have sought help and tackled the addiction legally. Or he could have taken the criminal route- the route of the weak and the venal. He made his choice and good luck to him.

[chequita guevara]

Here's an interesting question: If Rush is in such severe back pain that he's become addicted to pain-killers, how is it that he's done so much golfing?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Duh. The crack takes his mind off the pain.

[Seeker]

More proof that we need

Hippocracy: the Rule by Hippopotami

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Duh. The crack takes his mind off the pain.

I doubt its real easy to golf while on hillby-heroin.

[Berzerker]

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. Thanks for making my point that you can only make yours by convenient ignorance.

Stray, virtually all drugs were or are legally available under certain conditions, even pot. But most people claim that pot smokers are using an illegal drug, not as you put it, illegally using a drug that is legally avaliable with a prescription. This "difference" you keep mentioning is meaningless. The next time you hear Rush refer to a pot smoker as a person who is illegally using a legal prescription drug, let us know.

If I am prescribed Oxycontin I am using a legal drug, if I use Oxycontin without a prescription, I am using an illegal drug. That doesn't mean Oxycontin is illegal to use all the time, the prescription and the language of the law defines the legality or illegality of the drug and it's use just as with pot.

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.

You think how much Rush was using means he can be addicted to "hillbilly heroin" and still gripe about pot smokers and avoid the charge of hypocrisy? Of course it isn't covered by the same legislation as pot, I never said it was. And where did I talk about how much Rush was using? That's called a strawman, oops, a straybow.

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.

This has what to do with my comment that Jesus condemned hypocrisy more than any other sin? Btw, it wasn't as "gentle" as you make out, he's accusing the hypocrites who judge others of something worse than the people being judged -
those being judged by the hypocrites may have specks in their eyes but the hypocrites have planks in theirs.

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.

Rush has not limited himself to one comment about drug users in 15 years of broadcasting. That's quite a fact you came up with...

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.

First, you said Coulter was making the point I made "inadvertantly". Now you say she was making a different point, so which is it? Second, she didn't make the point you're now claiming and even the point you're attributing to her is illogical. Liberals don't condemn social conservatives for committing adultery, they ridicule them for preaching morality to the rest of us while not living up to the very standards they preach. Coulter's point was that by not condemning, e.g., promiscuity, liberals have created a convenient loophole to avoid the charge of hypocrisy when the are promiscuous. And that is an illogical point as well because it presumes liberals are somehow required to condemn promiscuity, etc. That's like arguing you're a hypocrite for being a gun owner who doesn't condemn owning guns.

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.

Excuse me, but pot is legally available and there are people in this country who get pot from the government - legally! It doesn't matter what the FDA says, they don't write the laws - Congress writes them. So by your standard - Oxycontin is a legal drug because the law says so - then pot is a legal drug because the law says so. The fact both these drugs can be used illegally, i.e., without a prescription, doesn't mean the people doing so aren't using an illegal drug. My God, you can find the most inane things to complain about, but to launch into this nonsense about me trying to "trick" you is downright silly.

Again, accusations without merit. Where does Rush use name-calling on those who become addicted to prescription painkillers?

He doesn't, he wasn't addicted to prescription painkillers, he was addicted prescription painkillers that are ILLEGAL for him to use (according to your "distinction"). So, all those times he called pot smokers names he was defaming people who used prescription painkillers that are illegal for them to use (once again, according to your distinction).

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.

You and Coulter are missing the point, liberals only call people like Rush "junkie" because that's how Rush et al have referred to people addicted to drugs. If Rush et al weren't in the habit of defaming people in this manner, then the liberals wouldn't have grounds to sarcastically refer to Rush as a "junkie". For example, Fred Phelps is a notorious "***-basher". Let's say it was discovered he was homosexual. Liberals would not condemn him for being homosexual, they'd ridicule and condemn him for his treatment of homosexuals while all the time he was a homosexual.

[Berzerker]

I doubt its real easy to golf while on hillby-heroin.

I imagine it would be if your back was killing you. I've heard some of these pills create a sense of euphoria and since he's been able to do his radio show for years while using these drugs without detection, it's not like they incapacitate you.

[Berzerker]

Gimp -

Fantastic! We're fixed on that point.

Next point- you aware, I take it, that the clinical difference between many legal and "illegal" drugs is next to nothing? I could, with a prescription, legally obtain heroin, morphine, cocaine, amphetamines and barbiturates.

I could also obtain these powerfully addictive drugs through illicit means. Like Rush did.

From now on I expect Straybow will refer to all these people using illegal drugs as people who illegally use legal prescription drugs.

[Guynemer]

I am dumbfounded by the mindnumbing breadth and depth of the absolutely stunning pile of unmitigated horse**** that is Ann Coulter.

And I am utterly depressed that there are those here who profess admiration for this complete waste of organic molecules, who isn't even worth the atmosphere that her anorexic body displaces.

And I am infuriated at myself for giving a rat's ass about this know-nothing, loud-mouthed, empty-headed, racist, shrill harpy, because it is exactly this kind of reaction that she wants; it is exactly this kind of reaction that keeps her on television and the bestseller list.

So **** her, **** you, and **** me; goodnight and god bless.

[Ben Kenobi]

You think how much Rush was using means he can be addicted to "hillbilly heroin" and still gripe about pot smokers and avoid the charge of hypocrisy?

No. Do you have a quote of him saying this while he abused prescription painkillers? That would be hypocrisy, saying one thing while doing another.

It would not be hypocrisy if he said something 5 years ago and when he started using developed more of an empathy for drug users. That I believe you would call enlightenment.

Berz, if you want to debate the points in your long post, start a thread. I don't mind being the advocate for the war on drugs.