Response to some rather dense person's posting.

There IS a difference.

There is NO hypocrisy in condemning those who do MORE cruelty
to animals or advance harm to their bodies or society
through drug use -- NOT less.

This is what makes Rush Limbaugh a TOTAL hypocrite.
He condemned pot smokers, even those whose pot smoking caused
no damage to themselves and cost insurers and drug rehab units,
demanding extremist prison sentences for them,
who did less damage to society financially than his coked up
fanatic drug habit. He even condemned those who themselves took
no illegal drugs, just because they believed in legalizing drugs
for others. Thus, he condemned those who are 100% pure, drug-wise.

I have not heard of this Karen Winter, but from what you describe,
she kills FAR fewer animals, and those she does, more humanely,
than ANYone she condemns. More importantly, she is working in
the right direction, willing to work with others to find out ways
to further reduce killing animals by advancing technology.

Obviously you would condemn WWII veterans for being hypocrites
because some of them killed innocent civilians accidentally in war
while they were trying to fight the Nazis.

prick wrote:
> Response to some rather dense person's posting.

Ahhh, responding to yourself.

> There IS a difference.

In what?

> There is NO hypocrisy in condemning those who do MORE cruelty
> to animals or advance harm to their bodies or society
> through drug use -- NOT less.

It's still hypocritical, stupid.

> This is what makes Rush Limbaugh a TOTAL hypocrite.

Once again, you've proven you cannot stick to the issue at hand.

> He condemned pot smokers, even those whose pot smoking caused
> no damage to themselves and cost insurers and drug rehab units,

Marijuana is not a harmless drug. Anyone who's been run over by a stoned
loser can attest that it's intoxicating effects have consequences on
other people, not just the jelly-heads who toke it.

> demanding extremist prison sentences for them,
> who did less damage to society financially than his coked up
> fanatic drug habit.

Coked up fanatic? No, you ****ing asshole. He became addicted to certain
prescribed pain medications like hydrocodone and oxycontin during
convalesence of a serious back injury. You may not see much difference
between one who takes medication for a medical complaint and then
becomes addicted to that medication and another whose addiction is
merely recreational. The only similarity is addiction, but at least Rush
has recognized it and sought rehab in the past and currently. It's a
problem which he'll have to cope with for many years to come.

I'm glad, though, you're able to find a silver lining in Rush's -- or
anyone's -- suffering. Then again, you've already demonstrated what a
caring and compassionate person you are over in aaev.

> He even condemned those who themselves took
> no illegal drugs, just because they believed in legalizing drugs
> for others. Thus, he condemned those who are 100% pure, drug-wise.

Non sequitur, and not fully accurate. You apparently missed some of his
discussions with William F Buckley, a friend of Rush's and whom he
greatly admires, who happens to support legalization of marijuana. Rush
certainly didn't condemn Mr Buckley, but neither did he agree with his
position on legalization.

I encourage you to read the following article. Here are a couple
paragraphs that may not change your opinion, but are pretty germane:

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.
http://tinyurl.com/u32d

> I have not heard of this Karen Winter, but from what you describe,
> she kills FAR fewer animals, and those she does, more humanely,
> than ANYone she condemns.

Her slaughter is every bit as inhumane and indiscriminate as anyone's.

> More importantly, she is working in
> the right direction,

No. "Working in the right direction" entails a lot more than talking the
talk. It would mean confronting the truth -- that every diet contains
some amount of bloodletting, and that no diet is more "ethical" than
another.

> willing to work with others to find out ways
> to further reduce killing animals by advancing technology.

Lip service of that sort shouldn't be praised, it should be condemned
for what it is. No one is morally superior for talking a good game;
indeed, talk is cheap.

> Obviously you would condemn WWII veterans for being hypocrites
> because some of them killed innocent civilians accidentally in war
> while they were trying to fight the Nazis.

Non sequitur and yet another sign that you simply cannot engage in a
discussion without making an ass out of yourself.

I appreciate all those things and lessons about Drug Rehab. Good source of knowledge and information.