OT: Poll--Rush Limbaugh - A Drug Addict's Punishment

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by Wow: [b] [quote] Word your poll better and you'll get more accurate data, genius. [/quote]OUCH![/b][/quote]Yeah - I have absolutely zero tolerance for people who draw outlandish conclusions from incomplete information. Maybe that's why I hate Rush so much - his fans draw outlandish conclusions from the incomplete information he hands them.

[Saint Johnny B]

Have not checked my IQ rating lately, and although it was once a little above average, it was never on the Einstein level. Let's just say, for certain topics I can read and comprehend at the post grad level. But that and 4500 dollars will get you a cup of coffee, IQ ratings are often of no consequence. And there are a lot of "push-pull" polls where the way the question is framed determines the answers. We're seeing more of those slanted polls all the time. OK, I'll bite. How could the poll question have been phrased better? How would you have ferreted out that Rush should not get the "OJ" treatment, assuming that you feel that was somehow bad. Ok, so have Rush Limbaugh charged with violating the drug laws, consiracy, and perhaps, some other drug-related charges, and we are looking at the possible sentences under thae law for Rush upon his plea bargain or conviction, how could the poll question have been made better?

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]How would you have ferreted out that Rush should not get the "OJ" treatment, assuming that you feel that was somehow bad. Ok, so have Rush Limbaugh charged with violating the drug laws, consiracy, and perhaps, some other drug-related charges, and we are looking at the possible sentences under thae law for Rush upon his plea bargain or conviction, how could the poll question have been made better?[/b][/quote]The poll question, as originally framed, was: "Should Rush get the Drug Addict's treatment" This was fine. It was the comment you made afterward that screwed the poll up: [quote]A "Yes" vote means lock Rush up like other criminal addicts. A "No' vote means that you believe in decriminalizing drug addiction, that it should be a health issue, and that, perhaps, treatment is the better alternative.[/quote]

[Wow]

[quote] OK, I'll bite. How could the poll question have been phrased better? [/quote]Is johnny a low life bitch, OR just a bitch? :D

[GZsound]

[b]Originally posted by Griffinator: Simple reality for all you purported conservatives out there (who seem to still have a desire to outlaw everything, which is definitely NOT a conservative trait)[/b] I'm not sure I understand what you said here, but you need to understand one thing about most conservatives. They believe, unlike liberals and their "everybody is a victim" argument, that people should have personal responsibility for what they do. Personal responsibility means if you do drugs and you are breaking the law, you should be punished. If you are selling drugs you should be punished. You can't smoke dope and drive your car around just because you think the drug laws are stupid any more than I can get drunk and drive my car into your family because I think the drinking laws are stupid. If there are laws that Rush broke, he should be subject to the same prosecution as any other person that broke those same laws. The fact he is a very rich white guy will probably help him but as a conservative, I say treat all criminals the same. [b]Human stupidity is a form of natural selection. When we as a society (referring to the US) started outlawing everything we perceived as stupid and wrong, we disrupted that selection process, and derailed the evolution of our society. Now, instead, we have the idiot masses controlled by the wealthy few, and no hope of a next step, since the wealthy few are intent on maintaining their control at all costs.[/b] Nice rant..although not true. The government has been practicing unequal justice for many generations. It is not the "wealthy few" whoever you mean by them, that control the masses. The liberal courts are trying as hard as possible to remove personal responsibility from our laws. If you kill someone and you were beaten as a child, you are not guilty. If you burn down a building and kill hundreds, you are not guilty if you were abused as a child. The new society will be one of victims. It already is happening with Rush. "Not his fault", "He was in pain", etc. Bullshit... He is an adult, he bought illegal drugs..he should be punished according to the law. I think if you start paying attention to the rulings by a lot of our liberal court system, you will see the direction they are taking our justice system. It sure as heck isn't the rich folks. There have been many recent liberal court decisions regarding criminal behavior. Can you name me any "wealthy Americans" that have had laws passed recently? Any examples of the rich controlling us? I mean, face it, money talks in America. We are a capitalistic society..at least for now. The liberal agenda to redistribute wealth, lower standards so everybody is the same, etc. is the biggest problem we face...not rich folks.

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound: I'm not sure I understand what you said here, but you need to understand one thing about most conservatives. They believe, unlike liberals and their "everybody is a victim" argument, that people should have personal responsibility for what they do. [/quote]Yeah, I'm right with you there. [quote]Personal responsibility means if you do drugs and you are breaking the law, you should be punished. If you are selling drugs you should be punished. You can't smoke dope and drive your car around just because you think the drug laws are stupid any more than I can get drunk and drive my car into your family because I think the drinking laws are stupid. [/quote]That's where conservatives and libertarians start to part ways. You keep talking about personal responsibility, yet you want to take the personal [b]rights[/b] away via laws which make illegal anything that offends you (i.e. drugs) You apparently aren't aware of the intensive lobbying efforts by groups like the American Prison Guard Union to maintain and increase the strictness of our drug laws. Gee - without the drug laws, there'll be a whole bunch of prison guards out of work. Can't have THAT now, can we? I say the laws are bullshit, and need to be stripped right back down to the bare essentials laid out in the constitution. Our Federal Government has a very short list of responsibilities according to the constitution, and mandating what you or I do to our brains with whatever chemicals we decide to injest voluntarily is not one of them. That's what [b]personal rights[/b] to go with [b]personal responsibility[/b] is all about. You can't have one without the other. [b]If there are laws that Rush broke, he should be subject to the same prosecution as any other person that broke those same laws. The fact he is a very rich white guy will probably help him but as a conservative, I say treat all criminals the same. [/b] I agree. The fact that the law exists means that, until it is changed, all must be equally punishable under it. You are again correct in stating that his wealth will, in all likelihood, exempt him from such punishment (although it didn't help Lee Iacocca much, did it?) [b]Nice rant..although not true. The government has been practicing unequal justice for many generations. It is not the "wealthy few" whoever you mean by them, that control the masses. [/b] Yes, it is the wealthy few that control the government, and thereby control the masses. You seem to be blind to how much money flows into the hands of our legislators in exchange for "favors" - that's what the wealthy controlling the government is all about. It's also "bribery", under the strictest sense of our existing laws. [b]The liberal courts are trying as hard as possible to remove personal responsibility from our laws. If you kill someone and you were beaten as a child, you are not guilty. If you burn down a building and kill hundreds, you are not guilty if you were abused as a child. [/b] Whatever. You're throwing a bunch of Rush-isms around now. Complain about the lawyers if you like, but the Supreme Court is 5-4 in favor of the GOP right now, so your complaints are falling on deaf ears. How's this for justice: My stepdad pulled jury duty on a murder trial a couple weeks ago. The defendant was "positively IDed" by two witnesses as the shooter - except both witnesses were more than thirty feet away, at night, in the rain, in a dimly lit parking lot. Murder weapon was not found. No powder burns on the defendant, although powder burns were found on two other people at the scene. The prosecutor went so far as to grab a "jailhouse informant" who testified that the defendant "bragged about how he killed the guy and washed his hands in the holding cell before they could test them" :rolleyes: Suffice to say, the prosecution had absolutely nothing. Jury was sequestered for 4 hours, during which my stepdad argued passionately to the effect that there was no real evidence to convict this guy with. Guess what happened.... 11-1 hung jury. Everyone else in the jury room, in spite of the total lack of evidence, voted guilty. If it weren't for one man with some sense, this kid would be doing life with no parole under Virginia law. That's screwball justice if I ever saw it. [quote]The new society will be one of victims. It already is happening with Rush. "Not his fault", "He was in pain", etc. Bullshit... He is an adult, he bought illegal drugs..he should be punished according to the law. [/quote]Sure he should - but he won't, because he has money. [b]I think if you start paying attention to the rulings by a lot of our liberal court system, you will see the direction they are taking our justice system. It sure as heck isn't the rich folks.[/b] Whatever. Is that why the federally mandated sentences are getting more and more outrageous, while the crime rate rises in spite of it? Seems to me you've got a very narrow view of the court system - you only see what's on TV and in the papers. You also are failing to consider that it's the idiot masses that sit on the juries that create these results, not the judges. Why don't you try looking over the minutes from your local court dockets once in a while? Take a good hard look at every day justice and see how "liberal" everything is. You might be surprised. [quote]There have been many recent liberal court decisions regarding criminal behavior. Can you name me any "wealthy Americans" that have had laws passed recently? Any examples of the rich controlling us? I mean, face it, money talks in America. We are a capitalistic society..at least for now. The liberal agenda to redistribute wealth, lower standards so everybody is the same, etc. is the biggest problem we face...not rich folks.[/quote]This is just stupid, extremist republican rhetoric. Who supported NAFTA right through the end of his term? Was he looking out for the wealthy or the poor? Who signed NAFTA? Was he looking out for little guy when he did it? C'mon. If you spent less time spouting off about the "liberal agenda" and more time looking at exactly who has influence over [b]both[/b] parties in our government, I promise you'd have a very, very different perspective. Remember Enron? Remember how [b]no one[/b] in Congress wanted to do anything about the influence peddling? Remember why? Because [b]every single one of them had Enron money in their "war chests"[/b]. Tell me again about the "liberal agenda". It's all bullshit. Corporate wealth blocs control our government and our media, and as an indirect result, our lives.

[Wow]

[quote]The liberal agenda to redistribute wealth, lower standards so everybody is the same, etc. is the biggest problem we face...not rich folks. [/quote]DING DING DING, we have a winner. :thu:

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by Wow: [b] [quote]The liberal agenda to redistribute wealth, lower standards so everybody is the same, etc. is the biggest problem we face...not rich folks. [/quote]DING DING DING, we have a winner. :thu: [/b][/quote]You're just as bad, Wow. You guys are so busy complaining about the liberal agenda that you can't see what the hell is going on. Whether you're Republican, Democrat or frickin Anarchist, if you're not a millionaire, you don't count.

[Wow]

[quote] Whether you're Republican, Democrat or frickin Anarchist, if you're not a millionaire, you don't count. [/quote]Count for what? What exactly are you talking about?

[GZsound]

Scott, I can appreciate your viewpoint, however, you are missing some simple facts. The Supreme Court is not the main problem. Jury trials are different too. A jury trial may set precedent, but you cannot claim a jury trial is controlled by a rich corporation, can you? You correctly state that corporations like Enron contributed to both parties..so did Global Crossing and so does Microsoft, etc. Anybody that thinks Ken Lay was a buddy to George Bush forgets he was a golfing buddy to Bill Clinton too. That said, the biggest mistake you make is in thinking big money that influences our politicians only comes from corporations. The money from big unions is staggering. You already mentioned the prison guards union wanting to keep the drug laws in place so they will have a job..the unions are typical liberal supporting entities. The money from the environmental groups is also huge as is the money from the American Trial Lawyers Association. All of these groups are trying to buy power and influence. In Oregon, we have had many voter approved laws declared unconstitutional by a liberal judge. No jury trial, no Supreme Court, just one liberal judge. Like the one liberal judge in California that tried to stop the recall after over 60% of the citizens of California voted it forward. Like the lone liberal judge that ordered the removal of the ten commandments in the South. Like the liberal judge that declared our voter approved Death With Dignity law unconstitutional, etc. These are the folks I'm talking about that are trying to impose their liberal agenda on the rest of us by ruling, not by vote. These are the liberals we need to fear.

[Griffinator]

Wow: To clarify (although it's incredibly obtuse of you to ask such a question) To "count" means to have your opinion considered by the lawmakers. If you are not wealthy, your voice does not count. Mark: You're still not connecting with me. Any one of those judges could have had their rulings overturned on appeal - except they weren't. The "liberal judge" that ordered the Ten Commandments statue removed could have been overruled by a higher court - he wasn't - the higher courts all supported the ruling. Just because you don't agree with that particular ruling, does not make the judge who made it "liberal" nor does it make the ruling part of a "liberal agenda". The #1 biggest problem with our system of government right now is influence peddling. You contribute to my campaign war chest, I vote your way on a crucial lawmaking decision. That turns what was a republic (representatives OF THE PEOPLE making the laws) into a plutocracy (government by the wealthy few) And just to hammer home the point, [b]Wow[/b]... [i][b]THAT MEANS THAT IN THE USA, IF YOU DON'T HAVE MONEY, YOUR VOICE DOESN'T COUNT FOR SHIT![/b][/i] Clear enough for ya, Mr. Wow?

[Wow]

[quote]THAT MEANS THAT IN THE USA, IF YOU DON'T HAVE MONEY, YOUR VOICE DOESN'T COUNT FOR SHIT! [/quote]Thats nice, but a poor person gets to vote just like the rich guy. The individual has a voice, its called a vote.

[BP3]

Allan Keys had the best campaign finance reform idea I'd heard in a while. If you can't vote, you can't contribute. Corporations can't vote, PACs can't vote, foriegn citizens can't vote.....

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by Wow: [b] [quote]THAT MEANS THAT IN THE USA, IF YOU DON'T HAVE MONEY, YOUR VOICE DOESN'T COUNT FOR SHIT! [/quote]Thats nice, but a poor person gets to vote just like the rich guy. The individual has a voice, its called a vote.[/b][/quote]Boy, you are deluded, aren't you? All voting gets you is the right to decide [b]which[/b] asshole collects money from these groups. That doesn't give you any say whatsoever about what laws are passed, how your taxes get spent, etc - that's the important issue. You have absolutely zero voice in the actual governing process as a voter - you just get to choose your leaders and hope for the best. Lesser of two evils politics has brought us to the point now where that really doesn't mean anything, and that hope is a dim one, at best. Chucky: I think Keyes was spot on.

[GZsound]

[b]Originally posted by Griffinator: Mark: You're still not connecting with me. Any one of those judges could have had their rulings overturned on appeal - except they weren't. The "liberal judge" that ordered the Ten Commandments statue removed could have been overruled by a higher court - he wasn't - the higher courts all supported the ruling. [/b] Actually, I do believe the Supreme court has yet to rule on some of the religious inclusion items. Also, keep in mind that if the people of a state vote in a measure and a judge declares it unconstitutional, the ruling will stand unless an appeal is made to a higher court. The higher courts don't automatically appeal a lower judges ruling. When you say money is what makes the world go round..you are right. Without the money to launch a costly appeal, a lot of these liberal opinions are left standing. Remember that if the ruling by the judge is one favorable to the state..like those in Oregon.. to fight it means the people of the state have to finance the appeal while their tax dollars are being used to finance the state. Since the state has "unlimited" public funds, it is an uphill battle for the public to try to overturn these judges. The only good news is the ninth circuit court. They are the most overturned court in history.

[Philter]

Oh please, there's plenty of money out there to battle it out in the courts. That's a lame excuse. The far right is extremely well-organized, and they can raise all the money they need. If there's not enough money behind a social issue to support it in court, it's too fringe to begin with. The reason that those decisions weren't overturned is because they were constitutional. Reactionaries hate to be reminded that a founding principle of our nation was is the seperation of church and state. And Thank God For That!!!!!

[Wow]

[quote] Reactionaries hate to be reminded that a founding principle of our nation was is the seperation of church and state. [/quote]This is interesting, because our "founding fathers" put church and state together all over the place, on the court houses, on our money,and on and on. I guess they ment no religion except theirs.

[Wow]

[quote] Boy, you are deluded, aren't you? All voting gets you is the right to decide which asshole collects money from these groups. That doesn't give you any say whatsoever about what laws are passed, how your taxes get spent, etc - that's the important issue [/quote]This all breaks down to which State you live in, they are laws/taxes put to a vote every election year. So, YES you do have a say in your surroundings, its called a VOTE. Just one, no more no less. Unless your from North Decoda , dead people vote there. :D

[Saint Johnny B]

Grif, you are wasting your time try to use thisngs like facts and logic on Mr. Low, I mean Wow. It's way over his small brainwashed head. Your Dad is a man I can respect, he uses his head and does not cave in under pressure. A man of principles. Sounds a little like my Dad. GZ, you got your facts way wrong. The rich corporations spead way more money around than anyone else. They outspend unions 2 to 1. And it's flat wrong to say the enviro groups are powerful when compared to the corporations. Same deal with the trial lawyers, in fact, trial lawyers have helped insure that many Ameicans get some great things like safer products, or perhaps yopu like exploding tires and cars that blow up and burn the occupants to death. Further, the 9th Circuit is not the most liberal or overturned court, a recent study shows the 9th Circuit is right in the middle. And look who is doing the overrtuning, a radical right-wing dominated U.S. Supreme Court. Wow's vote may count for a little bit, unless he lives in Florida. They don't count all the votes down thar in Bush County. In any event, WOW has about as much influence on national policy as a turd in a punch bowl. In other words, there's no way that Wow could compare his power to that of the big monoploy coporations ruling the county. Mr. Wow influence national policy? What a joke. And is it a so-called liberal court who will slap Rush on the hands and give Rush special treatment for breaking the drug laws? Right! The courts are controlled by the right wing and the corporations. Wake up.

[KenElevenShadows]

Please see the post on argument ad hominem! And then come back here and blast away.... :D :D

[Saint Johnny B]

OK, I did that. Did you vote? How did you vote? Let Rush walk or not?

[nhcomp45aol.com]

As Don Imus would say Lush Windbag

[GZsound]

[b]Originally posted by Johnny B: GZ, you got your facts way wrong. The rich corporations spead way more money around than anyone else. They outspend unions 2 to 1. And it's flat wrong to say the enviro groups are powerful when compared to the corporations. Same deal with the trial lawyers, in fact, trial lawyers have helped insure that many Ameicans get some great things like safer products, or perhaps yopu like exploding tires and cars that blow up and burn the occupants to death.[/b] Yes, and I want to starve all the old folks too.. The trouble with a post like yours is the difficulty in proving how much the unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups, etc. actually give to the politicians. I only know of one politician that posts where his contributions come from. And I'll give you a hint..he ain't a democrat. With all the smoke and mirrors involved in political payoffs, how do you know who gives how much to anybody? I'll admit you may be right, but I might be right too.. Have you got any real data about how much the unions contributed to the democratic party during the last elections? [b]Further, the 9th Circuit is not the most liberal or overturned court, a recent study shows the 9th Circuit is right in the middle. And look who is doing the overrtuning, a radical right-wing dominated U.S. Supreme Court.[/b] You know, I just don't understand the "right wing dominated U.S. Supreme Court" statement. My understanding is the court is pretty evenly split on most issues. Or are you simply expressing your anger at the rulings during the presidential election and letting that incident cloud your judgement? Again, my informaion is that the 9th Circuit is the most overturned court in history.. [b]Wow's vote may count for a little bit, unless he lives in Florida. They don't count all the votes down thar in Bush County.[/b] I was right. You are still angry over the presidential election. You might search the Miami Hearald for election results, vote counting, etc. Mr. Bush won no matter how "liberal" the counting technique. So because you are dead wrong on one subject, you have allowed a myth to color your judgement about our entire judicial system. [b]And is it a so-called liberal court who will slap Rush on the hands and give Rush special treatment for breaking the drug laws? Right! The courts are controlled by the right wing and the corporations. Wake up.[/b] Wide awake.. Criminal court and civic rulings are done by totally different court systems. Rush will appear at a criminal court proceeding. Rarely does political party affiliation of the judge come into account in a criminal proceeding. After all if we let political party affiliation influence criminal judges...well, somebody like OJ would get off. I'm sorry you are so angry but the election was a long time ago.. you need to get over it.

[Saint Johnny B]

I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore. Oh, sorry, that was a line in the movie "Network." The 9th Circuit gets a bad rap by the lunatic fringe element who just parrot what some media moron says. There's a study that did a comparison with all the other circuit courts, and the 9th came out in the middle of the pack re: reversal rates. I think it was done by a commssion on judical performance or an unbiased gov't agency. Please before you spread misinformation, falsehoods, and inaccuracies, do some legwork and some research. Same thing with who spreads around the most money, the contributions to campaigns are required to be reported by law. There are filings with the Federal Election Commission, this is public information which you can access. By far and away, the vast majority of money being spread around to politicans comes from corporations. Think about it, corporations are the ones with all the money. As for the right-wing US Supreme Court doing the "selecting" for the people, and substititing their will for that of the voters, I'll bet that even they wish they now had that one back. I'll bet they now regret their "selection" of the Bush and Cheney Gang. The amount of worldwide pain these two have inflicted on people is record-setting, millions upon millions are suffering. But the Gang had a doped up drug addict to pile on the hatred over the public's airwaves and stir up the uneducated masses to go off and kill. Kill women and children, kill the American middle class, and kill the American economy. Rush, drugged out or not, aided in the destruction.

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by Wow: [b]This all breaks down to which State you live in, they are laws/taxes put to a vote every election year. So, YES you do have a say in your surroundings, its called a VOTE. Just one, no more no less. Unless your from North Decoda , dead people vote there. :D [/b][/quote]Dude. You get occasional referendums on the local level and you call that direct influence? You cannot, I repeat, cannot, affect national policy without money, and large amounts of it. I'm done repeating myself. If you'd like to continue being obtuse, be my guest.

[Wow]

GRIFF, Brother please, you seem to have a level head, but this: [quote] You cannot, I repeat, cannot, affect national policy without money, and large amounts of it. I'm done repeating myself. If you'd like to continue being obtuse, be my guest. [/quote]If you dont believe that the average man can influence America than you have let the negative over take the positive. That is what America is, the positive out-weighing the negative, MANY have died, all for the right to be free. FREEDOM in IRAQ. FREEDOM in America. FREEDOM in China. FREEDOM in Iran. FREEDOM and CAPITALISM. Religion has NOTHING to do with it.

[Griffinator]

Thanks for the rhetoric, dude, but you haven't said anything. The point still stands. Your vote doesn't affect the policymakers in the Beltway one iota. It's all about which group opens the purse the widest.

[GZsound]

[b]Originally posted by Johnny B: Kill women and children, kill the American middle class, and kill the American economy. Rush, drugged out or not, aided in the destruction.[/b] I guess you have missed the reports on the growth in the economy recently..huh? I do believe I heard it is growing at it's strongest since the mid 80's. Must be those darn Bush tax cuts causing all the problems.. And it is funny how you seem to get away with way over the top rhetoric, accusations, basic slander, etc. and the couple of conservatives around here get labeled D... S...... trolls. I frequently make statements about the extreme liberals and how they seem to just preach hate. I think you could be the poster boy for Howard Dean.

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound: [b]I guess you have missed the reports on the growth in the economy recently..huh? I do believe I heard it is growing at it's strongest since the mid 80's. Must be those darn Bush tax cuts causing all the problems.. And it is funny how you seem to get away with way over the top rhetoric, accusations, basic slander, etc. and the couple of conservatives around here get labeled D... S...... trolls. I frequently make statements about the extreme liberals and how they seem to just preach hate. I think you could be the poster boy for Howard Dean.[/b][/quote]You're referring, of course, to the 7.2% spike in the GDP during the third quarter. I wouldn't go parading that around just yet, Mark. The vast majority of Wall Street analysts believe that this spike is [b]strictly[/b] due to the tax rebate checks everyone got in July. Businesses are still not investing - and definitely not hiring. That's the biggest measure of a real economic recovery. That said, if 4th quarter shows a similar (or even close to) growth percentage, feel free to throw it back at me. Meanwhile, I wouldn't be in such a "Rush" to trumpet these figures around - especially since 44,000 more people hit the unemployment line in 3rd quarter...

[Wow]

[quote]The point still stands. Your vote doesn't affect the policymakers in the Beltway one iota. It's all about which group opens the purse the widest. [/quote]TRUE. Your vote does mean SOMETHING though. :thu: