Accusations against Rush: A Proposal

I propose that we apply to Rush the same standard that Rush applied to Bill
Clinton, to wit:

No matter what the charge, no matter what the evidence (or lack of
evidence), no matter the credibility of the accuser (or lack of credibility
of the accuser), no matter the motivation of the accuser -- RUSH IS GUILTY.

--

----
Joe S.

"Joe S." wrote in message
news:blnglm02nla@enews4.newsguy.com...
> I propose that we apply to Rush the same standard that Rush applied to
Bill
> Clinton, to wit:
>
> No matter what the charge, no matter what the evidence (or lack of
> evidence), no matter the credibility of the accuser (or lack of
credibility
> of the accuser), no matter the motivation of the accuser -- RUSH IS
GUILTY.
> ----
> Joe S.
>

OK, since that's what you obviously want to do.

Be happy in your knickers twist.

--
Dave

I take the same Meds. 2 a day at night.
He was taking 100 a day ! I guess that
screwed up his Hearing. I hear the Hydrocoden 5/sic/
is very strong. I don't feel a thing. I guess I've
been on so many Meds I don't feel them, I
know they do work, but it takes a good 11/2 Hrs
to stop any problems.

I always thought him an Asshole, and I ain't
in no Party. Like what that Russian Comedian said,

'Here you find the Party !'

'In Wussia the Party finds YOU !'

"Joe S." wrote in message news:blnglm02nla@enews4.newsguy.com...
> I propose that we apply to Rush the same standard that Rush applied to Bill
> Clinton, to wit:
>
> No matter what the charge, no matter what the evidence (or lack of
> evidence), no matter the credibility of the accuser (or lack of credibility
> of the accuser), no matter the motivation of the accuser -- RUSH IS GUILTY.
>
> --
>
> ----
> Joe S.
>
>

In article , Joe S.
wrote:

> I propose that we apply to Rush the same standard that Rush applied to Bill
> Clinton, to wit:
>
> No matter what the charge, no matter what the evidence (or lack of
> evidence), no matter the credibility of the accuser (or lack of credibility
> of the accuser), no matter the motivation of the accuser -- RUSH IS GUILTY.

I propose that you are full of shit.

The evidence against lowlife scumbag Clinton was so overwhelming that
he confessed and apologized...thirty or forty times. He apologized to
everybody for everything. He was on TV every night apologizing to
someone about some damned thing. He was so guilty that he was
impeached, disgraced and disbarred, paid a $90,000 fine for contempt of
court and $800,000 in hush money to Paula Jones.

If you propose to apply the same standard to Rush, please let me know
when you have a shred of evidence other than some ridiculous National
Enquirer expose'.

"Joe S." wrote in message
news:blnglm02nla@enews4.newsguy.com...
> I propose that we apply to Rush the same standard that Rush applied to
Bill
> Clinton, to wit:
>
> No matter what the charge, no matter what the evidence (or lack of
> evidence), no matter the credibility of the accuser (or lack of
credibility
> of the accuser), no matter the motivation of the accuser -- RUSH IS
GUILTY.
>
> --
>
> ----
> Joe S.
>


I suppose that he probably is guilty - considering the fact he has not
strenuously denied the allegations.

But howz about we just hold everyone to the same standards.

If you live in a glass house - then shut the fuck up.

Trouble is - if we were to apply that particular standard - there probably
wouldn't be any talk radio, any op ed pieces in the paper, any commentary on
the tv.

Maybe thats not such a bad idea

--
Nigel Brooks

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 1049 -0500, "Nigel Brooks ²°°³®©"
wrote this crap:

>
>I suppose that he probably is guilty - considering the fact he has not
>strenuously denied the allegations.

Rush has a policy of ignoring any comments against him. When the
liberals attack him or his radio show, he doesn't allow them to get to
him.


Hero@Horvath.net

This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe