Limbaugh was a victim of excessive profit motive . . .

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now, again - none of this excuses what both of these people did - abuse prescription drugs, but it also doesn't make them worse than you or me."

Hmmmm, when did I (or anyone in this thread) make damning statements against drug users year after year and then go abuse prescription drugs for years (allegedly obtained through illegal means) and then expect to get off without so much as a whimper from local prosecutors? Oh yeah, that never happened. But please, tell me more about how Rush is just like you and me.

And Rush is a prize to bring down, why?
Rush's comments on drugs in the past do not matter in this case. They are not evidence, and they don't fit anyway...except to those who consider Rush a prize to bring down.
Keep trying

CkG

You're sucking wind my friend, just like your pal Rush w/ his liberal hatred. Merry Christmas indeed.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Crazee - You can keep trying to come up with things that don't match. My comments regarding the scenarios are correct. I didn't list ALL the comparisons or say the situations were exactly alike, and it doesn't matter which parts don't match - it doesn't change my comments.
Conspiracy? Maybe not, but the attitude here and on the left seems to be that Rush is a big prize to bring down. Rush was not the target of any investigation until it became a circus - a circus that erupted while he was in treatment.

No, that "PS" comment wasn't for anything but information. You'll know when it's aimed at you

Have fun everyone... Rush says Merry Christmas

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Crazee - You can keep trying to come up with things that don't match. My comments regarding the scenarios are correct. I didn't list ALL the comparisons or say the situations were exactly alike, and it doesn't matter which parts don't match - it doesn't change my comments.
Conspiracy? Maybe not, but the attitude here and on the left seems to be that Rush is a big prize to bring down. Rush was not the target of any investigation until it became a circus - a circus that erupted while he was in treatment.

No, that "PS" comment wasn't for anything but information. You'll know when it's aimed at you

Have fun everyone... Rush says Merry Christmas

CkG

Hey it's human nature for most to want to see Hypocrites get their come uppence. I know it sucks for you Limbaughtistas but you had to know that he was full of sh!t.

 

[Gaard]

The fact that a hypocrite got busted for doing what he's condemned others for doing brings a smile to my face. I'm at a loss why it doesn't bring a smile to evryone else. Of course, I have my suspicions.

 

[Crazee]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Crazee - You can keep trying to come up with things that don't match. My comments regarding the scenarios are correct. I didn't list ALL the comparisons or say the situations were exactly alike, and it doesn't matter which parts don't match - it doesn't change my comments.
Conspiracy? Maybe not, but the attitude here and on the left seems to be that Rush is a big prize to bring down. Rush was not the target of any investigation until it became a circus - a circus that erupted while he was in treatment.

No, that "PS" comment wasn't for anything but information. You'll know when it's aimed at you

Have fun everyone... Rush says Merry Christmas

CkG

Hey it's human nature for most to want to see Hypocrites get their come uppence. I know it sucks for you Limbaughtistas but you had to know that he was full of sh!t.

Thank You!! That is exactly what I was saying!

CkG - First, the comments you made regarding the scenarios are not correct. You said Favre obtained the drugs through illegal methods when there is no proof to back your assertion. But even beyond that by bringing up the comparison you implied that the situations were analagous and they are not. People might have concluded that the situations where alike when they are not. So it does matter which parts you don't list because by drawing the comparison in the first place you are leaving key facts out which is misrepresenting the situation through ommission.

Oh and btw, I am not trying to come up with things that don't match they are the same things I have been trying to get you to acknowledge since this thread began.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Crazee - You can keep trying to come up with things that don't match. My comments regarding the scenarios are correct. I didn't list ALL the comparisons or say the situations were exactly alike, and it doesn't matter which parts don't match - it doesn't change my comments.
Conspiracy? Maybe not, but the attitude here and on the left seems to be that Rush is a big prize to bring down. Rush was not the target of any investigation until it became a circus - a circus that erupted while he was in treatment.

No, that "PS" comment wasn't for anything but information. You'll know when it's aimed at you

Have fun everyone... Rush says Merry Christmas

CkG

Hey it's human nature for most to want to see Hypocrites get their come uppence. I know it sucks for you Limbaughtistas but you had to know that he was full of sh!t.

Thank You!! That is exactly what I was saying!

CkG - First the comments you made regarding the scenarios are not correct, you said Favre obtained the drugs through illegal methods when there is no proof to back your assertion. But even beyond that by bringing up the comparison you implied that the situations were analagous and they are not. People might have concluded that the situations where alike when they are not. So it does matter which parts you don't list because by drawing the comparison in the first you and leaving key facts out you are misrepresenting the situations through ommission.

Just because you keep trying to bang the drum doesn't mean that it's what was being played. My comments were solid, no matter how many times you try to say - "but this is different".

Keep it up everyone...

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Just because you keep trying to bang the drum doesn't mean that it's what was being played. My comments were solid, no matter how many times you try to say - "but this is different".

Keep it up everyone...

CkG

All of them?

<<Both got hooked, and I can say with 99% certainty that Farve did not obtain all his meds legally.>>


Merry Xmas CAD.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Crazee - You can keep trying to come up with things that don't match. My comments regarding the scenarios are correct. I didn't list ALL the comparisons or say the situations were exactly alike, and it doesn't matter which parts don't match - it doesn't change my comments.
Conspiracy? Maybe not, but the attitude here and on the left seems to be that Rush is a big prize to bring down. Rush was not the target of any investigation until it became a circus - a circus that erupted while he was in treatment.

No, that "PS" comment wasn't for anything but information. You'll know when it's aimed at you

Have fun everyone... Rush says Merry Christmas

CkG

Hey it's human nature for most to want to see Hypocrites get their come uppence. I know it sucks for you Limbaughtistas but you had to know that he was full of sh!t.

Thank You!! That is exactly what I was saying!

CkG - First the comments you made regarding the scenarios are not correct, you said Favre obtained the drugs through illegal methods when there is no proof to back your assertion. But even beyond that by bringing up the comparison you implied that the situations were analagous and they are not. People might have concluded that the situations where alike when they are not. So it does matter which parts you don't list because by drawing the comparison in the first you and leaving key facts out you are misrepresenting the situations through ommission.

Just because you keep trying to bang the drum doesn't mean that it's what was being played. My comments were solid, no matter how many times you try to say - "but this is different".

Keep it up everyone...

CkG

The guy should've been fired just like anyone else would be. Only because he is Rush, he gets preferential treatment. The whole thing is more pure Bullcrap from those in total control and power now, so damn pathetic it's sickening along with all the Loyalist's.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Just because you keep trying to bang the drum doesn't mean that it's what was being played. My comments were solid, no matter how many times you try to say - "but this is different".

Keep it up everyone...

CkG

All of them?

<<Both got hooked, and I can say with 99% certainty that Farve did not obtain all his meds legally.>>


Merry Xmas CAD.

Yes. <edit - removed> Merry Christmas

Dave - Fired? Fired from what? His OWN SHOW? Buahahaha

CkG

 

[Crazee]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Crazee - You can keep trying to come up with things that don't match. My comments regarding the scenarios are correct. I didn't list ALL the comparisons or say the situations were exactly alike, and it doesn't matter which parts don't match - it doesn't change my comments.
Conspiracy? Maybe not, but the attitude here and on the left seems to be that Rush is a big prize to bring down. Rush was not the target of any investigation until it became a circus - a circus that erupted while he was in treatment.

No, that "PS" comment wasn't for anything but information. You'll know when it's aimed at you

Have fun everyone... Rush says Merry Christmas

CkG

Hey it's human nature for most to want to see Hypocrites get their come uppence. I know it sucks for you Limbaughtistas but you had to know that he was full of sh!t.

Thank You!! That is exactly what I was saying!

CkG - First the comments you made regarding the scenarios are not correct, you said Favre obtained the drugs through illegal methods when there is no proof to back your assertion. But even beyond that by bringing up the comparison you implied that the situations were analagous and they are not. People might have concluded that the situations where alike when they are not. So it does matter which parts you don't list because by drawing the comparison in the first you and leaving key facts out you are misrepresenting the situations through ommission.

Just because you keep trying to bang the drum doesn't mean that it's what was being played. My comments were solid, no matter how many times you try to say - "but this is different".

Keep it up everyone...

CkG

Denial is not a river in Egypt Your comments were not solid as pointed out above. The comparison was not valid as pointed out above.

Examples of your "solid comments":

"A certain professional athlete was once addicted to the same/similar drugs as Rush was."
Oxycontin is a much more powerful drug than Vicodin.

"Rush and Farve both did have prescriptions for the meds - Both got hooked, and I can say with 99% certainty that Farve did not obtain all his meds legally"
Wrong Brett did not obtain illegally. He also never made statements saying that people who use drugs have no excuse, etc...etc.

"The "powerfulness" of the prescription drug is meaningless in this discussion because they were both prescribed, originally for legitimate reasons."
Then why did you make the erroneous statement that Oxycontin and Vicodin are "same/similar" above.

"Both are celebrities who had a drug problem and both did not get their drugs legitimately like I said."
No you didn't say that earlier. Notice the change in wording from not obtaining legally to not getting legitimately. Two very different meanings.

"Rush is afforded every right to privacy you expect, he is also afforded the protection from wrongful search and seizure. He is also presumed innocent until proven guilty...IF he is ever charged that is. But I forget - this is the internet court....guilty because you don't agree with them or like them"
Here you state that we have found him guilty when no one in the thread stated that he was.

"Now again - what I said did not say EVERYTHING was the same, but they are infact similar."
I could make the statement that Robert Downey Jr. and Rush are similar or how about Elvis and Rush are similar. You see there are similarities and if I didn't say EVERYTHING then I could make the comparison by your standards of analogy.

"It's nice you have Rush as some big prize you are trying to bring down. Yea! go get 'em if it helps you sleep at night."
All I have said is that you used a flawed analogy. Where have I said Get Rush! Where have I indicated I really even care about the case. I just don't like when people make misleading comparisons.

"Rush's comments on drugs in the past do not matter in this case."
They don't impact the legality of this case. You are correct on that point, but the "circus" as you called it in earlier is as a direct result of the hypocrisy that Rush has exhibited in this case. The same thing happened with Dr. Laura when the nude photos and stories of a promiscous past came out. The major difference is that being photo'ed in the nude and having sex with alot of people isn't illegal so they didn't move to investigate

"Crazee - You can keep trying to come up with things that don't match."
First off I am not trying to come up with things that don't match I have presented things that don't match. Secondly they are the same things that I have said throughout this thread and yet you are the one who still tries to deny that you presented a flawed analogy and that you have made numerous erroneous statements.

"Rush was not the target of any investigation until it became a circus - a circus that erupted while he was in treatment."
There is evidence that he may have broken the law. When he came forward and accepted responsibility he never said anything about the maid trying to blackmail him then. He created the circus and he has to live with it just like Dr. Laura did, just like Gary Hart did, just like Bill Clinton did and just like anyone else who is in the public eye does that does something wrong. Why should Rush be immune from the law or from press coverage that no one else in the public eye is? Please tell me the reasons you think they shouldn't be investigating him and why there shouldn't be press coverage.

"Just because you keep trying to bang the drum doesn't mean that it's what was being played. My comments were solid, no matter how many times you try to say - "but this is different"."
No your comments as detailed above speak for themselves.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Crazee - You can keep trying to come up with things that don't match. My comments regarding the scenarios are correct. I didn't list ALL the comparisons or say the situations were exactly alike, and it doesn't matter which parts don't match - it doesn't change my comments.
Conspiracy? Maybe not, but the attitude here and on the left seems to be that Rush is a big prize to bring down. Rush was not the target of any investigation until it became a circus - a circus that erupted while he was in treatment.

No, that "PS" comment wasn't for anything but information. You'll know when it's aimed at you

Have fun everyone... Rush says Merry Christmas

CkG

Hey it's human nature for most to want to see Hypocrites get their come uppence. I know it sucks for you Limbaughtistas but you had to know that he was full of sh!t.

Thank You!! That is exactly what I was saying!

CkG - First the comments you made regarding the scenarios are not correct, you said Favre obtained the drugs through illegal methods when there is no proof to back your assertion. But even beyond that by bringing up the comparison you implied that the situations were analagous and they are not. People might have concluded that the situations where alike when they are not. So it does matter which parts you don't list because by drawing the comparison in the first you and leaving key facts out you are misrepresenting the situations through ommission.

Just because you keep trying to bang the drum doesn't mean that it's what was being played. My comments were solid, no matter how many times you try to say - "but this is different".

Keep it up everyone...

CkG

Denial is not a river in Egypt Your comments were not solid as pointed out above. The comparison was not valid as pointed out above.

Examples of your "solid comments":

"A certain professional athlete was once addicted to the same/similar drugs as Rush was."
Oxycontin is a much more powerful drug than Vicodin.

"Rush and Farve both did have prescriptions for the meds - Both got hooked, and I can say with 99% certainty that Farve did not obtain all his meds legally"
Wrong Brett did not obtain illegally. He also never made statements saying that people who use drugs have no excuse, etc...etc.

"The "powerfulness" of the prescription drug is meaningless in this discussion because they were both prescribed, originally for legitimate reasons."
Then why did you make the erroneous statement that Oxycontin and Vicodin are "same/similar" above.

"Both are celebrities who had a drug problem and both did not get their drugs legitimately like I said."
No you didn't say that earlier. Notice the change in wording from not obtaining legally to not getting legitimately. Two very different meanings.

"Rush is afforded every right to privacy you expect, he is also afforded the protection from wrongful search and seizure. He is also presumed innocent until proven guilty...IF he is ever charged that is. But I forget - this is the internet court....guilty because you don't agree with them or like them"
Here you state that we have found him guilty when no one in the thread stated that he was.

"Now again - what I said did not say EVERYTHING was the same, but they are infact similar."
I could make the statement that Robert Downey Jr. and Rush are similar or how about Elvis and Rush are similar. You see there are similarities and if I didn't say EVERYTHING then I could make the comparison by your standards of analogy.

"It's nice you have Rush as some big prize you are trying to bring down. Yea! go get 'em if it helps you sleep at night."
All I have said is that you used a flawed analogy. Where have I said Get Rush! Where have I indicated I really even care about the case. I just don't like when people make misleading comparisons.

"Rush's comments on drugs in the past do not matter in this case."
They don't impact the legality of this case. You are correct on that point, but the "circus" as you called it in earlier is as a direct result of the hypocrisy that Rush has exhibited in this case. The same thing happened with Dr. Laura when the nude photos and stories of a promiscous past came out. The major difference is that being photo'ed in the nude and having sex with alot of people isn't illegal so they didn't move to investigate

"Crazee - You can keep trying to come up with things that don't match."
First off I am not trying to come up with things that don't match I have presented things that don't match. Secondly they are the same things that I have said throughout this thread and yet you are the one who still tries to deny that you presented a flawed analogy and that you have made numerous erroneous statements.

"Rush was not the target of any investigation until it became a circus - a circus that erupted while he was in treatment."
There is evidence that he may have broken the law. When he came forward and accepted responsibility he never said anything about the maid trying to blackmail him then. He created the circus and he has to live with it just like Dr. Laura did, just like Gary Hart did, just like Bill Clinton did and just like anyone else who is in the public eye does that does something wrong. Why should Rush be immune from the law or from press coverage that no one else in the public eye is? Please tell me the reasons you think they shouldn't be investigating him and why there shouldn't be press coverage.

"Just because you keep trying to bang the drum doesn't mean that it's what was being played. My comments were solid, no matter how many times you try to say - "but this is different"."
No your comments as detailed above speak for themselves.

Keep trying, you are beating a drum that is out of tune. My statement stands as originally posted.

Keep on keeping on though.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Crazee
Denial is not a river in Egypt Your comments were not solid as pointed out above. The comparison was not valid as pointed out above.

Examples of your "solid comments":
[ ... ]

Crayzee - before you drive yourself crazy -- no pun intended -- you need to know that Sir Cad never, ever, ever, admits he was wrong about anything. Ever. Believe me, I have tried. Even if you can corner him with incontrovertible, fastidiously documented facts, he will explain over and over how your interpretation of his interpretation of your comments re. his comments re. God knows what is wrong, and he is right. He is like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: chop off a leg, "it's only a flesh wound." "No you didn't." "I beat you."

This appears to be an immutable law of nature. Better to focus your time and energy on perpetual motion or faster-than-light travel. Your odds are better.

Interestingly, this seems to be a rather common trait among Bush's supporters, as well as Bush himself. I suppose it's a self-defense mechanism really. It takes exceptional guile and self-deception to claim we invaded Iraq due to "massive stockpiles of WMDs ... err ... WMDs ... err ... WMD programs ... err ... WMD intentions ... err ... Hussein could spell WMD" and insist with a straight face that you never changed your story.

Cheers,

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Crazee
Denial is not a river in Egypt Your comments were not solid as pointed out above. The comparison was not valid as pointed out above.

Examples of your "solid comments":
[ ... ]

Crayzee - before you drive yourself crazy -- no pun intended -- you need to know that Sir Cad never, ever, ever, admits he was wrong about anything. Ever. Believe me, I have tried. Even if you can corner him with incontrovertible, fastidiously documented facts, he will explain over and over how your interpretation of his interpretation of your comments re. his comments re. God knows what is wrong, and he is right. He is like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: chop off a leg, "it's only a flesh wound." "No you didn't." "I beat you."

This appears to be an immutable law of nature. Better to focus your time and energy on perpetual motion or faster-than-light travel. Your odds are better.

Interestingly, this seems to be a rather common trait among Bush's supporters, as well as Bush himself. I suppose it's a self-defense mechanism really. It takes exceptional guile and self-deception to claim we invaded Iraq due to "massive stockpiles of WMDs ... err ... WMDs ... err ... WMD programs ... err ... WMD intentions ... err ... Hussein could spell WMD" and insist with a straight face that you never changed your story.

Cheers,

Yeah Bowfinger, you are an authority on these matters alright.

Keep on Keeping on.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Crazee
Denial is not a river in Egypt Your comments were not solid as pointed out above. The comparison was not valid as pointed out above.

Examples of your "solid comments":
[ ... ]

Crayzee - before you drive yourself crazy -- no pun intended -- you need to know that Sir Cad never, ever, ever, admits he was wrong about anything. Ever. Believe me, I have tried. Even if you can corner him with incontrovertible, fastidiously documented facts, he will explain over and over how your interpretation of his interpretation of your comments re. his comments re. God knows what is wrong, and he is right. He is like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: chop off a leg, "it's only a flesh wound." "No you didn't." "I beat you."

This appears to be an immutable law of nature. Better to focus your time and energy on perpetual motion or faster-than-light travel. Your odds are better.

Interestingly, this seems to be a rather common trait among Bush's supporters, as well as Bush himself. I suppose it's a self-defense mechanism really. It takes exceptional guile and self-deception to claim we invaded Iraq due to "massive stockpiles of WMDs ... err ... WMDs ... err ... WMD programs ... err ... WMD intentions ... err ... Hussein could spell WMD" and insist with a straight face that you never changed your story.

Cheers,

Yeah Bowfinger, you are an authority on these matters alright.

Keep on Keeping on.

CkG

Is he wrong?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Crazee
Denial is not a river in Egypt Your comments were not solid as pointed out above. The comparison was not valid as pointed out above.

Examples of your "solid comments":
[ ... ]

Crayzee - before you drive yourself crazy -- no pun intended -- you need to know that Sir Cad never, ever, ever, admits he was wrong about anything. Ever. Believe me, I have tried. Even if you can corner him with incontrovertible, fastidiously documented facts, he will explain over and over how your interpretation of his interpretation of your comments re. his comments re. God knows what is wrong, and he is right. He is like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: chop off a leg, "it's only a flesh wound." "No you didn't." "I beat you."

This appears to be an immutable law of nature. Better to focus your time and energy on perpetual motion or faster-than-light travel. Your odds are better.

Interestingly, this seems to be a rather common trait among Bush's supporters, as well as Bush himself. I suppose it's a self-defense mechanism really. It takes exceptional guile and self-deception to claim we invaded Iraq due to "massive stockpiles of WMDs ... err ... WMDs ... err ... WMD programs ... err ... WMD intentions ... err ... Hussein could spell WMD" and insist with a straight face that you never changed your story.

Cheers,

Yeah Bowfinger, you are an authority on these matters alright.

Keep on Keeping on.

CkG

You can easily prove me wrong, Sir Cad. All you have to do is go back through your old posts and find one where you admitted you were wrong in a debate.

It would be interesting to see how far back you have to go; I sincerely do not remember you ever openly acknowledging an error. The best I can come up with is one where I backed you into a corner and you grudgingly hinted one word you used wasn't technically 100% accurate, but you then proceeded to blame someone else before you even finished the sentence. If I get bored, I may look for it.

Oh well, our idiosyncrasies make us interesting ... to a point, at least. Merry Christmas. Time for Mr. & Mrs. Claus to finish wrapping a few presents.

 

[Gaard]

Damn Bow. You have to finish wrapping? We're going to start opening here in another 15 minutes.

 

[Crazee]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Crazee
Denial is not a river in Egypt Your comments were not solid as pointed out above. The comparison was not valid as pointed out above.

Examples of your "solid comments":
[ ... ]

Crayzee - before you drive yourself crazy -- no pun intended -- you need to know that Sir Cad never, ever, ever, admits he was wrong about anything. Ever. Believe me, I have tried. Even if you can corner him with incontrovertible, fastidiously documented facts, he will explain over and over how your interpretation of his interpretation of your comments re. his comments re. God knows what is wrong, and he is right. He is like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: chop off a leg, "it's only a flesh wound." "No you didn't." "I beat you."

This appears to be an immutable law of nature. Better to focus your time and energy on perpetual motion or faster-than-light travel. Your odds are better.

Interestingly, this seems to be a rather common trait among Bush's supporters, as well as Bush himself. I suppose it's a self-defense mechanism really. It takes exceptional guile and self-deception to claim we invaded Iraq due to "massive stockpiles of WMDs ... err ... WMDs ... err ... WMD programs ... err ... WMD intentions ... err ... Hussein could spell WMD" and insist with a straight face that you never changed your story.

Cheers,

Don't worry I am not going crazy over this I rather enjoy watching someone in denial

"My statement stands as originally posted."

I quoted them exactly as you posted them. All I did was point out your inconsistencies.

This all reminds me:

A certain professional singer was once addicted to the same/similar drugs as Rush was. That singer was still considered a great entertainer by the youth of America by some and infact he will is arguably one of the best to take the stage. If you ever watched Ed Sullivan you would have seen him have some the best rock songs ever. Now, again - none of this excuses what both of these people did - abuse prescription drugs, but it also doesn't make them worse than you or me.

PS for those across the pond and/or those who are rock and roll impaired - the singer above was in reference to Elvis Presley the King of Rock and Roll!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Crazee
Don't worry I am not going crazy over this I rather enjoy watching someone in denial

"My statement stands as originally posted."

I quoted them exactly as you posted them. All I did was point out your inconsistencies.

This all reminds me:

A certain professional singer was once addicted to the same/similar drugs as Rush was. That singer was still considered a great entertainer by the youth of America by some and infact he will is arguably one of the best to take the stage. If you ever watched Ed Sullivan you would have seen him have some the best rock songs ever. Now, again - none of this excuses what both of these people did - abuse prescription drugs, but it also doesn't make them worse than you or me.

PS for those across the pond and/or those who are rock and roll impaired - the singer above was in reference to Elvis Presley the King of Rock and Roll!

Exactly - you finally come close to understanding my comment. Here people sit condemning a man for doing the same thing MANY others have done and continue to do today. You can bleat all you want about his alleged hypocracy all you want but that isn't what my comments on the prescription drugs were about, if you would care to once again re-read it. No one here is perfect and we all have our flaws and weaknesses - Rush's, Farve's, and Elvis's weaknesses were pill popping. Yet one is being drug through the mud about it. If you want to talk about hypocracy or about other things surrounding this Rush case - fine - but that again wasn't what my comment was about.
I'll post it again just so you can see it:
"Makes little difference in the Limbaugh case though. However I will make one comment about abusing prescription pain pills. A certain professional athlete was once addicted to the same/similar drugs as Rush was. That athlete is still a considered a good rolemodel for the youth of America by some and infact he will is arguably one of the best to play the game. If you watched ABC last night you would have seen him play one of his best games ever. Now, again - none of this excuses what both of these people did - abuse prescription drugs, but it also doesn't make them worse than you or me."

I know you all won't understand this...even in your all caring and inclusive liberal minds - but you need to stop and think, instead of assume I'm saying more than what is there in that comment. Yes it went off on a tangent because you didn't understand the original intent and I allowed it to go that far. But you have to understand that just because I fight the Rush haters, it doesn't mean i'm in denial about what he's done or that I excuse him, or don't think he failed. Rush is Rush - this doesn't change anything in regards to his politics, of which we tend to agree on alot of points.

I've discussed this Rush thing long before you decided to jump in Crazee. People here hate the man, they love to try and pin things on him and make him and/or his comments out to be something more than they are. People here and elsewhere on the left are trying to make this a big deal and act as though Rush is some big prize to bring down. Well, I happen to think that this is all quite amusing since most of what is ranted about isn't even verified yet.

Have a nice Christmas you all, I'm done with the Rush stuff now. Keep on fighting though, whatever helps you sleep at night. Especially Bow, who feels the need to try and bring his opinion of me into this, although he is off-base on his accusation. One can percieve whatever they want and in some cases people will never agree or give ground. Bow seems to think that it equals, "not admitting wrong", but I disagree and won't admit to some percieved "wrong" when it wasn't. Thanks again for the chuckle Bow.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Crazee
Denial is not a river in Egypt Your comments were not solid as pointed out above. The comparison was not valid as pointed out above.

Examples of your "solid comments":
[ ... ]

Crayzee - before you drive yourself crazy -- no pun intended -- you need to know that Sir Cad never, ever, ever, admits he was wrong about anything. Ever. Believe me, I have tried. Even if you can corner him with incontrovertible, fastidiously documented facts, he will explain over and over how your interpretation of his interpretation of your comments re. his comments re. God knows what is wrong, and he is right. He is like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: chop off a leg, "it's only a flesh wound." "No you didn't." "I beat you."

This appears to be an immutable law of nature. Better to focus your time and energy on perpetual motion or faster-than-light travel. Your odds are better.

Interestingly, this seems to be a rather common trait among Bush's supporters, as well as Bush himself. I suppose it's a self-defense mechanism really. It takes exceptional guile and self-deception to claim we invaded Iraq due to "massive stockpiles of WMDs ... err ... WMDs ... err ... WMD programs ... err ... WMD intentions ... err ... Hussein could spell WMD" and insist with a straight face that you never changed your story.

Cheers,

Yeah Bowfinger, you are an authority on these matters alright.

Keep on Keeping on.

CkG

You can easily prove me wrong, Sir Cad. All you have to do is go back through your old posts and find one where you admitted you were wrong in a debate.

It would be interesting to see how far back you have to go; I sincerely do not remember you ever openly acknowledging an error. The best I can come up with is one where I backed you into a corner and you grudgingly hinted one word you used wasn't technically 100% accurate, but you then proceeded to blame someone else before you even finished the sentence. If I get bored, I may look for it.

Oh well, our idiosyncrasies make us interesting ... to a point, at least. Merry Christmas. Time for Mr. & Mrs. Claus to finish wrapping a few presents.

Caddy is one of those rare individuals who has a wrong answer for everything.

 

[Crazee]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Exactly - you finally come close to understanding my comment. Here people sit condemning a man for doing the same thing MANY others have done and continue to do today. You can bleat all you want about his alleged hypocracy all you want but that isn't what my comments on the prescription drugs were about, if you would care to once again re-read it. No one here is perfect and we all have our flaws and weaknesses - Rush's, Farve's, and Elvis's weaknesses were pill popping. Yet one is being drug through the mud about it. If you want to talk about hypocracy or about other things surrounding this Rush case - fine - but that again wasn't what my comment was about.

Your comment was all about trying to diffuse the heat on Rush by bringing in Brett Favre. Rush isn't being drug through the mud, he put the dirt in place when he made his holier than thou preaching about drug use. You are so quick to point out that we shouldn't judge him about drug use but where were you when he was making his great proclamations about the punishment of drug users and how they had no excuses. I am not condemning the man for drug use and I haven't seen anyone else condemn him over his drug use in this thread. Everyone has been critical of his hypocrisy (you can call it alleged all you want but that doesn't make it so) in this situation and not his drug use.

I'll post it again just so you can see it:
"Makes little difference in the Limbaugh case though. However I will make one comment about abusing prescription pain pills. A certain professional athlete was once addicted to the same/similar drugs as Rush was. That athlete is still a considered a good rolemodel for the youth of America by some and infact he will is arguably one of the best to play the game. If you watched ABC last night you would have seen him play one of his best games ever. Now, again - none of this excuses what both of these people did - abuse prescription drugs, but it also doesn't make them worse than you or me."

I am not an idiot. I understood you were trying to diffuse the heat on Rush by bringing in Favre, I don't need to see it again.

I know you all won't understand this...even in your all caring and inclusive liberal minds - but you need to stop and think, instead of assume I'm saying more than what is there in that comment.

Do you always try to divert with sarcastic remarks directed at the people you are debating with? I don't have to assume. You compared the two. What was the purpose of bringing Favre in this if it wasn't to try and draw a parallel between the two situations. I merely made sure that a clear picture of how unparallel the situations were.

Yes it went off on a tangent because you didn't understand the original intent and I allowed it to go that far. But you have to understand that just because I fight the Rush haters, it doesn't mean i'm in denial about what he's done or that I excuse him, or don't think he failed. Rush is Rush - this doesn't change anything in regards to his politics, of which we tend to agree on alot of points.

Where has anyone in this thread done any Rush hating? We have pointed out that he has been hypocritical yes, but no one has said anything hateful about him.

[qI've discussed this Rush thing long before you decided to jump in Crazee. People here hate the man, they love to try and pin things on him and make him and/or his comments out to be something more than they are. People here and elsewhere on the left are trying to make this a big deal and act as though Rush is some big prize to bring down. Well, I happen to think that this is all quite amusing since most of what is ranted about isn't even verified yet. [/quote]

Again he isn't going through anything that a famous person in the public eye goes through when they slip up. You didn't answer my question as to why he should be immune from an investigation when there is evidence that the law may have been broken. Why should he be immune to the press that any other public figure goes through in these situations?

Have a nice Christmas you all, I'm done with the Rush stuff now. Keep on fighting though, whatever helps you sleep at night. Especially Bow, who feels the need to try and bring his opinion of me into this, although he is off-base on his accusation. One can percieve whatever they want and in some cases people will never agree or give ground. Bow seems to think that it equals, "not admitting wrong", but I disagree and won't admit to some percieved "wrong" when it wasn't. Thanks again for the chuckle Bow.

CkG

I think Bow has hit this on the head. You have made statements in this thread that your own words later contradict and you still won't admit to any of them.
[Darth Vader Voice] The force of denial is strong in this one[/Darth Vader Voice]

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yep - Keep on keeping on.

Think what you all want I guess.

CkG

 

[Crazee]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - Keep on keeping on.

Think what you all want I guess.

CkG

No we would just like you to admit when you are wrong. But keep avoiding the questions that you know you can't reasonably answer.

Wait a minute even what you posted above was inaccurate because you said you were through with this thread

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - Keep on keeping on.

Think what you all want I guess.

CkG

No we would just like you to admit when you are wrong. But keep avoiding the questions that you know you can't reasonably answer.

Wait a minute even what you posted above was inaccurate because you said you were through with this thread

Yep - I'm done with the Rush stuff. Have a merry Christmas.

CkG

 

[Crazee]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - Keep on keeping on.

Think what you all want I guess.

CkG

No we would just like you to admit when you are wrong. But keep avoiding the questions that you know you can't reasonably answer.

Wait a minute even what you posted above was inaccurate because you said you were through with this thread

Yep - I'm done with the Rush stuff. Have a merry Christmas.

CkG

You have a Merry Christmas too. I guess by your not answering the question I asked that it is a tacit admittal that I was correct

 

[Gaard]

Is he wrong CAD?