🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:51:30 +0200, Eric Johnson <erj66@xs4all.nl> 

>On 04-10-2003 16:17, in article 8hltnvkg8t2sm5gptt0vb04urff3kpoac2@4ax.com,
>"Lou Scannon" <scannon@lmountain.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3 Oct 2003 15:37:11 -0700, tallgrassprairie@earthlink.net
>> (Tallgrass) wrote:
>> 
>>> "JMartin" <antares1947@comwares.net> wrote in message
>>> news:<blifni$dgi$0@12.166.20.62>...
>>>> When I was a meter reader, I had a truck that only got AM radio.  I was
>>>> stuck with either a fuzzy country station or KFI out of LA.  I usually chose
>>>> KFI.
>>>> 
>>>> When Rush Limbaugh came on, I either turned it off or made do with the
>>>> country station.
>>>> 
>>>> It's a shame that I have to even see his name in misc.rural.
>>>> 
>>>> Jena
>>> 
>>> Now, at least, we know what has fueled his vitriolic opinions all this
>>> time....he was out of narcotics!!
>>> 
>>> Linda H.
>> 
>> 
>> Think he'll want to live by his own words?
>> 
>> Rush Oct. 5, 1995,
>> 
>> "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."
>> 
>
>No. He or the situation will be different in some concrete way as to let him
>slip out.
>However, if the right loses rush as a force in their favor, things would
>change in favor of democrats.
>

You're mistaken there, EJ.  Rush only appeals to a small smegment of
society who already has their minds made up already.  Rush is a symptom
of Repugnicanism, not a force behind it.

>He will -never- accept, even if all is true which I sincerely doubt(4000+
>pills in a 10 day period), that he is anything like a common pot smoker.
>
>EJ