What a hypocritical bunch of BS! The only reason Rush has "admitted his weakness" is because he got caught red-handed and could face jail time (pending investigation). But rest assured, Republicans, your golden boy won’t be sharing a 9x9 cell with a guy named Bubba. I’m sure that Rush’s Conservative cronies will do everything possible to keep him from facing the consequences that any other person would face were they in Rush’s shoes. I must say, this is Republican hypocrisy at it’s finest!

Perhaps you should read more, and write less. The NYT today had a report on the subject and had talked to Alan Dershowitz, even he said it is very unlikely any charges will be brought forth because it usually doesn’t when it involves prescription drugs. I know you would love it, if Rush were, in fact, thrown in jail.

The real problem is that there is a difference between someone given a prescription drug and told use for medical purposes, then becoming addicted; as opposed to someone merely using drugs for its own sake.

Stewart is right lefties will be incapable of making distinctions, they usually do have this problem.

Uh, no. Dershowitz said that Rush SHOULD not be charged, in his opinion. And he never said that it was "unlikely" that Limbaugh would be charged. In fact, he said that it was a matter of whether or not Limbaugh’s status as a celebrity would trump the fact that prosecutors "usually don’t go after users of illegal pharmaceuticals." What was that you were saying about reading more and writing less? Please, if you insist on defending and undefendable action, at least get your facts right.

And wow. I’ve got to give you credit. As I was posting my remarks, I was wondering just how long it would be before you guys would start going to the well of double-standards in an effort to defend your Golden Boy. So let me get this straight... it’s okay for Rush to break the law because he took the drugs, initially, for medical reasons. And how dare society insist that a 50 year-old man - a man who has gone on record time and time again saying that drug users should face prison time - should handle himself like a mature, responsible adult? Thanks for setting me straight . Rush really IS the victim here. And megadittos to him for coming clean after he got his hand caught in the cookie jar!

PS: it’s amusing to me how you Conservatives are willing to go back to citing the NYT as the paper of record, when the circumstances are right. Why is it that, when the Times publishes a story that casts Bush in an unflattering light, it is no better than the Enquirer. But you have no problem citing it when it publishes something in defense of your Golden Boy Limbaugh. Like I said, amusing. And transparent.

By the way, here is a link to the article that Mr. Kajka cited (but apparently did not read):

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/11/national/11RUSH.html. (SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED)

And here’s a link to the Washington Post, which asserts in plain language that Rush could face criminal charges ("Limbaugh could potentially face a prison term if he is found to have illegally obtained such painkillers as OxyContin and hydrocodone."):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10613-2003Oct10.html

Registration is require for the Times article referenced above, not subscription (that’s WSJ.com).

Who knew my prophecy would be fulfilled so quickly?

Where to begin with Mr. Little’s remarks? I’m going to ignore the NYT debate as not being germane to my original point which was only to say that I’m glad for Rush’s sake that he’s seeking help and that he didn’t say something to the effect of "I did not have relations with those pills, those prescription pills." Is it the case, as Mr. Little suggests, that "the only reason Rush ’admitted his weakness’ is because he got caught redhanded"? Probably, although the fact that this will be Rush’s third visit to counseling suggests that he’s admitted it to himself and others twice before, albeit not on national radio. Furthermore, not admitting our weaknesses on national radio without cause is hardly a grave transgression. It goes only toward Rush’s humanity that he would hide a problem from the general public as long as he could -- who doesn’t? This is in fact the very distinction that I predicted Mr. Little et al would be unwilling to make: that once "caught redhanded" Rush was forthright enough to admit his mistake, own up to the repercussions, and take the PR hit to follow, in contrast to the public denial and stonewalling of a President caught and afraid to come clean. What will in fact be born true by Rush’s admission is what conservatives long-contended during the Lewinsky scandal: the American public is very forgiving when it comes to human frailty, but don’t lie about it as if we’re too stupid to know what you did. Rush’s audience will return and (barring jailtime) I predict he will return stronger and more trustworthy.

I can’t say I’m at all surprised that Mr. Little failed to distinguish between two transgressors--the one who lied when he was caught and the one who said "I’m sorry"--I just didn’t think it would be so soon.

I cited an article but did not read it? Speaking of being transparent!!!

Wow, put on your boots because the crap is getting deep. Though I know not of what "prophecy" Mr. Stewart speaks, I’m flattered that he "borrowed" some of my statements in an effort to avoid answering any of the questions I posed.

I’m glad for Rush’s sake that he’s seeking help and that he didn’t say something to the effect of "I did not have relations with those pills, those prescription pills."

Ah, the famous "let’s compare Conservative X to Clinton because, by comparison, Conservative X doesn’t look so bad" tactic. This is a common tactic employed by Conservatives --- bring Clinton into the picture because it allows them to shift some of the spotlight off whatever Conservative goon is in trouble for lying, cheating or stealing that particular week. Unfortunately for Mr. Stewart (and to a greater degree, Mr. Limbaugh), the large majority of intelligent Americans see right through this crap. For the record, I think that what Clinton was detestable. But unlike you, I don’t try to use Clinton’s actions to try to justify Limbaugh’s actions.

Also, we have only Rush’s word that he has sought counseling twice before. And these days, Rush’s word ain’t exactly as good as gold. Oh, and for the record, Rush hasn’t said that he has sought "counseling." He has said that he has checked into "medical facilities" twice in the past. The two are not necessarily synonymous, and you should not assume that they are until the truth comes out.

Furthermore, not admitting our weaknesses on national radio without cause is hardly a grave transgression.

Funny that you should arrive at that conclusion, because I never suggested that was the case. Can you say "exaggeration," children?

As Mr. Stewart knows quite well, the issue is not Limbaugh’s admission of his problem ON NATIONAL RADIO. What IS a "grave transgression" is the fact that Limbaugh has broken the law for a number of years, refused to address the issue when asked these past two weeks (which isn’t a whole lot better than lying, despite the spin that Republicans are trying to put on it), and the fact that he is an incredible hypocrite (he’s expressed his contempt for drug-abusers on a regular basis for the last several years).

Mr. Stewart’s comments illustrate the degree to which Conservatives will go to defend Golden Boys like Rush Limbaugh. Rush has great "humanity" because he broke the law for several years and hid it from the public. And he had the TREMENDOUS COURAGE (yes, that’s sarcasm) to admit it when he got caught red-handed. Wow, what a frickin saint. I can see the "What Would Rush Do?" bumper stickers now...

On the upside for Conservatives, they can now use the fact that Limbaugh was on drugs when he made the McNabb statement to justify his actions. I would expect nothing less from these perpetual victims.

By the way, I should make it clear to Mr. Stewart that the only reason I believe that Mr. Limbaugh DID finally fess up was because he had no other option, INCLUDING lying. I think that if lying were an option for him, he would not have hesitated to go that route.

Mr. Little have you ever been addicted to anything and tried to "kick" it? I mean besides your penchant for being "mean spirited". Do you have any idea how many wounded WWII vetrans came home addicted to the morphine they used to control their pain?

While possession of Scheduled Drugs might be prosecuted, the subspect normally be found in possession by law enforcement. With Schedule II the only Federal felonies are for convictions related "to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance". (See: 21 USC Sec. 841 01/22/02 )

First time "traffickers", let alone "users", seldom receive any real jail time in Florida. In fact, I personally know someone who has been "busted" and convicted three times for "trafficking" in Oxycontin, and has yet to spend any time in the "big house". His last conviction, while out on probation for his last two convictions, was over a year ago, and it appears as though they may only now be finally close to putting him "away". As for lying, the proven perjury of your hero, Bill Clinton is much more apt to earn someone "hard time" than is addiction to a controlled substance. Based on your rants apparently you are totally clueless about many things.

Oxycontin addiction is a very serious and sometimes life threatening dilemma. Not only is it difficult for the addict, it is extremely hard on those around them who care about them. For the addict, admitting they have an addiction problem can be difficult. However painful this may be, it must be acknowledged as the first gradient to overcoming the problem. The next hurdle is being willing to seek & accept help from an addiction professional. It can be hard for an addict to confront the fact that they can not do it alone. Once this fact is accepted, it is time to seek the appropriate professional treatment. Drug rehab programs based on the social education modality are highly successful. This means that individuals who are recovering from Oxycontin addiction are not made wrong for their past indiscretions, but are taught how to avoid future ones. They are provided with knowledge on how to change their lives and how to live comfortably without Oxycontin. Receiving treatment for addiction should be done in a safe & stable environment that is conducive to addiction recovery. Research studies show that residential treatment programs of at least 3 months in duration have the best success rates. 3 months may seem like a long time, but one day in the life of an individual addicted to Oxycontin can feel like an eternity. Addiction is a self imposed hellish slavery. The chains can be broken people do it everyday. You can be free!"

Drug rehabilitation is a multi-phase, multi-faceted, long term process. Detoxification is only the first step on the road of addiction treatment. Physical detoxification alone is not sufficient to change the patterns of a drug addict. Recovery from addiction involves an extended process which usually requires the help of drug addiction professionals. To make a successful recovery, the addict needs new tools in order to deal with situations and problems which arise. Factors such as encountering someone from their days of using, returning to the same environment and places, or even small things such as smells and objects trigger memories which can create psychological stress. This can hinder the addict’s goal of complete recovery, thus not allowing the addict to permanently regain control of his or her life."

"Almost all addicts tell themselves in the beginning that they can conquer their addiction on their own without the help of outside resources. Unfortunately, this is not usually the case. When an addict makes an attempt at detoxification and to discontinue drug use without the aid of professional help, statistically the results do not last long. Research into the effects of long-term addiction has shown that substantial changes in the way the brain functions are present long after the addict has stopped using drugs. Realizing that a drug addict who wishes to recover from their addiction needs more than just strong will power is the key to a successful recovery. Battling not only cravings for their drug of choice, re-stimulation of their past and changes in the way their brain functions, it is no wonder that quitting drugs without professional help is an uphill battle." OxyContin Addiction

Now, Matt, aren’t you ashamed of yourself?

Matt Little stated, "This is a common tactic employed by Conservatives --- bring Clinton into the picture because it allows them to shift some of the spotlight off whatever Conservative goon is in trouble for lying, cheating or stealing that particular week...But unlike you, I don’t try to use Clinton’s actions to try to justify Limbaugh’s actions." In so doing, he misses the point entirely; the point that Mr. Stewart was trying to bring across.

It is not that Rush’s actions are "justified" because Clinton did the same thing, or worse; but rather that Rush acted differently under differernt circumstances which made him different and morally more correct than Clinton. As many have pointed out, Rush attempted to solve his problem at least two times before he was caught. When this finally surfaced, he did not make excuses or, as Clinton did, lie about it. That is the real difference: Rush tried all along to fix the problem before it came public and confronted it when people found out. Clinton never tried to fix his problem. When he was caught, he blatantly lied to everyone in an attempt to cover up.

Aristotle says in the Nicomachean Ethics "...matters that are involved in actions...have nothing rigidly fixed about them, any more than do matters of health...it is always necessary for those who are acting to look at the circumstances surrounding the occasion." That is, the circumstances make quite a difference when acting, or judging the rightness of an action. What has been pointed out by Mr. Stewart time and again, and that Mr. Little fails to see is that the cirumstances surrounding Rush, and his actions in them, are vastly different from those involving Clinton and thus different judgments are made about them.

Why would I be ashamed of myself, Mr. Lang. I’m not the one who just invested seven paragraphs and God knows how much time downplaying Rush’s problems in an effort to portray him as a victim. No, Mr. Lang, the shame lies with you.

As for Mr. Driscoll’s vain comments, as I’ve stated previously, we have only Rush’s word that he’s tried to "do something about" his problem twice in the past. I’m EXTREMELY skeptical. And like I said, commiting a crime and covering it up counts as lying in most people’s books (including God’s)... regardless of how much Conservatives try to spin it.

I am a conservative and an occasional listener of Rush. I am deeply disappointed in the guy. This isn’t like Bill Bennett because Bennett’s gambling was legal and he obviously could afford it. Rush is an addict, no matter how you slice it. I think it absolutely undermines his credibility. Will I listen to his show? I don’t know if I will. It is a shame, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

"Why would I be ashamed of myself, Mr. Lang. I’m not the one who just invested seven paragraphs and God knows how much time downplaying Rush’s problems in an effort to portray him as a victim. No, Mr. Lang, the shame lies with you."

Au contre’, Mon Ami, I am not downplaying Rush’s problems (neither has he, for that matter). I simply observed that you are totally "clueless" regarding truly what "crime" may have committed, or the truth about the prescription "pain killing" drugs that Rush became addicted to.

While Rush, himself, denies that he is any sort of a victim, I disagree, as does the Federal and most State governments. If users (abusers) weren’t "victims", Matt, all the taxpayer bucks spent on "rehab" wouldn’t make any sense. Additionally, how does one explain those massive "tobacco settlements", if those "hooked" on nicotine weren’t somehow "victims"? Again, before you shake your "rhetorical" finger at Rush, perhaps you would do well to "walk a mile or so in his shoes". Pain can be a real "bitch", and I summise you would probably be the first to reject the notion "natural Denistry"!

Did Rush get "hooked" looking for some "cheap thrill" or to "get high" and lose his inhibitions. No. He got "hooked" as a result of being prescribed these highly addictive "pain killers" for "pain management" purposes by a professional. The real problem is that most medical doctors don’t study sufficient pharmacology to truly understand the implications of many of these patent drugs. For example, if Rush’s addiction really does go back 6 years, Oxycontin was a pretty new drug at the time it was prescribed to him, having been approved apparently in 1996. The addiction rates and subsequent illegal use of Oxycontin are extremely dramatic. For your obvious lack of compassion, shame on you, Matt.

"As for Mr. Driscoll’s vain comments, as I’ve stated previously, we have only Rush’s word that he’s tried to "do something about" his problem twice in the past. I’m EXTREMELY skeptical."

Well, actually, Matt, we also have his "whistle blowing", "drug dealling" maid’s word for that also. In her "6 figure" National Enquirer expose’ she said that Rush attempted "rehab" at least twice with little success. Obviously, Matt, when you execute your "hachette jobs" you don’t let little things like the "truth" get in your way. For bending the truth, shame on you, Matt.

BTW, Matt, which of God’s 10 Commandments did Rush break, in his effort to control the pain he was suffering, both pschological and physical? Other than to himself, Matt, to whom did Rush lie? Of course, one could have made the case that Rush should have taken his suffering to God and his reliance on "pain killers" was perhaps a sign of lost faith. However, my friend, compared your hero, Bill "I never had sexual relations with that woman" Clinton, he nearly "ran the rack" on the "Big Ten" - from adultery, to coveting, to stealing, to false witness, Bill seemed to be unable to keep any of them straight. Even killing, if you consider his "wag the dog" Tomahawk destruction of a Sudanese asprin factory, didn’t seem to be much of a problem for your man, "Slick Willie". (I am still confused as to exactly what happened to Vince Foster and those Rose Law Firm billing records.) Of course, Matt, unlike you, I am ready to forgive and forget, as soon as the "Slicker" cranks up the courage of Rush and admits his errors and asks for forgiveness. But then again, Matt, aren’t we all, after all, sinners? As such, the best we can do is "ask forgiveness" and pray to God for His grace that we have the strength to overcome our particular "demons". Finally, Matt, I believe our Lord instructed us that "he who is without sin, cast the first stone." Judging from you rock barrage against the penitent "Rushter", your conscience must be "pure as the driven snow". If not, shame on you, Matt.

"I am a conservative and an occasional listener of Rush. I am deeply disappointed in the guy. This isn’t like Bill Bennett because Bennett’s gambling was legal and he obviously could afford it. Rush is an addict, no matter how you slice it. I think it absolutely undermines his credibility. Will I listen to his show? I don’t know if I will. It is a shame, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander."

Ever read the life of St. Augustine?

Still playing the shame game, Neal? Even your hero said he didn’t want to be portrayed as a victim, so why do you insist on painting him as one? I know that enduring the next 30 days without Rush’s guidance and - GASP! - thinking for yourself is going to be tough going for some of you Conservatives, but please do try to differentiate between fiction and reality when making your case for why Limbaugh shouldn’t be held to the same standards that everyone else would be held to.

What you continue to overlook about Limbaugh’s situation is that how or why Rush got "hooked" is not the point. What IS the point is that once he realized he had a problem (which I suspect came around the time he gulped down his 1,000th pain killer), he - having more resources available to him that 99% of all addicts - chose not to take SERIOUS steps to overcome his addiction, HID his addiction from others, and he continued to criticize and condemn those who shared his problem.

Your continued attempts to bring Clinton into the picture amuse me. As far as I’m concerned, it’s the debate equivalent of crying "Victory!" as you run away from the discussion with your tail in between your legs.

Oh, and the Ten Commandments and the "cast the first stone" routine are nice - albeit predictable - touches. (Apparently Neal is a literalist when it comes to the bible --- I’m not surprised.) And though he misses the point completely, Neal is right about one thing: we all sin. But few of us have the audacity to go on National Radio and hold people up to standards which we aren’t willing to live up to, as is the case with Limbaugh. Let me put it in plain English for you Neal: If you are abusing drugs, maybe you shouldn’t be on National radio acting holier-than-thou and criticizing other drug users! If Neal (assuming he considers himself a Christian) believes otherwise, maybe its time he spent a little more time in church and a little less time in front of FOX News.

PS: Citing the National Enquirer now, Neal? Speaks volumes about the legitimacy - or lack thereof - of your argument. But then again, I’d expect nothing less from you.

"Still playing the shame game, Neal?"

"If the foe shits...!"

"Even your hero said he didn’t want to be portrayed as a victim,..."

I believe I stated that. Matt, didn’t I?

"I know that enduring the next 30 days without Rush’s guidance and - GASP!"

Actually, Matt, I never listen to Rush.

"but please do try to differentiate between fiction and reality when making your case for why Limbaugh shouldn’t be held to the same standards that everyone else would be held to."

Okay, please advise - just what is National Enquirer. I believe he will be held to much higher "standards" than either you or I would be, Matt. Your problem is you haven’t a clue as to just those "standards" may be.

"What you continue to overlook about Limbaugh’s situation is that how or why Rush got "hooked" is not the point."

Really? And just why not? Do you actually believe he would have spent tens of thousands of dollars for "drugs" had he not been "hooked" on them because of the severe pain of his back surgery? If so, please enlighten me then as to why and how he in fact was addicted?

"What IS the point is that once he realized he had a problem (which I suspect came around the time he gulped down his 1,000th pain killer), he - having more resources available to him that 99% of all addicts - chose not to take SERIOUS steps to overcome his addiction, HID his addiction from others, and he continued to criticize and condemn those who shared his problem."

Again, according to the "whistle blower" those aren’t the facts. What is about the "truth" that you find so hard to accept, Matt? BTW, if you got "hooked" on "pain killers", because you couldn’t stand the pain from a surgery, would brag about it?

"Your continued attempts to bring Clinton into the picture amuse me."

I am glad you get a "kick" out "Slick Willie", I still do, too!

"As far as I’m concerned, it’s the debate equivalent of crying "Victory!" as you run away from the discussion with your tail in between your legs."

Lighten up on your "canabis" intake, Matt, you are starting to get a little incoherent. "A mind is a terrible thing to lose!"

"Oh, and the Ten Commandments and the "cast the first stone" routine are nice - ...."

I thought so, too!

"(Apparently Neal is a literalist when it comes to the bible --- I’m not surprised.)"

Nope! I tend more towards being a "Big Bangist", in fact.! Wrong again, Matt! Another of your: "Illogical conclusions, based on insufficient data."

"And though he misses the point completely, ..."

And that point being?

"But few of us have the audacity to go on National Radio and hold people up to standards which we aren’t willing to live up to, as is the case with Limbaugh."

Did you ever consider, Matt, that might be because you truly lack any "standards", whatsoever? You are not on "National Radio" with a "talk show", because no one would want to listen to you. If you current disjointed, gratuitous attack on Rush is any example of the best you got. Sorry, but those are the sad facts, Mon Ami.

Hmmm! "Your canabis intake" - perhaps you angst with Rush’s holding people up to "standards" is understandable in that light.

"Let me put it in plain English for you Neal:"

Finally, thank God, please do, Matt!

"If you are abusing drugs, maybe you shouldn’t be on National radio acting holier-than-thou and criticizing other drug users!"

Then again, Matt, who would be better qualified to caution against "drug abuse" than someone who knows first-hand the horrors of drug addiction?

BTW, if you are abusing sex, Matt, maybe you shouldn’t be President of the United States, either. Especially when you consider the safety all those young, impressionable and vulnerable interns running around the White House and "Oral Orifice".

"If Neal (assuming he considers himself a Christian) believes otherwise, maybe its time he spent a little more time in church and a little less time in front of FOX News."

And just how much time do I spend in Church, Matt. Once, again, you opine on matter on which you are truly "clueless". However, I do, in fact, consider myself a Christian, Matt. As such, when someone like Rush admits their wrong-doing and asks forgiveness, I tend to grant it, unlike you, my friend. For instance, if Bill "It depends on what your definition of ’is’, is!" Clinton would merely ’fess-up to his abuse of women, and ask the American People’s forgiveness, as did Rush, I would be first in line to welcome home the Prodigal. Your values seem to be a little twisted, Matt. You either believe "Slick Willie" is telling the truth, despite ALL the reams of evidence to the contrary. Or you don’t believe him, but "cut him slack", despite his total lack of honesty and contrition. This "speaks volumes about" your standards, Matt. Or "the lack thereof".

"PS: Citing the National Enquirer now,..."

Aren’t you, also, Matt? If not, exactly from whence do you derive your facts on the subject at hand, since you choose to exclude both the National Enquirer and Rush, himself?

"Neal? Speaks volumes about the legitimacy - or lack thereof - of your argument."

Really? And your argument, that Rush hasn’t attempted rehab before, is supported by exactly what authoritative "cites"? BTW, Tarot Cards and Ouija Boards don’t count as legitimate sources, Matt.

"But then again, I’d expect nothing less from you."

Gee, Matt, I’m truly glad I was able meet your high expectations.

Once again, Matt, you have demonstrated your crass, gross "lack of the milk of human kindness". Shame on you, Matt!

Congrats, Neal. Your response has to be the most fragmented, disjointed, incoherent piece of garbage to hit this blog this year. Can you say "paragraph"? I must have really struck a nerve to have rattled you so.

I have no desire to engage in long, drawn out debate - over Rush Limbaugh of all people - with one so irrational. It’s clear that, despite your protests, you are obviously too attached to your Golden boy (or too wrapped up in the Conservative agenda) to see this issue objectively. I’ve made my point, and its time to move on. Undoubtedly, you will reply to this in an effort to salvage some of the dignity you’ve lost in the last two days. Be my guest --- your musings have occupied their last moment of my attention. But regardless of the spin you put on the issue (or your own perverse outlook) the simple fact is that Limbaugh has broken the law and he is a hypocrite. If you deny that, you are either a liar or a fool. And based on your last retort, I’m leaning towards fool.

Ciao, Squeal. Megadittos!

"Congrats, Neal."

Gee, thanks, Matt.

"Your response has to be the most fragmented, disjointed, incoherent piece of garbage to hit this blog this year."

Could it possible be because I was attempting to respond to your "most fragmented, disjointed, incoherent piece of garbage"?

"Can you say ’paragraph?"

I don’t but I’ll try. Let’s see, "paragraph’. How’s that, big guy?

I must have really struck a nerve to have rattled you so.

You’re joking, right? I see you consider yourself "a legend in your own mind"!

"I have no desire to engage in long, drawn out debate - over Rush Limbaugh of all people -"

Empircal data indicates that apparently you most emphatically do.

"It’s clear that, despite your protests, you are obviously too attached to your Golden boy (or too wrapped up in the Conservative agenda) to see this issue objectively."

"There you go again!" Matt, will ever stop with the "illogical conclusions based on insufficient data?"

"I’ve made my point, ..."

Au Contre’, Mon Ami, I am afraid you haven’t. BTW, Matt, once again you have neglected to "cite" your sources. Is it possible that you don’t have any, beyond Tarot Cards and Ouija Boards?

"... and its time to move on."

Whatever turns you on, big guy.

"Undoubtedly, you will reply to this in an effort to salvage some of the dignity you’ve lost in the last two days."

Ah, Matt, what was that you were saying about retreating having your "tail between your legs!" I am sure that "dignity" is a concept that is totally foreign to you, seeing how much you "respect" "Slick Willie". Perhaps, in future you will avoid a "battle of wits", seeing how you come to such a conflict totally unarmed. As Forrest Gumps mom would say, Matt: "Stupid is, as stupid does!"

"Be my guest --- your musings have occupied their last moment of my attention."

Gee, Matt, "can’t we all just get along?"

"But regardless of the spin you put on the issue (or your own perverse outlook) the simple fact is that Limbaugh has broken the law and he is a hypocrite."

What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

"If you deny that, you are either a liar or a fool. And based on your last retort, I’m leaning towards fool. Ciao, Squeal. Megadittos!"

Between Rush and Bill, the only one adjudicated guilty was your hero, the "Slickmeister". Hence his disbarment. If you deny that, I am afraid it is you who are the fool, my friend, or perhaps merely just a hypocrite. Take your choice. But again, shame on you, Matt. "Have a nice day!"

Why can’t you guys just admit that one of your own screwed up in a big way? Stephen Lang’s Oxycontin Manifesto is just plain laughable. If Republicans invested half the energy in making the US a better place to live than they spend in protecting their own, we’d all be a lot better off!

On a more positive note, word is that after just 3 days in rehab, Mr. Limbaugh has already kicked his hoagie addiction. ;-)

Oops, above I wrote "Stephen Lang." I meant "Neal Lang." Sorry about that, no offense intended.

"Why can’t you guys just admit that one of your own screwed up in a big way?"

Unlike your "ideal", Bill "I never had sexual relations with that women" Clinton, I both Rush and I have agreed that becoming addicted to "pain killers" is "screwed up". Also, unlike your man the "Slickmeister", I believe Rush also expressed his sincere contrition and requested forgiveness for his failing. Perhaps you could point to cite where either Rush, or myself, indicated any differently. On the other hand, you leftists continue in your "denial" of the abusive life style of your "apex of all thing good", "Slick Willie".

"Stephen Lang’s Oxycontin Manifesto is just plain laughable."

Who’s Stephen Lang? I have a cousin by that name, but I am unfamilar with his "Oxycontin Manifesto".

"If Republicans invested half the energy in making the US a better place to live than they spend in protecting their own, we’d all be a lot better off!"

Unlike you leftists, who spend ALL YOUR ENERGY continuely "tearing the US down", at least we Republican invest some of our "energy in making the US a better place to live". From Lenin to Stalin to Mao to Castro to Saddam, frankly I am confused as to what you guys find as the "remedy social value" of such murdering totalitarian tyrannts.

"On a more positive note, word is that after just 3 days in rehab, Mr. Limbaugh has already kicked his hoagie addiction. ;-)"

Don’t give up your day time job because I don’t think you’ll make it as a "Standup Comedian". I find it tragic that you leftists insist on making a joke out of someone else’s human tragedy. I certainly hope no one in your family ever finds themselves in pain and then becomes addicted to "pain killer" drugs that were prescribed by their doctor. Shame on you, Nathan!

"Oops, above I wrote "Stephen Lang." I meant "Neal Lang." Sorry about that, no offense intended."

Oops, no offense taken. However, I am afraid I cannot accept your attribution to me of a so-called "Oxycontin Manifesto". All the FACTS about the drug "Oxycontin" in my posts above were attributed either to the U.S. Criminal Code or the "Drug-Rehab.Org" organization. Both of which I cited with a "Link" in my posts above, unlike my friend, Matt, who seems to have gotten his incorrect innuendo that - Rush never before attempted Rehab for his "Drug Addiction" - from either his "Tarot Cards and Ouija Board", because he refuses to provide any other cite. Of course, both Rush, and his "whistle blowing" maid, confirm Rush’s earlier attempt to "kick his addiction".

"Unlike your "ideal", Bill "I never had sexual relations with that women" Clinton, I both Rush and I have agreed that becoming addicted to "pain killers" is ’screwed up’. Also, unlike your man the ’Slickmeister’, I believe Rush also expressed his sincere contrition and requested forgiveness for his failing. Perhaps you could point to cite where either Rush, or myself, indicated any differently. On the other hand, you leftists continue in your ’denial’ of the abusive life style of your "apex of all thing good", ’Slick Willie’."

Utter hogwash. Lang does exactly what Little accused him of in bringing up Clinton. Readers should go back and look at every message in this topic. Who is the first person to bring up Clinton? Stewart. Who keeps bringing up Clinton? Lang. It’s smoke and mirrors my friends. He takes it a step further by bringing Saddam and company into the picture. Because we hold Rush responsible, we OBVIOUSLY support Saddam. And you know what that means: we’re all big, fat traitors!

If only Lang and his fellow Conservatives had admitted that Rush screwed up. But they haven’t. What they’ve done is said "Yeah, Rush screwed up, BUT..." (the BUT being the endless "those darn Oxycontin pills are just so darn addictive" type of observations).

Lang continues to struggle with the notion that Rush might not be what the public at large would consider a "reliable source" right now (on top of that, he’s all too willing to take what the Enquirer says at face value). Not surprising, since his political party has a long history of ignoring the truth.

"Utter hogwash."

Your not trying to make the case that Bill "It depends on what your definition of ’IS’, is" Clinton actually ’fessed up to his turning the "Oral Orifice" into a "sexual playpen", are you?

Lang does exactly what Little accused him of in bringing up Clinton."

Actually I was merely contrasting the sincere honesty of Rush Limbaugh, admitting his mistake and asking forgiveness, with the deceit of the "coverup" of your guy, the "Slickster". Please note that subject honesty and hypocricy was broached by my friend, Matt, well before I entered the fray. Matt opined that Rush lied about seeking help for his addiction (with no proof or cites, and despite that fact, this is contrary to what "evidence" that has been made public). In fact, after opening the door with a totally wrong, unsubstantiated attack on Rush’s veracity specificly and conservative/Republican hypocrisy in general - to wit:

"What a hypocritical bunch of BS! The only reason Rush has "admitted his weakness" is because he got caught red-handed and could face jail time (pending investigation). But rest assured, Republicans, your golden boy won’t be sharing a 9x9 cell with a guy named Bubba. I’m sure that Rush’s Conservative cronies will do everything possible to keep him from facing the consequences that any other person would face were they in Rush’s shoes. I must say, this is Republican hypocrisy at it’s finest!"

After such an extraordinily (and false) indictment of conservative/Republicans for their alleged hypocrisy, it seems is quite UNFAIR to declare antics of the possibly greatest leftist/Democrat prevaricator of ALL TIME, and his hypocritcal leftist/Democrat enablers, somehow "off limits". You, Nathan and Matt might try to set your own ground rule (how typically elitist of you all), but I am not oblige to conform to your wishes. Of course, seeing how your man the "Slickmeister" has turned lying into an art-form, I can readily understand why you would prefer to change the subject when the time comes for evaluating liars and hypocrites. Of course, Rush was not "caught red-hand". In fact, he wasn’t "caught" at all. As for: "Conservative cronies will do everything possible to keep him from facing the consequences" - Matt doesn’t even understand that the alleged "crime" took place in Palm Beach County, with a Democrat Sheriff, and a Democrat Prosecutor. You remember Palm Beach County, don’t you. That bastion of leftist Democrats, where the Democrat voters are too stupid to corrctly "punch the chad" for their man Algore, and instead they ran up the popular vote for the dreaded anti-neocon, Pat Buchanan!

"Readers should go back and look at every message in this topic."

Capital suggestion, I can live with that, if you can.

"Who is the first person to bring up Clinton? Stewart."

Ah, but who is the first to infer that only conservative/Republicans are capable of lying and acting in a hypocritical manner? Matt. BTW, I could be wrong, however, I believe contrasting the leftist Democrat media’s handling of forthright honesty and contrition of Rush about his addiction problem was Stewart purpose of making this post to begin with. If so, I think strange that I should be taken to task for merely following along. You leftist Democrats cry "FOUL" for the silliest of reasons, IMMHO.

"Who keeps bringing up Clinton? Lang."

But how could one avoid the infamous disbarred Arkansas/New Yorker shyster, when the subjects discussed are veracity and sanctimoniousness? Heck, your guy, Bill, is the "poster boy" for lying politicians, and his supporters "wrote the book" on hypocricy.

"It’s smoke and mirrors my friends."

Only a connoisseur of "Slick Willie" hypocrisy could truly appreciate the real "genius" of your "smoke and mirror" friend, Bill Clinton Rodam.

He takes it a step further by bringing Saddam and company into the picture."

"If you lie down with dogs, you will likely attract some fleas."

"Because we hold Rush responsible, we OBVIOUSLY support Saddam."

Well, that just might be a bit of stretch, my friend. After all, Rush holds himself responsible (unlike the "Slickmeister") for his actions, and he doesn’t support Saddam. Interestingly, however, those who claim that Rush is not ’fessing up probably do. At least they manifest severe angst at the fact that the U.S. has dethroned Saddam, without the assistance of the French. However, I believe if you check, my reference to Saddam and his anti-American "fellow tryannts" was in reply to my friend, Nathan’s gratutious shot at Republicans, and interesting concept of "making the US a better place to live". You leftists, including 8 of the 9 Dwarfs vying for the "top spot" on the Democrat 2004 ticket all seem to lament the "Coalition of the Willing’s" historic victory over the evil Saddam. One of those leftist/Democrats has even shown his "mean-spiritness" by taking a shot at Rush over his current personal tragedy. So much for your "compassionate" leftists.

"And you know what that means: we’re all big, fat traitors!"

"IF the foe shits, wear it!"

"If only Lang and his fellow Conservatives had admitted that Rush screwed up."

Gee, fella, if only you would follow your own recommendation - "Readers should go back and look at every message in this topic." - you would find where I stated:

"However, I do, in fact, consider myself a Christian, Matt. As such, when someone like Rush admits their wrong-doing and asks forgiveness, I tend to grant it, unlike you, my friend."

Only folks who have "screwed up" (and admit it) are subjects for "forgiveness". What is about this truly straight forward concept that so confuses you "mean-spirited" leftists?

"But they haven’t."

Au contre’, Mon Ami. Please see above.

"What they’ve done is said ’Yeah, Rush screwed up, BUT...’ (the BUT being the endless ’those darn Oxycontin pills are just so darn addictive’ type of observations)."

No, what I said (paraphrase) was that Rush "screwed-up", however, because, unlike the "Slickster", he asked forgiveness and started to do something about his problem, so I forgive him, as I am sure will the Lord. As for the FACTS about "Oxycontin", only an idiot like you would make any kind of judgement about drug addiction without having all the FACTS. Of course, if all you intend to do is bash Rush, then I can readily see you why would prefer to ignore the pertinent FACTS about the drug in question. Interestingly, some of you folks had no end to your "excuses" for the "Slickmeister" caddish behavior. In fact, like Kobe, some of Clinton’s enablers even blamed the poor, young intern, Monica for seducing poor, "easy" Bill. "If the young lady spit, you must acquit!" - the mantra at the Impeachment Trial.

"Lang continues to struggle with the notion that Rush might not be what the public at large would consider a ’reliable source’ right now (on top of that, he’s all too willing to take what the Enquirer says at face value)."

Actually, I struggle with only your, Nathan’s, and Matt’s (are you guy triplets, by any chance?) gross ignorance and total inability to show any spark of compassion for your fellow man. Unlike our great "Compassionate Conservative" President, George W. Bush, I might add. As for the future of Rush Limbaugh’s standing with the "public at large", having shown his "human side" and having done the honorable by admiting his mistakes, unlike your guy, the "Slickmeister", I believe Rush’s following will likely grow, and people will find him even more credible, especially about "drug addiction", he having "walked the walk".

BTW, as I recall, everyone, from the Washington Post to the New York Times to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and FoxNews, ALL took "what the Enquirer says at face value" concerning the Rush Limbaugh "drug abuse" story. I would wager even you did, too! Of course, folks like you, Nathan, and Matt (are you sure you guys aren’t triplets?) aren’t even willing to take would the DEA says about true problems of high addiction rate with the drug "Oxycontin", if you think it might somehow ruin your glee in shamelessly bashing Rush.

"Not surprising, since his political party has a long history of ignoring the truth."

Compared to who? JFK? LBJ? "Prevaricator-in-Chief"? Or even Al "I thought we were doing a community outreach gig at the Buddhist Temple" Gore? I left out the Nobel Laureate Jimmy Carter, because I don’t believe he really "ignored the truth", in the same vein as say the "Slickster" did. No, I think Jimmy was simply totally incompetent. As for "ignoring the truth", my friend, it is Democrats "diehards" like you, Nathan, and Matt (The Three Amigos?) who are truly ignoring the current political "reality", which is simply this - the Republican Party controls the House, the Senate, the President, and has selected the overwhelming majority of Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, Republicans now hold the governships of the 4 most populist States - California, Texas, New York, and Florida. Try "ignoring that truth", if you can!

Starbuck, (I love your "nom d’net", BTW, it perfectly fits a Statist-elitist leftist Democrat) your total heartless lack compassion for the poor damaged soul, Rush, is really exceedingly ugly. Shame on you, Starbuck.

This is absolutely hilarious stuff, Neal. Please do keep up the good work. I’m getting a great laugh out of it! Truly, your entertainment value comes from your willingness to lie and distort. Of course, maybe Neal isn’t just outright lying. Maybe he’s just confused. Who wouldn’t be, after taking the bitch-slapping that he did?

Oh BTW, Starbuck is actually a reference to the character from "Moby Dick." Try reading it when you get a chance. Do they have Melville down there in Boca Raton, or is it all WWF all the time for you folks?

PS: I’m coming of the impression that Neal’s level of desperation can be measured by the number of "shame on you"s he dispenses. Would anyone care to commission a study on this topic?

Boca Raton, eh?

I once read that Boca Raton means "Rat’s Mouth." Somehow, this seems like a rather appropriate locale for one of Neal’s "stature."

If Neal is so eager to compare Rush Limbaugh to a president, wouldn’t he be better off comparing him to the substance abuser currently in office?

"Thinking biblically about Limbaugh’s fall" By: Marvin Olasky - October 16, 2003

"Suck it up, fatso, and stop taking 100 pills a day." That was part of shock-talk radio host Don Imus’s Oct. 13 rant about Rush Limbaugh confessing his addiction to prescription pain killers: "Rush is a fat, pill-popping loser and an undisciplined slob ... and -- as soon as he gets caught -- he starts whining."

Most readers of World magazine, which I edit, probably (and rightfully) abhor such a sentiment. Many are fans of the conservative talk show host, share much of his viewpoint and wince that his drug addiction, which began after a failed back operation, gives moral relativists a chance to gloat about "hypocritical conservatives" who purportedly accuse others and excuse themselves.

The hypocrisy charge -- an addicted Limbaugh criticizing other addicts -- is not surprising. Conservatives such as Gary Bauer logically differentiated between the abuse of legal drugs for physical pain and the use of illegal drugs for spiritual or psychological problems, but that distinction did not register with Al Franken, author of the unsubtly titled "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot." He had a good time roasting Limbaugh for having knocked street drug sellers as well as celebrity addicts such as baseball’s Darryl Strawberry and music’s Kurt Cobain.

Attacking hypocrisy is almost always a winner for philosophical liberals because if it is the homage vice pays to virtue -- that’s what 17th century French writer Francois de La Rochefoucauld declared -- then believers in ethical relativism are inoculated against it, since for them no universal virtues exist. For example, a person who defends marriage can rightfully garner criticism for falling into adultery -- a person who approves of adultery is immune. It works the same way with drug use.

Nor should liberal gloating about Limbaugh’s plight by presidential candidate John Kerry and others come as any surprise. For the left, everything is politics: the downfall of an important conservative figure is an occasion for celebration, the death of a liberal leader (like the late Sen. Wellstone) an opportunity for a political rally.

But what conservatives should ponder is a pledge by Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter to give "bully boy (or girl) conservatives ... a taste of their own bitter medicine." Yes, the revenge-seeking Alter should be reminded that he who digs a pit falls into it. Nevertheless, we should ask: Have some conservatives been bully boys, rejoicing in the personal degradation of political adversaries such as Bill Clinton?

If so, that’s a problem, particularly for Christians. Top preachers say "we sinners," not "you." They remind listeners that there’s plenty of sin to go around, and also lots of grace. We can take positions on moral issues without becoming holier-than-thou if we remember that sin is crouching at our door. We are to pray for enemies, realizing that even those most scornful of God may, like the apostle Paul and some ex-abortionists today, become premier evangelists.

News items about Limbaugh’s fall should lead to more gospel, not more gossip. The fall of those who cast a large shadow should remind us of the shadows in our own lives and our dependence on God’s grace every day. That consciousness should also free us from any tendency to demonize opponents. Satan is utterly evil and will remain that way, but we have no such knowledge about any human being.

Are we left unable to take public positions on moral questions because we cannot find a perfect man or woman to uphold the standards? Of course not -- and conservatives should insist that if Limbaugh did anything that merits a legal penalty, he should pay it. The Bible is clear that justice should be impartial, and that wealth or prominence shouldn’t exact a higher or lower penalty. But the Bible also contends that when the mighty have fallen, the nation should lament.

For my "Three Amigos" - Matt, Nathan, and Starbuck - "To err is human, to forgive is Divine!"

"If Neal is so eager to compare Rush Limbaugh to a president, wouldn’t he be better off comparing him to the substance abuser currently in office?"

Actually, Nathan, Rush compares quite favorably with George W. Bush, our fantastic current presidnet. You see, unlike your ideal, Bill "If the intern spit, you must acquit" Clinton, G. W. Bush recognized his short comings, sought help (medical and spiritual) and conquerored his vices. While Rush hasn’t as yet "conquerored his vices", he is well on his way to that very difficult goal, because unlike the former White House "intern abuser", he has recognized his addiction for what it is and asked for both help and forgiveness. Only time will tell if he can "kick" his addiction, but I’ll bet he does.

Shame on you, Nathan, for getting so wrong every time.

"I once read that Boca Raton means ’Rat’s Mouth’. Somehow, this seems like a rather appropriate locale for one of Neal’s ’stature’."

Why, Nathan, you are absolutely correct (I believe for the first time - kudos, my friend). The Spanish translation of "Boca Raton" is "Mouth of Rat", named, apparently for the dangerous inlet here, which is roughly shaped like a "rat’s mouth". It has always fascinated me that a city, which probably ranks second only to Palm Beach, FL (where Rush lives, BTW) in per capita income of its residents (former WorldCom Chief Financial Officer, Scott Sullivan was building his new mansion within a mile of my modest digs), could be called "Mouth of he Rat". The real curious thing is that allow a humble working stiff, like yours truly, to reside there amongst all this opulence.

With regards to my "stature", actually, Nathan, I’m only an average six footer - to my knowledge, there has never been a maximum or minimum height to live in Boca Raton, although I have only lived here 25 years, so I can’t really say what were the "codes" when the community was first founded in the late 1900s.

Want hear another funny thing? I live on a road named after a Japanese WWII battleship! Go figure!

"This is absolutely hilarious stuff, Neal. Please do keep up the good work. I’m getting a great laugh out of it!"

My pleasure, big guy. It’s difficult to maintain my high standards, but I will continue to give it my best shot. Knowing how much you really appreciate my humble efforts helps tremendously, though.

"Truly, your entertainment value comes from your willingness to lie and distort."

Not really, Starbuck. I leave the "lying and distorting" to the "true professionals", like your pals, Bill and Hillary! BTW, based on your current post, my friend, it looks like you might be close to giving up your "amateur status" soon. Did you ever consider a career as a Democrat politician, or tort lawyer, Starbuck?

"Of course, maybe Neal isn’t just outright lying."

Actually, Starbuck, "I simply tell it like it is!" I am afraid the problem is really yours, because when it come to the "TRUTH, you can’t handle the truth!"

"Maybe he’s just confused."

Au contre’, Mon Ami. I see the truth like powerfully focused laser-beam, which I have, in turn, shown on you, but you simply can’t accept the facts. I am afraid it is you leftists, Starbuck, who insist on de-constructing the facts and ignoring the truth.

"Who wouldn’t be, after taking the bitch-slapping that he did?"

"Bitch-slapping"? From who, Starbuck, you? Come on, if you truly believe that, you are definitely a "legend in your own mind!"

"Oh BTW, Starbuck is actually a reference to the character from "Moby Dick."

No shit! Could’ve fooled me. Gee, I thought it was merely some sort of manifestation of the self-delusion of your superiority.

"Try reading it when you get a chance."

Actually, I did, Starbuck, twice. Once in the 4th Grade and again, for a report, in Literature Class, as a Sophamore in High School. While I found the "yarn" quite interesting for its historical and moral value, I always thought that Melville could have been a little more concise and economic with his verbage. But than I am an "action" kind of guy. BTW, when I was in the 4th Grade I was thinking about a possible Naval career, so for me seafaring tales were just my "thing". Based on your obsessive pursuit of poor Rush, I should think the more appropriate "Moby Dick" related "nom d’net" for you might just be "Ahab". By the way, did you know that Melville’s original sketch of the "whale’s tale" was "Mocha Dick, of the Pacific". Doesn’t Sarbuck’s have a "Mocha" favored latte, Starbuck? Hmmm! I think I can still see a subliminal Starbuck "latte connection" in your secret Internet identity, Starbuck. Of course, like all you leftists that encouraged and supported your particular Captain Ahab (a.k.a. Bill "It’s only about sex" Clinton), Chief Mate Starbuck merely enabled his deranged leader to bring his "Pequod" to ruin through his lack of fortitude and positive action to stop his captain’s damning, obsessive behavior. Contrast that with the actions of First Mate, Lieutenant Steve Maryk, of the USS Cain, from the book "The Cain Mutiny" written by another famous American author named Herman - Herman Wouk. Rather than allow his nutty "Captain Ahab" (Captain Queeg - Lt.Cdr. Philip Francis Queeg) to bring the USS Cain to ruin, he took decisive action in relieving his deranged (and lying) Captain. This is unlike you leftists, who only encouraged your Captain Queeg (Bill "I never had sexual relations with that women" Clinton) in his lying fantasies. Of course, just as Queeg knew what had happened to the strawberries, Starbuck, your hero, Bill and his commodities trading wife, Hillary!, knew all along where the Rose Law Firm billing records were hidden. However, instead of insisting on his honesty and impeachment, you leftist enablers merely cheered them on. Shame of you, Starbuck.

"Do they have Melville down there in Boca Raton, or is it all WWF all the time for you folks?"

I hate to break the news to you, Mr. Starbuck, but I believe Melville died in the late 19th Century, so he does live in Boca Raton. As I recall, from my High School "book report", I think it was around 1891, although I could be wrong. As for the World Wildlife Fund, yeah, I afraid those "Environmental Whackos" do have a Boca Branch. With all those rich leftist elitists living here, it was only to be expected. Personally, I will have nothing to do with them, as I prefer to shoot wildlife when given the opportunity. "Different strokes for different folks!" I suppose. BTW, have you any idea how many trees gave their lives so Melville could publish his "Moby Dick"?

"PS: I’m coming of the impression that Neal’s level of desperation can be measured by the number of "shame on you"s he dispenses."

Shame on you, Starbuck! "There (I) go again!"

"Would anyone care to commission a study on this topic?"

Gee, now that sounds like something you just might be qualified for, Starbuck - counting the number of times I used "Shame on you". I don’t even think you will need to take off your shoes for that one. Why not give it a go?

Another interesting study might be how quickly you leftists change your "obsessions du jour". Perhaps some enterprising Psych major could do their doctoral thesis on that challenging subject. An approprite title could be: "The Multiple Delusional Obsessions of the Confirmed Leftist Elitist". Dang, sort of has a "ring to it", doesn’t it? Anyway, Starbuck, I find it quite flattering that you find me "threatening" enough to generate this new obsession of yours. Sort of like your obsession towards Rush, in a way, I think. For getting so obsessed with me - Shame on you, Starbuck. Ooops, I am afraid there goes one shoe.

Oh, Starbuck, please don’t do like my friend, Matt, and just slink off with your "tail between your legs". Corresponding with you is more amusing than watching a bunch of monkeys trying to do to a football what Bill "It depends on what your definition of ’IS’, is" Clinton did to poor Juanita. BTW, Starbuck: "Paula told the truth!"

"With half his brain tied behind his back" By: Ann Coulter - October 16, 2003

So liberals have finally found a drug addict they don’t like. And unlike the Lackawanna Six - those high-spirited young lads innocently seeking adventure in an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan - liberals could find no excuses for Rush Limbaugh.

After years of the mainstream media assuring us that Rush was a has-been, a nobody, yesterday’s news - the Rush painkiller story was front-page news last week. (Would anyone care if Howell Raines committed murder?) The airwaves and print media were on red alert with Rush’s admission that, after an unsuccessful spinal operation a few years ago, he became addicted to powerful prescription painkillers.

Rush Limbaugh’s misfortune is apparently a bigger story than his nearly $300 million radio contract signed two years ago. That was the biggest radio contract in broadcasting history. Yet there are only 12 documents on LexisNexis that reported it. The New York Times didn’t take notice of Rush’s $300 million radio contract, but a few weeks later, put Bill Clinton’s comparatively measly $10 million book contract on its front page. Meanwhile, in the past week alone, LexisNexis has accumulated more than 50 documents with the words "Rush Limbaugh and hypocrisy." That should make up for the 12 documents on his $300 million radio contract.

The reason any conservative’s failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It’s an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites.

At least Rush wasn’t walking into church carrying a 10-pound Bible before rushing back to the Oval Office for sodomy with Monica Lewinsky. He wasn’t enforcing absurd sexual harassment guidelines while dropping his pants in front of a half-dozen subordinates. (Evidently, Clinton wasn’t a hypocrite because no one was supposed to take seriously the notion that he respected women or believed in God.)

Rush has hardly been the anti-drug crusader liberals suggest. Indeed, Rush hasn’t had much to say about drugs at all since that spinal operation. The Rush Limbaugh quote that has been endlessly recited in the last week to prove Rush’s rank "hypocrisy" is this, made eight years ago: "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

What precisely are liberals proposing that Rush should have said to avoid their indignant squeals of "hypocrisy"? Announce his support for the wide and legal availability of a prescription painkiller that may have caused him to go deaf and nearly ruined his career and wrecked his life? I believe that would have been both evil and hypocritical.

Or is it simply that Rush should not have become addicted to painkillers in the first place? Well, no, I suppose not. You’ve caught us: Rush has a flaw. And yet, the wily hypocrite does not support flaws!

When a conservative can be the biggest thing in talk radio, earning $30 million a year and attracting 20 million devoted listeners every week - all while addicted to drugs - I’ll admit liberals have reason to believe that conservatives are some sort of super-race, incorruptible by original sin. But the only perfect man hasn’t walked the Earth for 2,000 years. In liberals’ worldview, any conservative who is not Jesus Christ is ipso facto a "hypocrite" for not publicly embracing dissolute behavior the way liberals do.

In fact, Rush’s behavior was not all that dissolute. There is a fundamental difference between taking any drug - legal, illegal, prescription, protected by the 21st Amendment or banned by Michael Bloomberg - for kicks and taking a painkiller for pain.

There is a difference morally and a difference legally. While slamming Rush, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz recently told Wolf Blitzer, "Generally, people who illegally buy prescription drugs are not prosecuted, whereas people who illegally buy cocaine and heroin are prosecuted." What would the point be? Just say no to back surgery?

I haven’t checked with any Harvard Law professors, but I’m pretty sure that, generally, adulterous drunks who drive off bridges and kill girls are prosecuted. Ah, but Teddy Kennedy supports adultery and public drunkenness - so at least you can’t call him a hypocrite! That must provide great consolation to Mary Jo Kopechne’s parents.

I have a rule about not feeling sorry for people worth $300 million, but I’m feeling sentimental. Evan Thomas wrote a cover story on Rush for Newsweek this week that was so vicious it read like conservative satire. Thomas called Rush a "schlub," "socially ill at ease," an Elmer Gantry, an actor whose "act has won over, or fooled, a lot of people." He compared Rush to the phony TV evangelist Jim Bakker and recommended that Rush start to "make a virtue out of honesty." (Liberals can lie under oath in legal proceedings and it’s a "personal matter." Conservatives must scream their every failing from the rooftops or they are "liars.")

As is standard procedure for profiles of conservatives, Newsweek gathered quotes on Rush from liberals, ex-wives and dumped dates. Covering himself, Thomas ruefully remarked that "it’s hard to find many people who really know him." Well, there was me, Evan! But I guess Newsweek didn’t have room for the quotes I promptly sent back to the Newsweek researchers. I could have even corrected Newsweek’s absurd account of how Rush met his current wife. (It’s kind of cute, too: She was a fan who began arguing with him about something he said on air.)

Thomas also made the astute observation that "Rush Limbaugh has always had far more followers than friends." Needless to say, this floored those of us who were shocked to discover that Rush does not have 20 million friends.

So the guy I really feel sorry for is Evan Thomas. How would little Evan fare in any competitive media? Any followers? Any fans? Any readers at all? And he’s not even addicted to painkillers! This week, Rush proved his motto: He really can beat liberals with half his brain tied behind his back.

WOW, come on, Matt, Nathan, and Starbuck, tell the truth, now, guys. "No body does it better" than Ann.

Thank you Neal for all of the laughs. I printed out your latest ratty-mouthed ramblings and passed it around to my co-workers. We all got quite a chuckle out of it, even the Conservatives (most of whom just rolled their eyes and muttered something to the effect of "and this is why we have the image we have"). To repeat my earlier statement, your entertainment value comes from your willingness to lie and distort. Keep up the good work, "big guy!" Oh, and good luck with your Vince Foster investigation!

You know, the other day I was thinking about my youth, and the group of kids that I hung out with. We had a kid named Eric Walker in our little group whose sole function seemed to be "group hyenna." Eric was a nice enough kid, but his role consisted of little more than that of laughing at other kids jokes, slapping the on the back and saying "good one, Nate!" He had any original thoughts of his own, and generally relied on others’ ability to be witty, funny or intelligent for his daily dose of social interacation. To be honest, Eric was a bit of a doofus. But like I said, I liked the kid.

As I read through Neal’s disjointed ramblings in this topic, his reliance on other peoples’ words and thoughts to get his point across, and his many "good one!"-style comments on so many other messages on this blog, I can’t help but think of my old friend Eric.

"Thank you Neal for all of the laughs."

As I said, Starbuck, my please.

"I printed out your latest ratty-mouthed ramblings and passed it around to my co-workers."

More dead trees! "The hoorror!!" Have you no conscience, man? Shame on you, Starbuck. Anyway, my friend, it really wasn’t all that good. You really make it hard for a guy to remain humble with all this flattery. BTW, are you the only "computer literate" person at your work? If not, why aren’t your co-workers permitted computers with Internet access? More of your elitism, perhaps, Starbuck? If they are "computer literate" and have Internet access, why print out my sage commentary and pass it around when you could simply send the Link by e-mail? Or do you have a thing about killing more trees?

"We all got quite a chuckle out of it,"

Again, my pleasure, big guy. Knowing that I brought a little mirth into you and your colleagues’ obviously dull lives is more than enough reward for me and makes my simple efforts all the more worthwhile.

"even the Conservatives (most of whom just rolled their eyes and muttered something to the effect of ’and this is why we have the image we have’)."

Having to work with you I can readily understand why they may have "rolled their eyes". Actually, your image as a "Starbuck afficionado" is really quite fitting, big guy. Perhaps you should develop it a little further. "Snobbery" goes a long way when you are a leftist elitist. Your little literary touch in your prior post was a good start in that direction.

"To repeat my earlier statement, your entertainment value comes from your willingness to lie and distort."

Okay, and so I will repeat my witty, cogent reply to your earlier statement: "Not really, Starbuck. I leave the ’lying and distorting’ to the ’true professionals’, like your pals, Bill and Hillary! BTW, based on your current post, my friend, it looks like you might be close to giving up your "amateur status" soon. Did you ever consider a career as a Democrat politician, or tort lawyer, Starbuck?"

"Keep up the good work, "big guy!"

No sweat, I will, Mon Ami. Especially now that I know how much you and your friends truly appreicate it.

"Oh, and good luck with your Vince Foster investigation!"

Perhaps you could help me there. By any chance would you have some information on the whereabouts of the fatal bullet? For awhile I thought it might be with Rose Law Firm’s billing records, but they finally turned up and no bullet was found. Anyway, merely a thought my friend. You have a nice day, and give my best to your co-workers for me.

"There is a case for telling the truth; there is a case for avoiding the scandal; but there is no possible defense for the man who tells the scandal, but does not tell the truth." G. K. Chesterton

"You know, the other day I was thinking about my youth, and the group of kids that I hung out with."

Wait an minute, don’t tell me, just let me guess - "the Creeps". Right?

"We had a kid named Eric Walker in our little group whose sole function seemed to be ’group hyenna’."

Did you draw lots or something?

"Eric was a nice enough kid, but his role consisted of little more than that of laughing at other kids jokes, slapping the on the back and saying ’good one, Nate!’"

How sad, apparently poor Eric was born without a sense of humor.

"He had any original thoughts of his own, and generally relied on others’ ability to be witty, funny or intelligent for his daily dose of social interacation."

Let me guess, Nathan, you’re really Eric. Right?

"To be honest, Eric was a bit of a doofus."

Yes, I just knew it - you ARE Eric.

"But like I said, I liked the kid."

How elitist, how condescending, how LEFTIST! Be careful with that narcissism stuff, Nathan/Eric. Before you know it you will be just like Bill or Hillary!

"As I read through Neal’s disjointed ramblings in this topic, his reliance on other peoples’ words and thoughts to get his point across, and his many "good one!"-style comments on so many other messages on this blog, I can’t help but think of my old friend Eric."

Hmmm! And now you rely on Eric, someone who was apparently witless, humorless, and a "doofus" to make your "disjointed rambling" point. We are judged by the company we keep, Nathan. You seem to have some sort of bond with Eric, whom you yourself describe as "a doofus". What does that make you then, my friend? BTW, shame on you, Nathan, for feeling so superior to your boyhood friend, Eric. BTW, Nathan, don’t worry about me ever saying "Good one, Nathan!" Your "disjointed ramblings" aren’t even "funny", let alone "witty" or "intelligent". "A mind is a terrible thing to lose!"

so much like a... well, like a broken record.

Sort of like crying "shame on you" time after time, Neal? Well, two (or three) can play that game...

Obviously your antics underline the true shallowness of your position and arguments. I shall take its repetition as your admission of a total lack of any further substance that you might contribute to our discussion, and therefore accept your continuance of this childishness as your concession and acknowledgement that my position on the matter under discussion as being the correct and superior one. Neal, you may verify your unconditional surrender to me by merely posting one more time. I expectantly await your capitulation.

Oh, by the way Neal, the link to "Cherry Filled Sex" from your home page is a really classy touch. I love how you’ve got it intermingled with the family pictures and the links to the NRA web site. Looks like Rush isn’t the only "morally challenged" Conservative.

Nathan, Neal and Starbuck,

I will get right to the point. What I have witnessed from the three of you these past few days makes me sick to my stomach. The Ashbrook Blog is celebrating its 1 year anniversary and THIS is how you celebrate? By using this as an opportunity to hurl insults at one another in public view?

No Left Turns is regarded as one of the best political blogs available today. This is NOT the Jerry Springer Show. This is NOT the Howard Stern show. This is NOT professional wrestling. If any of you care anything for the Ashbrook blog in particular, or responsible speech in general, you will cease with this behavior immediately. We don’t have to agree with one another all the time on all issues, but there is no need for the personal attacks associated with this particular kind of nastiness.

If you are compelled to continue to attack one another verbally, why not do it privately, by way of email? Why is it so important to the three of you that the other 99.9% of the Ashbrook witness your assaults on one another?

PLEASE, MOVE ON and CEASE with the childish antics. You’ve all made your points about Rush Limbaugh and Bill Clinton. It is obvious that you disagree with one another. It is also obvious that you dislike one another. We get the point. None of us is impressed by your insults, your foul language or your respective desires to get the last word in. In fact, the only question which remains at this point is which of you is man enough to be the first to set his ego aside and walk away from this situation.

Thank you.

"so much like a... well, like a broken record."

Exactly! I am glad you concur with my evaluation of Starbuck’s childish antics.

"Sort of like crying "shame on you" time after time, Neal? Well, two (or three) can play that game..."

Ah, shame of you, Nathan, for your lack of originality. You sound like your friend, the "doofus" Eric, relying as you do "on others’ ability to be witty, funny or intelligent for (your) daily dose of social interacation."

"Obviously your antics underline the true shallowness of your position and arguments. I shall take its repetition as your admission of a total lack of any further substance that you might contribute to our discussion, and therefore accept your continuance of this childishness as your concession and acknowledgement that my position on the matter under discussion as being the correct and superior one. Neal, you may verify your unconditional surrender to me by merely posting one more time. I expectantly await your capitulation."

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Nathan. Next time perhaps you might use quotations, so that you are not confused with Joe Biden. "Boy it is hard to be humble ..." when you continue to lavish such flattery on me, my friend.

"Oh, by the way Neal, the link to "Cherry Filled Sex" from your home page is a really classy touch. I love how you’ve got it intermingled with the family pictures and the links to the NRA web site. Looks like Rush isn’t the only "morally challenged" Conservative."

Again, Nathan, I am flattered that you would take the time to visit my Webpage and provide your wonderful critique. The Link you seem to enjoy so well is for morally challenge perverts like you, Nathan, who don’t have the gonads to provide any link to their true identity, and instead prefer to slink across the Internet spreading their poisonous venom anonymously. Oh, well, Mon Ami, I am totally comfortable with who I am, unlike you and Starbuck.

As you seem to be so "veracity challenged", Nathan, perhaps some "ageless" words of wisdom on the subject may lead you out from your "darkness".

"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable." - ILN, 10/23/09

"It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them." - ILN, 3/14/08

"There is a case for telling the truth; there is a case for avoiding the scandal; but there is no possible defense for the man who tells the scandal, but does not tell the truth." - ILN, 7/18/08

"The whole truth is generally the ally of virtue; a half-truth is always the ally of some vice." - ILN, 6/11/10

"Truth is sacred; and if you tell the truth too often nobody will believe it." - ILN, 2/24/06

"Civilization has run on ahead of the soul of man, and is producing faster than he can think and give thanks." - Daily News, 2/21/02

"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong." - The Catholic Church and Conversion

"There’d be a lot less scandal if people didn’t idealize sin and pose as sinners." - The Father Brown Omnibus

"All men thirst to confess their crimes more than tired beasts thirst for water; but they naturally object to confessing them while other people, who have also committed the same crimes, sit by and laugh at them." - ILN 3/14/08

"Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice." - ILN 9/11/09

"I say that a man must be certain of his morality for the simple reason that he has to suffer for it." - ILN 8/4/06

"To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea." - Heretics, CW I, p128

"Great truths can only be forgotten and can never be falsified." - ILN 9-30-33

"The voice of the special rebels and prophets, recommending discontent, should, as I have said, sound now and then suddenly, like a trumpet. But the voices of the saints and sages, recommending contentment, should sound unceasingly, like the sea." - T.P.’s Weekly, Christmas Number, 1910

"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." - The Thing. CW. III 191

"Most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities." - What’s Wrong With the World

"If we want to give poor people soap we must set out deliberately to give them luxuries. If we will not make them rich enough to be clean, then empathically we must do what we did with the saints. We must reverence them for being dirty." - What’s Wrong with the World

"The world will very soon be divided, unless I am mistaken, into those who still go on explaining our success, and those somewhat more intelligent who are trying to explain our failure." - Speech to Anglo-Catholic Congress 6-29-20

"What we call emancipation is always and of necessity simply the free choice of the soul between one set of limitations and another." - Daily News12-21-05

"There are some desires that are not desirable." - Orthodoxy

"In the struggle for existence, it is only on those who hang on for ten minutes after all is hopeless, that hope begins to dawn." - The Speaker 2-2-01

"Modern broad-mindedness benefits the rich; and benefits nobody else." - "The Church of the Servile State" Utopia of Usurers

"It is the main earthly business of a human being to make his home, and the immediate surroundings of his home, as symbolic and significant to his own imagination as he can." - The Coloured Lands

From: Quotations of G. K. Chesterton

"It depends on what your definition of ’IS’, is." President Bill Clinton explaining how he sees "truth".

I guess you have your answer David. :(

John, thanks. And thank you to Starbuck and Mr. Allan for having the courage and the courtesy to walk away from this spectacle.

"John, thanks. And thank you to Starbuck and Mr. Allan for having the courage and the courtesy to walk away from this spectacle."

RIGHT!

From: Thomas Evans [[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003, 7:41PM

To: [email protected]

Cc: [email protected]

Subject: Neal Lang

Thought you folks might be interested in seeing how Neal Lang spends his days there at XXX. Check out the link below to see how Neal spent over 4 hours of company time dishing out "political insight." When I see one of your employees using this kind of language, it really makes me want to use your company’s services.

Heres the link:

https://noleftturns.ashbrook.org/comment.asp?blogID=2770#Comments

Note the time of "Tom" attempted "blindside"! The only question was whether "Thomas Evans" is Nathan’s or Starbuck’s "alter ego". While Nathan obviously visited my personal Webpage with its link to my work Website (I only use my personal ISP for all my Blogging), and LIED about its contents in his Thursday post, Starbuck on Thursday "haunted" another Nathaniel Stewart "Rush’ related Blog regarding an article by "Evan Thomas". See: [ Newsweek and the Problem of Pain ] Only "Starbuck" would believe using a pseudonym of "Thomas Evans" was somehow "slick". Personally, I believe either is capable of such under-handed tactics. Perhaps it was a collaboration - considering their obvious cerebral deficiencies, that is the most likely answer. Unfortunately, "Thomas", since my CHF, I have worked from my "home office" and "Blog" only on my own time (which is flexible) and computer, making your "personal atttack" efforts quite meaningless.

Your right, John, they are really the "Poster Boys" of "courage and the courtesy". I hope they don’t ever try doing to you (or anyone else on this Blog), what they tried to do me. Actually, seeing how their positions totally lacked any semblence of logic, such reprehensible tactics should be expected. In fact, such perfectly fits your typical leftist’s "MO" - if they can’t defeat a person’s arguents, they will always attempt to destroy the person. (See Rush Limbaugh, for example.) Oh, well, I suppose everyone’s standards of "courage and the courtesy" are relative.

so let me get this straight... you talked shit. you got busted. and now you are pissed at everyone but yourself?