NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050428/ap_en_ot/limbaugh_painkillers

Rush Limbaugh, the rabid right's favorite hate monger, is fighting the state of Florida, alleging they violated his right to privacy by seizing his medical records as part of an investigation into whether he illegally purchased pain relievers. The ACLU agrees with him, and have taken up his case.

This is, shall we say, a slightly odd combination, considering Rush has libelled the ACLU at least as much as he has any other liberal institution or person. He likes to play fun acronym games, like "Anti-Christian Lawyers' Union." Now that they've taken up his case, he suddenly doesn't think they're so bad. This illustrates two things:

1) The ACLU stand by their principles, defending anyone in need no matter how underserving they are.
2) Rush has no principles, happily discarding all that he appeared to stand for the moment he is in trouble.

And this is a perfect microcosm of the whole liberal-conservative divide in the US right now.

I was agreeing with you up until you said this is a perfect microcosm...etc.

As much as I dislike Rush, I'm glad the ACLU is defending his right to privacy.

i'm doing the "Rush limbaugh is a crazed fucknut who deserves a good long beating" dance. join in! it is, after all, a partner dance, and i'm feelin kinda lonely.

i'm doing the "Rush limbaugh is a crazed fucknut who deserves a good long beating" dance. join in! it is, after all, a partner dance, and i'm feelin kinda lonely.
I'll join you for the first half. I usually sit out "good long beating" dances unless there's a masochist involved. :D

Being Libertarian, I find it amusing.... But not too surprising, the "Right" has no real "principles" they never really have... They alter them depending on what side of the fence they are on...

It's nice to see the ACLU take up his case though... They at least have consistent principles, even if those on the extreme right or left never get it...

Some found it odd a few years back when the ACLU defended some Messianic Jewish childrens rights to hold meetings in a public school building after-hours... They aren't "Anti-Christian" they are "Pro-Liberties"... and as a libertarian, I applaud them...

does this dance include pelvic thrusts? I'm good at those.

I'll join you for the first half. I usually sit out "good long beating" dances unless there's a masochist involved. :D
relax. the whole dance is essentially just the monkey. just with more pelvic thrusts.

1) The ACLU stand by their principles, defending anyone in need no matter how underserving they are.
2) Rush has no principles, happily discarding all that he appeared to stand for the moment he is in trouble.



Damn straight!

I'd like to join in too. We can start trailing a large conga line into the courtroom, and walk past Rush, all smacking him with rolled up newspapers. After about the 500th smacking, he should be pretty bloody. And you know that there are at least a million more to come.

Is anyone really shocked that someone who plays on people's fears and bigotries as much as Rush Limbaugh has no principles? I'll never understand what's wrong with the people who think like that.

Being Libertarian, I find it amusing.... But not too surprising, the "Right" has no real "principles" they never really have... They alter them depending on what side of the fence they are on...

It's nice to see the ACLU take up his case though... They at least have consistent principles, even if those on the extreme right or left never get it...

Some found it odd a few years back when the ACLU defended some Messianic Jewish childrens rights to hold meetings in a public school building after-hours... They aren't "Anti-Christian" they are "Pro-Liberties"... and as a libertarian, I applaud them...
I just wish the ACLU would be as pro RKBA/2nd Amm. as they are pro Privacy and 1st Amm. That's where THEIR inconsistancies lie.

relax. the whole dance is essentially just the monkey. just with more pelvic thrusts.


count me in *pelvic thrusts his way to international stardom and Rush L.'s first coma*

I don't know much about this but...
What I've read ACLU is doing the right thing. Good that
they don't choose their battles (If you will).

Knowing nothing about Rush Limbaugh(sp?) can't say
anything about him.

I just wish the ACLU would be as pro RKBA/2nd Amm. as they are pro Privacy and 1st Amm. That's where THEIR inconsistancies lie.

I can agree with that... Though part of that is mis-application by some gun-owners... Unfortuneately the ACLU is more Liberal than liberal (libertarian)...

I was agreeing with you up until you said this is a perfect microcosm...etc.
What's not to agree with in that statement? Now that Colin Powell has retired to contemplate his shame at playing patsy in the famous UN speech, a full list of principled conservatives on Capitol Hill begins and ends with John McCain.

What's not to agree with in that statement? Now that Colin Powell has retired to contemplate his shame at playing patsy in the famous UN speech, a full list of principled conservatives on Capitol Hill begins and ends with John McCain.

Yet another 100% true statement that deserves to be seconded for emphasis!

I am glad to see that the ACLU is standing by its principles to protect the civil rights of every citizen. And I'm glad to see that Rush has finally exposed himself for what he truly is...a bold faced hypocrite.

And this is a perfect microcosm of the whole liberal-conservative divide in the US right now.
I'm about as liberal as you can get, but it's blatantly unfair to say that conservatives lack principles and liberals have them. Some on both sides are principled and some are not. It's about the individual not the political group.

I'm about as liberal as you can get, but it's blatantly unfair to say that conservatives lack principles and liberals have them. Some on both sides are principled and some are not. It's about the individual not the political group.
I'm a libertarian, meaning I'm effectively neutral in this whole liberal-conservative thing. I can only call them as I see them. President Bush and his cronies are attempting to rewrite the constitution, and they need a judiciary that will permit that, so they're attempting to ramrod their judges through. Doctor (how do you get AIDS again?) Bill Frist just participated in a political rally in a church. Tom DeLay is taking trips sponsored by foreign powers, and paying his family for doing nothing. The whole party still stands behind a futile nation-building exercise that the people only agreed to based on fraudulent claims of WMD. And through it all, the whole party has stood shoulder to shoulder. Nary a peep of dissent... except from the honorable John McCain. And you get the feeling he's saying a lot less than he'd like.

I'm a libertarian, meaning I'm effectively neutral in this whole liberal-conservative thing. I can only call them as I see them. President Bush and his cronies are attempting to rewrite the constitution, and they need a judiciary that will permit that, so they're attempting to ramrod their judges through. Doctor (how do you get AIDS again?) Bill Frist just participated in a political rally in a church. Tom DeLay is taking trips sponsored by foreign powers, and paying his family for doing nothing. The whole party still stands behind a futile nation-building exercise that the people only agreed to based on fraudulent claims of WMD. And through it all, the whole party has stood shoulder to shoulder. Nary a peep of dissent... except from the honorable John McCain. And you get the feeling he's saying a lot less than he'd like.
I agree with all of this, but keep in mind that the Republicans are the party in power. If the Democrats were in power, they would without doubt be doing all kinds of crap like this.

I agree with all of this, but keep in mind that the Republicans are the party in power. If the Democrats were in power, they would without doubt be doing all kinds of crap like this.

Yeah, like remember when Clinton took office, and the Dems controlled both Houses, and so they threatened to use the "Nuclear Option" if the Republican minority didn't confirm their judges, and how they paid high-profile liberal columnists to shill Democratic Govt. proposals? :rolleyes:

I'm a libertarian, meaning I'm effectively neutral in this whole liberal-conservative thing.
No it dosen't. It means you're a libertarian.

No it dosen't. It means you're a libertarian.
Right you are, Kwangistar!

Yeah, like remember when Clinton took office, and the Dems controlled both Houses, and so they threatened to use the "Nuclear Option" if the Republican minority didn't confirm their judges, and how they paid high-profile liberal columnists to shill Democratic Govt. proposals? :rolleyes:
I don't know. I wasn't paying attention back then.

I'm a libertarian, meaning I'm effectively neutral in this whole liberal-conservative thing. I can only call them as I see them.

Bill Frist just participated in a political rally in a church.

How about Kerry getting up in Church to bash the President? How about Hillary going to church to raise money for her Campaign? The Democrats are in Church collecting money for political campaigns every week but we do not hear a peep about it why is that?

Tom DeLay is taking trips sponsored by foreign powers, and paying his family for doing nothing.

You mean just like Reid helping firms his family owns collecting over 2 million over the course of 4 years. Or maybe you mean like Pelosi who helped a donor to her PAC. The same PAC President directly aided her campaign with financial help.
Or maybe you mean Rep. Bernard Sanders who used campaign donations to pay his wife and stepdaughter more than $150,000 for campaign-related work since 2000. Or maybe you mean something along of Hillary and her campaign manager accepting 1.1 million from one Hollywood guy for a fund raising event. Or maybe you mean something like New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer who was slapped with a large fine for violating FEC regulations and ordered to pay back over 120,000 in illegal contributions?

Or maybe we should take a look at the top 5 travel takers in the last 4 years and see which party seems to take the most private trips. It seems to me that there is plenty to investigate for the ethics committee not just Delay.

The rest of what you said is just BS coming from someone who is afraid to tell exactly the party affiliation they are.

it's true that they are both corrupt.

it does look a bit worse for the Republicans though with the relaxing ethics committee rules and Democrats fighting to return themto their stricter state.

Being Libertarian, I find it amusing.... But not too surprising, the "Right" has no real "principles" they never really have... They alter them depending on what side of the fence they are on...

It's nice to see the ACLU take up his case though... They at least have consistent principles, even if those on the extreme right or left never get it...

Some found it odd a few years back when the ACLU defended some Messianic Jewish childrens rights to hold meetings in a public school building after-hours... They aren't "Anti-Christian" they are "Pro-Liberties"... and as a libertarian, I applaud them...
As do I.

They invaded the man's personal privacy. Yes, he deserves everything that you could possibly throw at him, but that doesn't mean you can search him without a warrant. I, myself, would like to beat him senseless with a baseball bat, but I do applaud the ACLU for defending his rights.

There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and a newly-discovered lie worse than those: Republicans.


You mean just like Reid helping firms his family owns collecting over 2 million over the course of 4 years. Or maybe you mean like Pelosi who helped a donor to her PAC. The same PAC President directly aided her campaign with financial help. Or maybe you mean Rep. Bernard Sanders who used campaign donations to pay his wife and stepdaughter more than $150,000 for campaign-related work since 2000. Or maybe you mean something along of Hillary and her campaign manager accepting 1.1 million from one Hollywood guy for a fund raising event. Or maybe you mean something like New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer who was slapped with a large fine for violating FEC regulations and ordered to pay back over 120,000 in illegal contributions?

All you've got here are isolated incidents, half of which are just minor violations of campaign financing rules, which do not point to any systemic problems. The Republican Party line on the war in Iraq is a systemic problem. The Republican attempt to destroy the judiciary is a systemic problem. The lack of dissent is a systemic problem. The rallying behind DeLay when he is clearly in the wrong is a systemic problem.

As for your Sanders accusation... he made payment for services rendered, and at a rate well-below market value. You've got nothing there. Congressmen are allowed to hire family to work for them, and so long as they actually do some work, it's perfectly ethical. DeLay's situation was much different.

Or maybe we should take a look at the top 5 travel takers in the last 4 years and see which party seems to take the most private trips. It seems to me that there is plenty to investigate for the ethics committee not just Delay.
Why don't we, then?

The rest of what you said is just BS coming from someone who is afraid to tell exactly the party affiliation they are.
Maybe you missed it up there, when I said, "I am a libertarian." I don't see how it could be stated any plainer. Try to keep up.

i'm doing the "Rush limbaugh is a crazed fucknut who deserves a good long beating" dance. join in! it is, after all, a partner dance, and i'm feelin kinda lonely.
I'll join in the dancing with ya! *shakes his "booty"*

I'm glad people record his soundbites. I'll be happy to listen a few times to the nice things he'll say about the ACLU when he gets the chance and the "sympathetic" audience .... :rolleyes:
He said something about understanding that there actually IS a vast right-wing conspiracy ... when this topic first came up to nibble on his dimple/pocked and surgically altered flabass.

Another smile and another jig, anyone?

Rush Limbaugh in 'complete arsehole' shock. World says "meh".

Maybe you missed it up there, when I said, "I am a libertarian." I don't see how it could be stated any plainer. Try to keep up.

No....I think he did read that. I think he's just accusing you of lying, that's all. You, like me, are actually a Democrat/liberal who's ashamed to admit it because Deep Down, We Know We Are Wrong.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050428/ap_en_ot/limbaugh_painkillers

Rush Limbaugh, the rabid right's favorite hate monger, is fighting the state of Florida, alleging they violated his right to privacy by seizing his medical records as part of an investigation into whether he illegally purchased pain relievers. The ACLU agrees with him, and have taken up his case.

This is, shall we say, a slightly odd combination, considering Rush has libelled the ACLU at least as much as he has any other liberal institution or person. He likes to play fun acronym games, like "Anti-Christian Lawyers' Union." Now that they've taken up his case, he suddenly doesn't think they're so bad. This illustrates two things:

1) The ACLU stand by their principles, defending anyone in need no matter how underserving they are.
2) Rush has no principles, happily discarding all that he appeared to stand for the moment he is in trouble.

And this is a perfect microcosm of the whole liberal-conservative divide in the US right now.

My opinions about each group/person have simply been reinforced. You've already said it for me.

Rush is a lying moron, but I'm glad the ACLU is standing up for the right to privacy. Even scum like Rush are entitled to it. My dollars as a member are being used to my satisfaction.

Rush is a lying moron, but I'm glad the ACLU is standing up for the right to privacy. Even scum like Rush are entitled to it. My dollars as a member are being used to my satisfaction.

But, you still wanna help me wack the crap out of him with a bat, right?

But, you still wanna help me wack the crap out of him with a bat, right?
Of course.

Of course.

I thought so!

I'm a libertarian, meaning I'm effectively neutral in this whole liberal-conservative thing. I can only call them as I see them. President Bush and his cronies are attempting to rewrite the constitution, and they need a judiciary that will permit that, so they're attempting to ramrod their judges through. Doctor (how do you get AIDS again?) Bill Frist just participated in a political rally in a church. Tom DeLay is taking trips sponsored by foreign powers, and paying his family for doing nothing. The whole party still stands behind a futile nation-building exercise that the people only agreed to based on fraudulent claims of WMD. And through it all, the whole party has stood shoulder to shoulder. Nary a peep of dissent... except from the honorable John McCain. And you get the feeling he's saying a lot less than he'd like.

WTF!?

Lets see:
1. Right to privacy? - nowhere in the Constitution, judge made idea by liberal administration appointed judges
2. Ramrod judges through? - Fillibuster used to block nominees that constitutionally need only a simple majority to be confirmed
3. Bill Frist in a church? Thank god it wasn't Al Gore in a Buddist Temple
4. Tom Delay's family on trips to other countries? - thank goodness it wasn't Pelosie's (sp?) staff
5. The possibility of WMD's in Iraq as the only reason the population supported the invasion? Puhleaze.

sorry, but your post is anything but Libertarian in its message - If anyone is standing shoulder to shoulder it is the Democrat party in their attacks on the Bush Administration.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like everything the Republicans are doing as a group. I like McCain as well. He seems to be willing to "speak his mind" which is a refreshing thing to me as it compares to the majority of Dems or Repubs. I don't think the war in Iraq was necessary. However, I don't see Bush and his supporters as any worse than the Dems. Both sides have an agenda to push. What pains me is the fact I see the Dems. agenda as one of hatred of Bush and his party, but without the presentation of a viable substitute agenda. For example:

Standard Democrat: Bush's plans for Social Security suck and will cheat old people
Standard Republican: Really, well what would you do to fix it?
Standard Democrat: Ummmmmmmm, not sure, I just know Bush's plan sucks.

WTF!?

Lets see:
1. Right to privacy? - nowhere in the Constitution, judge made idea by liberal administration appointed judges
2. Ramrod judges through? - Fillibuster used to block nominees that constitutionally need only a simple majority to be confirmed


LOL.

I'm curious -- where do you find this constitutional provision re judges?

And are you familiar with the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments?

How about the First, Third, and Fourth Amendments?

Speaking of raving liberals here is a quote from a Supreme Court opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

Second, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are "nowhere" in the Constitution but that are taken for granted by US citizens:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity


Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?


Standard Democrat: Bush's plans for Social Security suck and will cheat old people
Standard Republican: Really, well what would you do to fix it?
Standard Democrat: Ummmmmmmm, not sure, I just know Bush's plan sucks.

Of course, since Democrats know there isn't really a "Social Security crisis" they don't need to run around with wild schemes to "fix" it.

Curious how the ones that have long wanted to abolish it suddenly have a solution that'll "fix" it.

-snip-

Cat, this is why I like you.

*carts you a large crate of cookies, and while not quite the size of the crate I carted to Swimmingpool earlier, it's still quite big. Please don't hit me...*

CT - it's 1:30 am where I am and I can no longer think coherently, But I'd love to debate the issues you raise since I have found you in the past to be a reasonable person and not a "name caller." So I ask you to give me a respite until this weekend.

I would note, however, that the basic idea of my post was to point out the liberal "bent" of the so called Liberarian. Not to "stake a claim" to idealogical "correctness."

CT - it's 1:30 am where I am and I can no longer think coherently, But I'd love to debate the issues you raise since I have found you in the past to be a reasonable person and not a "name caller." So I ask you to give me a respite until this weekend.

I would note, however, that the basic idea of my post was to point out the liberal "bent" of the so called Liberarian. Not to "stake a claim" to idealogical "correctness."

No problem.

I'm no particular fan of so-called Libertarians myself.

(Although I am rarely called reasonable and often called a "name caller." :D )

Cat, this is why I like you.

*carts you a large crate of cookies, and while not quite the size of the crate I carted to Swimmingpool earlier, it's still quite big. Please don't hit me...*

What?

A smaller crate?

If I didn't need both hands to shovel in the chocolate chips, there'd be beatings I tell you.

er.. Thanks!!

That's alright Cat, I'll make up the difference in cookies. Nobody will have more cookies than you.

Originally posted by The Cat-Tribe

*snip*
Of course, since Democrats know there isn't really a "Social Security crisis" they don't need to run around with wild schemes to "fix" it.

Curious how the ones that have long wanted to abolish it suddenly have a solution that'll "fix" it.

Anyone with half a brain can look at any government statistics and realize that Medicare is a much more imminent, and dangerous, crisis than Social Security...

...and I love how Bush's main counter to Kerry's health care plan was that it would cost $2 trillion, and now Bush want's to "fix" Social Security with a plan that is estimated to cause a shortfall of...*gasp* $2 trillion. :rolleyes:

Oh, and I love how Rush is charged with a drug crime, when he has repeatedly stated on his show that drug related offenders have few/no rights and should have harsher penalties imposed for both sale and use.

This guy need his picture in the dictionary...I'll let you guess which word it should be next to.

I hate both Rush Limbarf and the ACLU. They all self-serving weasels. In this instance however, the ex-lard tub - purportedly he has lost some weight - is being, by far, the more disgusting of the two.

I mean, he must have said at least once a day for the past twenty years that there is no right to privacy &c. And now, all of a sudden, this. He should stand up for his principles and just let the police have his records. It's the decent thing to do. Still what can you expect from a draft dodger.

Also, the ACLU should stand by their principles and not defend him. Anyway, he can more than afford a lawyer.

I mean, he must have said at least once a day for the past twenty years that there is no right to privacy &c.

Not only that, but he's repeatedly stated that habitual drug users deserve severe punishment and no sympathy.

Oh, and I love how Rush is charged with a drug crime, when he has repeatedly stated on his show that drug related offenders have few/no rights and should have harsher penalties imposed for both sale and use.


Yes, I forgot about that too. He should put himself in prison, and register himself with the authorities. I also thought it was a little disingenuous that he checked into rehab, since prior to this he claimed that prison was the preferable option for treatment.

Pimple.

Not only that, but he's repeatedly stated that habitual drug users deserve severe punishment and no sympathy.
hee hee. yeah. except maybe the "men go out and hunt giraffes...roll around in the mud like little piggies. women, they might get an infection. that's why they should be in an aegis class cruiser, directing missile strikes." comment, that' s my favorite limbaugh-ism.

Also, the ACLU should stand by their principles and not defend him. Anyway, he can more than afford a lawyer.

Ha, that's funny. Everyone else in this thread seems to feel the ACLU is sticking to their principle by defending someone who is commonly their enemy. So either the rest of us don't understand what the ACLU's "principles" are (defending civil liberties, the right to privacy in this case) or you don't.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050428/ap_en_ot/limbaugh_painkillers

Rush Limbaugh, the rabid right's favorite hate monger, is fighting the state of Florida, alleging they violated his right to privacy by seizing his medical records as part of an investigation into whether he illegally purchased pain relievers. The ACLU agrees with him, and have taken up his case.

This is just more proof that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights - as they've always maintained. Good for them.

As for Rush, I'd say that any credibility he may have ever had has pretty much evaporated.

As for Rush, I'd say that any credibility he may have ever had has pretty much evaporated.

Nay. He'll just weep a few crocadile tears alla Jimmy Sweggert style*, and the Rush ditto heads will STAY faithfully behind their beloved Rushman calling it all a liberal plot to discredit him.




* for those lucky enough not to know, this is a tele-evangalist who got caught literally with his pants down in a compromising situation, and then did a public weeping and wailing of his sins... He got forgiven by his flock. Still in the business of being a tele-evangalist.

Nay. He'll just weep a few crocadile tears alla Jimmy Sweggert style*, and the Rush ditto heads will STAY faithfully behind their beloved Rushman calling it all a liberal plot to discredit him.

Ah yes, I had failed to figure the dittos into the equation - my bad. Although many of Rush's faithful listeners don't necessarily even agree with his point of view, they are indeed as addicted to his show as he is to painkillers.

Bill Frist just participated in a political rally in a church. Tom DeLay is taking trips sponsored by foreign powers, and paying his family for doing nothing.

Yeah it really is shocking that only the right does this! :rolleyes:

Yeah, like remember when Clinton took office, and the Dems controlled both Houses, and so they threatened to use the "Nuclear Option" if the Republican minority didn't confirm their judges, and how they paid high-profile liberal columnists to shill Democratic Govt. proposals? :rolleyes:

Remember how no one ever filibustered judicial nominees, or threatened to?

They invaded the man's personal privacy. Yes, he deserves everything that you could possibly throw at him, but that doesn't mean you can search him without a warrant. I, myself, would like to beat him senseless with a baseball bat, but I do applaud the ACLU for defending his rights.

Why?

What's not to agree with in that statement? Now that Colin Powell has retired to contemplate his shame at playing patsy in the famous UN speech, a full list of principled conservatives on Capitol Hill begins and ends with John McCain.

Im much more conservative than liberal, but calling John "Keating Five" McCain principled is laughable. He is no different than any other entrenched politician.

Are you telling me he didnt know the effects of the Mccain Feingold campaign reform bill? Why do you think it was so bipartisan? Campaign reform is essentially incumbant protection! You would think that there would be more turnover in the house and senate simply from random accidents killing various members.

I'm about as liberal as you can get, but it's blatantly unfair to say that conservatives lack principles and liberals have them. Some on both sides are principled and some are not. It's about the individual not the political group.

Geez, I am agreeing with you more and more...time to get back on the wagon I think

Yeah, like remember when Clinton took office, and the Dems controlled both Houses, and so they threatened to use the "Nuclear Option" if the Republican minority didn't confirm their judges, and how they paid high-profile liberal columnists to shill Democratic Govt. proposals? :rolleyes:

Point by point:

1. in 1992-1994, the Dems controlled both Houses, and did threaten it. (check your Congressional Record!) Since the Bork hearings (1987), the Dems' favourite technique for preventing consideration of a nominee, has been the threat of a Filibuster. Now Filibusters aren't like Mr. Smith Goes To Congress anymore. We have now, is what is called the 'German Filibuster', which includes breaks for mealtimes, bathroom, etc. along with the ability to hand the floor over to a fellow-traveller like a relay race, this allows a faction to hold the entire Senate up virtually indefinitely over a minor issue.
The way it used to work, back in 'the day', a Filibuster was one man, he talked until he couldn't anymore, and then the vote, up or down. No breaks, no time to rest up, no reliefs, your senator pitched until he couldn't take it.


2. they didn't have to-most High-profile Columnists in 1992 outright endorsed nearly anything that then-President Clinton endorsed. This was part of what started the ball rolling for Right-wing Talk Radio, there simply weren't any significant voices on the other side of the aisle, only "Left" and "Slightly less Left" in the Editorial pages, with Buchanan and his like being occasionally printed as the token non-leftist.

Oh, and John McCain? is NOT a Conservative. He's slightly to the right of Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, and to the left of Zell Miller.

sorry, but your post is anything but Libertarian in its message - If anyone is standing shoulder to shoulder it is the Democrat party in their attacks on the Bush Administration.

I didn't realize strict adherence to a particular ideology was required. I guess this explains conservatives. The more rational people tend to slide around the scale a little bit, depending on the situation. Ideology is never an absolute solution.

Also, considering that the Republicans are promoting a fascist form of government, violating both personal liberties and the integrity of the free market, it's perfectly consistent for a libertarian to adopt a diametrically opposed position to them. At least the liberals and I can agree on personal liberties (repeal of Patriot Act, etc.), so I find some common ground with them, and none with the neocons.

I also don't understand how a conservative can support Bush's social security plan, or his budget. Conservatives are supposed to be in favor of fiscal restraint, rather than spending the state billions into debt. He needs to get this under control before he can even consider social security reform of the type he desires, because the only conscionable way to transition to private accounts is to grandfather the old system out, which can only have two conclusions. Either the government will have to come up with a new revenue source (unlikely), or one generation (mine) will get stuck in between. We'll be paying the grandfathers and have nothing left to reserve for our own accounts.

What's Bush's plan for that? Stony silence.

We need to transition to private accounts, but turning a bunch of half-educated people loose in the stock market isn't the way, either. It's perfectly possible to have private accounts which are federally managed, sort of in the same way your corporate retirement system is managed by HR, and the SSA is already doing this, sort of. To transition people from the old system to one funded by your own personal contributions, rather than being dependent on the current workforce, we first need a budget windfall to pay for it. Luckily, we've got plenty of time to arrange that, since social security will remain solvent at current funding levels for many more years.

There's a solution for you. We just need to get Bush out of office and stop with all these unnecessary nation-building exercises, and we can make it happen.

Sorry, but this reminds me of a joke I heard a long time ago:

Q: What's a Libertarian?

A: A Republican who's been busted.
__________________________________________
Good Article:

Libertarian Party says America owes talk host Rush Limbaugh a debt of gratitude

October 16, 2003 WASHINGTON, DC -- The entire nation owes radio broadcaster Rush Limbaugh a debt of gratitude, Libertarians say, because his ordeal has exposed every drug warrior in America as a rank hypocrite…The revelation that Limbaugh had become addicted to painkillers -- drugs he is accused of procuring illegally from his Palm Beach housekeeper -- has caused a media sensation…

As the Limbaugh saga continues, here's an important question for Americans to ask, Libertarians say: Why are all the drug warriors suddenly so silent?..Libertarian Party executive director Joe Seehusen pointed out. "If this pill-popping pontificator deserves a get-out-of-jail-free card, these drug warriors had better explain why."

Given their longstanding support for the Drug War, it's fair to ask:

Why haven't President George Bush or his tough-on-crime attorney general, John Ashcroft, uttered a word criticizing Limbaugh's law-breaking?

Why aren't drug czar John P. Walters or his predecessor, Barry McCaffrey, lambasting Limbaugh as a menace to society and a threat to "our children?"

Why aren't federal DEA agents storming Limbaugh's $30 million Florida mansion in a frantic search for criminal evidence?

Why haven't federal, state, and local police agencies seized the celebrity's homes and luxury cars under asset-forfeiture laws?

Finally, why aren't bloviating blabbermouths like William Bennett publicly explaining how America would be better off if Limbaugh were prosecuted, locked in a steel cage and forced to abandon his wife, his friends, and his career?

The answer is obvious, Seehusen said: "America's drug warriors are shameless hypocrites who believe in one standard of justice for ordinary Americans and another for themselves, their families and their political allies.”

Also, the ACLU should stand by their principles and not defend him. Anyway, he can more than afford a lawyer.
What principle of theirs are they violating by defending him?

Oh, and John McCain? is NOT a Conservative. He's slightly to the right of Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, and to the left of Zell Miller.
What, so you have to be a right-wing extremist to be considered conservative these days?

The answer is obvious, Seehusen said: "America's drug warriors are shameless hypocrites who believe in one standard of justice for ordinary Americans and another for themselves, their families and their political allies.”
Allegiance to The Party is the most important thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050428/ap_en_ot/limbaugh_painkillers

Rush Limbaugh, the rabid right's favorite hate monger, is fighting the state of Florida, alleging they violated his right to privacy by seizing his medical records as part of an investigation into whether he illegally purchased pain relievers. The ACLU agrees with him, and have taken up his case.

This is, shall we say, a slightly odd combination, considering Rush has libelled the ACLU at least as much as he has any other liberal institution or person. He likes to play fun acronym games, like "Anti-Christian Lawyers' Union." Now that they've taken up his case, he suddenly doesn't think they're so bad. This illustrates two things:

1) The ACLU stand by their principles, defending anyone in need no matter how underserving they are.
2) Rush has no principles, happily discarding all that he appeared to stand for the moment he is in trouble.

And this is a perfect microcosm of the whole liberal-conservative divide in the US right now.

So I'm assuming Mr. Limbaugh will stop shitting on the ACLU in future?
Yippee.
What you think it'd take to get him to shut up entirely, I wonder...

Ha, that's funny. Everyone else in this thread seems to feel the ACLU is sticking to their principle by defending someone who is commonly their enemy. So either the rest of us don't understand what the ACLU's "principles" are (defending civil liberties, the right to privacy in this case) or you don't.

I think it is fairly clear that I don't. But I know I don't like them.