Turn the tables! Don't enter if your thin skinned

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

In my other thread you didn't even know who Rush Limbaugh was And now you're an expert?
Look, if you're just trying to stir up trouble, knock it off! I am honestly interested in what other people think about this subject and am not interested in arguing for arguments sake!

---

JMS I'm not making arguments for argument's sake - my postings reflect my thinking and I really like to see what other people think on this subject as well, and why do they think so. I am not trying to stir trouble, if I am close to offending anybody, please let me know and I will not be pushing things as far as I am. As I said after several posts about DC's being called cowards, while at the same time RL apparently being perceived the height of bravery I couldn't resist to point that in my view they are doing essentially the same thing, just like almost anybody else in most businesses. They do things that are good for their business.

I didn't think DC were trying to be brave at their concert. I am not an American and I do not live in the south, so my priorities of values may be different than some of you guys. But I expect that while on stage most performers will be doing things that their audience will find appealing not the opposite. And I would also expect any decent human being to apologize if they knowingly or unknowingly have insulted somebody else. I do find the application of different standard a bit dishonest.

As far as my knowledge about RL - I am not an expert at all - I've heard his program once and I found his arguments not to my liking. My 'who is RL' in your other thread was meant as a rhetorical question (even though I am not an expert on him). It was a response on the 'why would somebody award Al Gore for rising issues and not Rush Limbaugh', which I believe was supported by the rest of that post, namely 'because Al Gore was a vice president of this country for 8 years and is known all over the world, while Rush Limbaugh's impact is limited to roughly 50% of the population of the United States'. I hope this clarifies things. I am not a native english speaker, but this is not an excuse I am trying to hide behind - quite the opposite, I am trying to be as clear in my postings without being insulting, I am just aware that what I am writing may be interpreted in a different way than I meant it. I would appreciate it if you provide me with feedback before it is too late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

JMS I'm not making arguments for argument's sake - my postings reflect my thinking and I really like to see what other people think on this subject as well, and why do they think so. I am not trying to stir trouble, if I am close to offending anybody, please let me know and I will not be pushing things as far as I am. As I said after several posts about DC's being called cowards, while at the same time RL apparently being perceived the height of bravery I couldn't resist to point that in my view they are doing essentially the same thing, just like almost anybody else in most businesses. They do things that are good for their business.

I didn't think DC were trying to be brave at their concert. I am not an American and I do not live in the south, so my priorities of values may be different than some of you guys. But I expect that while on stage most performers will be doing things that their audience will find appealing not the opposite. And I would also expect any decent human being to apologize if they knowingly or unknowingly have insulted somebody else. I do find the application of different standard a bit dishonest.

As far as my knowledge about RL - I am not an expert at all - I've heard his program once and I found his arguments not to my liking. My 'who is RL' in your other thread was meant as a rhetorical question (even though I am not an expert on him). It was a response on the 'why would somebody award Al Gore for rising issues and not Rush Limbaugh', which I believe was supported by the rest of that post, namely 'because Al Gore was a vice president of this country for 8 years and is known all over the world, while Rush Limbaugh's impact is limited to roughly 50% of the population of the United States'. I hope this clarifies things. I am not a native english speaker, but this is not an excuse I am trying to hide behind - quite the opposite, I am trying to be as clear in my postings without being insulting, I am just aware that what I am writing may be interpreted in a different way than I meant it. I would appreciate it if you provide me with feedback before it is too late.

---

I like direct talk! This way I am certain I know what your saying, and I must say that I appreciate your post for the apparent directness which I have not perceived in many of your other posts.
Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer first and foremost, and I realize his motives for doing what he is doing may be less than honorable, but his consistency in defending and championing conservative values is not arguable. The Dixie Chicks on the other hand made a few unflattering remarks about our President and then apologized and then went back to making similar comments!
As far as you pushing to hard, hell, I can take just about anything anyone dishes out! My problem comes when true meanings appear to be veiled and constant inconsistencies so that you can't make heads or tails out of what someone really thinks! I thought I spotted some of this in your posts, but for now i will attribute this to English being your second language!

What is your native language anyways?

Mark Avery

български :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

български :)

---

That doesn't help. I'm not smart enough but I would assume its Russian or a close relative?!:D

Это значит что он из Булгарии!

It means he is from Bulgaria.....

:tu

We are at $116,900.00 with 172 bids! 1 day and 14 hours to go!

For what it is worth... i believe that Limbaugh said he was going to match the winning bid dollar for dollar... so since it is for charity... let's see a million!

WB is correct :) Indeed, I used one of the few reminders that at some point my country was significant enough to be able to stand up for centuries to the most powerful empire of that time. (The Cyrillic alphabet was developed by Byzantine as an attempt to culturally influence it's northern neighbor Bulgaria after they were not able to conquer it militarily for about 200 years. That was several hundred years before the Russians have got organized statehood and being in the same language group they adopted the same alphabet.)
Anyways you see - I also like to be proud of my history, even though it is a nice reminder that empires come and go....

Back to topic - Limbaugh seems indeed to have committed (at least from a show transcript on his website) to matching the final ebay cost dollar for dollar. He has also challenged the 41 senators to do the same and I hope at least some of them take him up on that with a donation to a charity on which board of directors they serve.

Which brings me to my next question, which may be considered another hot-topic starter, but I'll ask it anyways as I'm genuinely interested to find out what non-politicians think. So here it goes....

Now, the charity to benefit from said auction provides college scholarships to children of marines and law enforcement officers who have been killed in their line of duty. I think this is great - if they want to go to college, these children should be supported. This, however, is a private charity. I am just thinking that if these officers have been killed while serving the public (their payroll comes from tax money as far as I know) then I think that it makes sense that the provision of their children should be done through public funds. Doesn't the appropriate governments (local or federal) provide such financial support? If they don't, shouldn't they be required to (may be in a form of additional insurance) or if they do what is the need for this private foundation?

I don't think my question is political and may be I'm just ignorant, but that's why I'm asking. I know that many first rate universities in this country provide financial aid solely on need basis even though I do not know on what level - may be it just isn't enough. My friends who have been through the US educational system had either their parents pay for it, or have taken loans if their parents were not able to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

WB is correct :)

Now, the charity to benefit from said auction provides college scholarships to children of marines and law enforcement officers who have been killed in their line of duty. I think this is great - if they want to go to college, these children should be supported. This, however, is a private charity. I am just thinking that if these officers have been killed while serving the public (their payroll comes from tax money as far as I know) then I think that it makes sense that the provision of their children should be done through public funds. Doesn't the appropriate governments (local or federal) provide such financial support? If they don't, shouldn't they be required to (may be in a form of additional insurance) or if they do what is the need for this private foundation?

I don't think my question is political and may be I'm just ignorant, but that's why I'm asking. I know that many first rate universities in this country provide financial aid solely on need basis even though I do not know on what level - may be it just isn't enough. My friends who have been through the US educational system had either their parents pay for it, or have taken loans if their parents were not able to do so.

---

Why should public funds, over and above the insurance provided, go to the children of an employee of the government. If you were to pay for dead soldiers children shouldn't you also pay for a bureaucrat who died of a heart attack in his office, or a car accident between meetings? The public good would not be served by adding another benefit to public workers. Sure the military or law enforcement is dangerous while sitting in an office is not but everyone is allowed to choose their own path by the government and all paths should be considered equal.

Private charities can do whatever they want and serve whomever they choose. It's kind of meeting society short-comings via the free market system. If you see a need meet it, don't depend on the government to meet it for you. Thats not what government is there for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottS

Rush Limbaugh is a conservative commentator/radio talk show host who makes his living saying outrageous things. His hypocrisy was exposed when after saying outrageous things about drug abusers,



it turned out that he was addicted to prescription pain killers, buying them illegally, and busting prescriptions of questionable origin.

Weirdly, Limbaugh had all charges dropped against him, despite his on air confessions.

Shortly after he resolved all of these legal problems, he was detained by US customs with a bottle of Viagra that was not prescribed to him, but (he claimed through his lawyer) to his physician-- a rather funny thing for a man just involved in prescription fraud, though nobody asked if he was violating any of his agreements behind the dropping of charges. He was returning from the Dominican Republic, which is one of the largest sex tourism destinations in the world

---

I love how Rush gets characterized as outragous or far right!! he is actually not all that extreme. Listen to a few of the other conservative talk show hosts with big ratings and Rush is the mildest of them all.

He never confessed to illegal purchases, just being addicted. This is an accepted part of the recovery process in any twelve step program.

That quote about drug abuse predates the admitted start of his addiction by years. Since the admitted start of his addiction (which began with a legal prescription following back surgery) he has not commented on drug abuse or use. This is also the most usual way that people get addicted to pain killers, they are given to high a dose or too long a script by their doctors for a legitimate problem. Then the drug becomes the problem.