RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


LOL! LOL! Rush doesn't exactly BLAME Clinton ...(22 posts)

LOL! LOL! Rush doesn't exactly BLAME Clinton ...OldEdScott
Oct 7, 2003 5:02 AM
... he just manages to MENTION Clinton (in a disparaging way, it goes without saying):

From his website:

"Based on some things that I have read, things that people have written - and I understand it, what people have said - let me try one more time, ladies and gentlemen, on the story about me and drug use. When I said Friday that I didn't yet know what I was dealing with and that when I did I would tell you everything, I meant exactly that. Some people are interpreting that to mean, well, in fact, let me just be blunt. People are saying that I'm being Clintonesque, that I'm waiting until I know everything I have to deal with so that I can figure out what I have to lie about. That's what I said that Bill Clinton always did when we were waiting for him to come forth.

"Ladies and gentlemen, that's not what is going on here at all. I am waiting to find out just exactly what I am facing legally ..."

LMAO! PERFECT!
You can feel the pain in his voice.MR_GRUMPY
Oct 7, 2003 5:16 AM
heheheheMJ
Oct 7, 2003 5:29 AM
live by the sword die by the sword...

couldn't happen to a nicer fella
any lawyer would advise him to do thatDougSloan
Oct 7, 2003 6:31 AM
Only an idiot would comment on a pending legal investigation, particularly on a talk show. If I were any suspect's lawyer, I'd tell him to keep your mouth shut.

Clinton, by contrast, didn't do that. Instead, he got on TV (and under oath) and lied directly to the public. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski." He did speak out, and he lied.

Doug
it's a shockerMJ
Oct 7, 2003 6:37 AM
that an adult lied about their sex life...

if Rush was half the man he has claimed - he'd do the stand up thing and come clean now

but as a lawyer I'd tell him to shut up... - mind I would have told Clinton the same thing
I agree he should keep his mouth shut.OldEdScott
Oct 7, 2003 6:44 AM
It would be nuts to talk about a federal criminal investigation of yourself on the air. Lord a-mercy. That would be legal suicide.

My point was, many people had joked that he would somehow manage to blame Clinton. Some joke. Two days into the story, he manages to politicize the whole deal by SLAMMING Clinton in what normal people would find to be non-political and unrelated discussion of his situation -- something you just did too.

If you'll note, I have been very supportive of Rush on this. From my direct human experience, I think drug addiction, especially Vicodin/Oxycontin addiction, is a nightmare tragedy that far transcends mere politics, and I feel for Rush's situation. I haven't polticized it in any way. It's funny -- I think -- that you and Rush, however, DID.

Somehow, I'm pretty sure before this is over, I and my Red friends -- and of course Clinton, always Clinton -- will be blamed for politicizing it, though. "Those people are shameless, they dragged partisan politics into personal tragedy ..." etc etc
Reminds me of my school bus.Spoke Wrench
Oct 7, 2003 7:14 AM
Confront any middle school kid about anything they've done wrong and the first thing they do is rat out somebody else to try to deflect the blame.
don't think he was "blaming" ClintonDougSloan
Oct 7, 2003 7:22 AM
He merely said that he'd not be "Clintonesque" in his explanation of what (if anything) happened. That's far from blaming Clinton.

You appear to be one of the few relatively objective and fair minded people here, even though I know you disagree with Rush and his supporters. I think it adds to your credibility when the real issues are being discussed. This, contrary to those who would attack at any cost.

Keep in mind, though, that we are merely assuming from a tabloid article that there was any kind of addiction. While it's good to see compassion if anyone were so, I don't think it's a given.

doug
Didn't say 'blamed,' said 'slammed.'OldEdScott
Oct 7, 2003 7:27 AM
A gratuitous slam that -- on his own initiation -- devolved a personal tragedy into a political statement.
Rush is a political animalmoneyman
Oct 7, 2003 7:35 AM
His quintessential nature. It would be truly surprising if he were able to relate his alleged personal tragedy to things other than politics, especially Clinton, since WJC has been Rush's life force for so long.

OTOH, being "Clintonesque" transcends the former president and takes on a meaning of its own. Like being Borked.

Ironic (?) that "Clintonesque" sounds refined, classy and gracious. Being Borked sounds messy and painful. Not sure what that all means.

$$
if that's trueMJ
Oct 7, 2003 7:38 AM
and it sounds reasonable then why should anyone spare a compassionate thought for him if he is unfortunately addicted to hillbily heroin

his track record is of confusing personal and political for sport - why should we cut him any slack?
You cut him slack? When?moneyman
Oct 7, 2003 8:31 AM
I must have missed that.

And its not sport to him. It is who he is.

Do you listen to Rush often in the UK? The only way I know of that happening is that you subscribe to his website and listen via internet. If that is so, could it be that your liberal leanings are merely a ploy to entrap the true Reds into throwing their allegiance your way, then you will blast them out of the water with their own misguided opinions?!?!?!? I can't wait!!!

$$
You cut him slack? When?MJ
Oct 7, 2003 8:57 AM
it was more a question for those that may have such intentions - you know forgive and forget? the question is why should anybody not apply the standards to him as he does to everybody else? from me compassion when he begs forgiveness perhaps

I only have the pleasure of Rush when I'm in the states a couple of times per year

it's funny - this is the only place where people classify me as "liberal" - actually I'm a pretty middle of the road guy - but then that's a measure by a different standard I suppose - here there's no death penalty, social welfare net, health care for all etc. - things that really aren't that revolutionary or liberal - just plain common sense - that they are considered liberal is a sad indictment of the US right (and left for being unable to change the agenda) -even the Tories (Conservative party here) wouldn't dream of dismantling the social net etc.

the US measure of left vs right on the other hand is a bit different - most people (or at least alot of loud ones) appear to me to be far, far more conservative - fiscally, morally, politically - somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan is how I'd classify alot of US folk - nice as pie do anything for you but ready to bomb other countries at a moment's notice

there's a real disconnect somewhere - I think the right in America has hijacked alot of debate and sets the agenda (there is no liberal US media - there is very little credible US media) - and nobody else even gets a look in

anyways - I often take the conservative side of an argument to make things more interesting especially when I'm around a bunch of lefties who are all patting themselves on the back - there are knee jerk responses on both sides of the fence
You cut him slack? When?BikeViking
Oct 7, 2003 12:56 PM
There are both left and right-wing media outlets. One just has to read from them both and make reasoned judgements on the facts as they were represented.
that's not really true in the USMJ
Oct 8, 2003 12:11 AM
there aren't any truly left wing media sources in the US

I would describe the NY Times and Washington Post as middle ground with PBS/NPR being centre left - the balance of US media is skewed towards the right - that anyone could conclude that there are widespread mainstream lefty media outlets in the US is an indication of the extent of control the right and centre exerts over the media and public opinion/perception

anyways - news for most folk in the US means watching TV which is more akin to infotainment than anything substantive

when I am in the US and don;t have web access it's as if I'm in a black hole of news and current events - I leave and don't have a clue what's been going on for the past few weeks - even about the US!
both, actuallyDougSloan
Oct 7, 2003 7:35 AM
Check the last paragraph, too (sorta).

Nonetheless, yes, I don't think he can help but slam Clinton in some way in every program. It's expected. ;-)
Like a steak dangled in front of my Mastiff.OldEdScott
Oct 7, 2003 7:37 AM
Get your hand out of the way, cause you know he's gonna chomp.
Didn't say 'blamed,' said 'slammed.'OldEdScott
Oct 7, 2003 7:35 AM
A gratuitous slam that -- on his own initiation -- devolved a personal tragedy into a political statement.
I agree he should keep his mouth shut.BikeViking
Oct 7, 2003 12:49 PM
But how does one (allegedly) become an addict to some of the most POWERFUL drugs available AND keep sharp in front of a national audience for 3 hours a day.

I have never heard sound as if there was EVER a problem with his mental faculties (politics excluded, you Dean huggers!! :o)

It just doesn't add up...
that's how addiction worksMJ
Oct 8, 2003 12:14 AM
your image of an addict is a street junkie which isn't accurate - most addicts appear for the most part to be "normal" - often addicts don't even get the effect of the drug anymore but need it to keep functioning - often it's only when they stop taking it that they fit the stereotype
he was under oath on TV?zman994
Oct 7, 2003 11:47 AM
and the act goes from burlesque to absurd. nm128
Oct 7, 2003 8:17 AM