• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is the most influental conservative voice in America?

Who is the most influential conservatve voice in America?


  • Total voters
    56
Well, I guess you believe everything you read and do not believe experienced people like me who you accuse of lying.

No. I believe things I read, studies that have been conducted, anecdotal evidence that I've observed myself, anecdotal evidence from people I know which all grouped together lead me to what I believe.

What I don't believe is one single, solitary, "druggie" (using it as you used it to describe anyone that has previously used a drug) who has a defintiive and unquestionable agenda and has shown himself completely incapable of dealing with the situation in a rational and intellectually honest way as being some kind of definitive, end all be all, proof that contradicts every single solitary other piece of information out there.

Oh, by the way, if I was to believe you I'd be believing "what I read" as well, because all you're giving me is your opinion of your own experiences typed out on a message board.

Can we get back to the topic? What does the most influential conservative voice in America has to do with addictions with drugs?

The issue was attempts to insult the conservative base by suggesting that Limbaugh was the most influential, and is a drug addicted addicted, therefore conservatives are dumb for being influenced by a "druggie".

The leader of the democratic party got hopped up on Coke, yet we don't see insults flying around that his followers are essentially idiots for listening to him because of it.
 
No. I believe things I read, studies that have been conducted, anecdotal evidence that I've observed myself, anecdotal evidence from people I know which all grouped together lead me to what I believe.

What I don't believe is one single, solitary, "druggie" (using it as you used it to describe anyone that has previously used a drug) who has a defintiive and unquestionable agenda and has shown himself completely incapable of dealing with the situation in a rational and intellectually honest way as being some kind of definitive, end all be all, proof that contradicts every single solitary other piece of information out there.

Oh, by the way, if I was to believe you I'd be believing "what I read" as well, because all you're giving me is your opinion of your own experiences typed out on a message board.



The issue was attempts to insult the conservative base by suggesting that Limbaugh was the most influential, and is a drug addicted addicted, therefore conservatives are dumb for being influenced by a "druggie".

The leader of the democratic party got hopped up on Coke, yet we don't see insults flying around that his followers are essentially idiots for listening to him because of it.

I am right and I think you are wrong. Furthermore, what you think matters nothing to me. Rush Limbaugh sucks.
 
people just can't get over the fact that Limbaugh did some pain pills.

Some people think that being a fat tard on the RADIO somehow makes you influencial - when most people don't listen to him, unless they're going to the grocery store and there's no good music on.

It isn't just that he popped some pills, but that he was addicted to painkillers. Clearly, he's of weak stock and should be culled from the herd. He's the suburban equivalent of a crackhead.
 
It isn't just that he popped some pills, but that he was addicted to painkillers.

Well I don't care that he was addicted to drugs. What burns me is that he was ranting and raving for severe penalties for what he was doing himself at the time.
 
Just like Jimmy Swaggart when he was busted on the sex front. He railed against all that like it was nobody's business (and it wasn't, actually) - and then he got caught and it was all O my LORD forgive me!!!! I never heard him apologize or own that he was preaching against and demonizing people for doing the same damn thing he was doing.

Well I don't care that he was addicted to drugs. What burns me is that he was ranting and raving for severe penalties for what he was doing himself at the time.
 
Why is the list nothing but talk show hosts? You could not put an actual influencial conservative on the list? Where is John Boehner? Where is Mitch McConnel? Michael Steele?
 
Well I don't care that he was addicted to drugs. What burns me is that he was ranting and raving for severe penalties for what he was doing himself at the time.

Probably some of the best teachers are people who abuse what they are teaching against.

He got addicted to a substance that you become addicted to from the first pill. He got caught. He was humiliated. He went to rehab, and apparently or most possibly kicked it. He may or may not continue to take them. If he does he's usually pretty lucid, so he can perform and go on living without consequence.

His criticism is probably towards those who are out of control and can't maintain a reasonable lifestyle. He did want them prosecuted which I think some have to be, but many do get a lot of breaks before the final gavel is thrown.

He may be a hypocrit on this issue, but nobody in my book is ever completely squeaky clean on everything.

If he gets caught, again, well, it's up to the courts what to do with him.

Lots and lots and lots of us do not practice what we preach. Parents are very bad about doing this sort of thing. Not practicing what they preach.
 
Why is the list nothing but talk show hosts? You could not put an actual influencial conservative on the list? Where is John Boehner? Where is Mitch McConnel? Michael Steele?

Ask the general public if they know who those people are. Most will probably say no. Ask if they know who Rush or Glenn are....they know. They're more influential than politicians.
 
Ask the general public if they know who those people are. Most will probably say no. Ask if they know who Rush or Glenn are....they know. They're more influential than politicians.

I know who they are. If you watch Fox you'll know. I like Boehner. Don't know Mitch well, but he seems good. Steele just doesn't have the charisma that we American's like in our leaders.
 
Ask the general public if they know who those people are. Most will probably say no. Ask if they know who Rush or Glenn are....they know. They're more influential than politicians.

Well known is not the same as influential. The people I mentioned actually influence policy. The ones you mentioned, not so much.
 
Lots and lots and lots of us do not practice what we preach. Parents are very bad about doing this sort of thing. Not practicing what they preach.

What's that old saying about "to whom much is given, much is expected"? It's not like he's some nameless, faceless parent out there, "Do as I say, not as I do!". He's listened to by MILLIONS. Hypocrisy in one's own family vs hypocrisy before god and country is a whole different ballgame.
 
Well, I guess you believe everything you read and do not believe experienced people like me who you accuse of lying.

And you're absolutely correct. Usage is condoned in NL and as a result we've been able to study 700.000 regular users. Maybe some day people like zyphlin & cc will realise that they have been believing false studies. People do exaggerate tho. I've used MJ for over 15 years, never once hallucinated. At best it makes me happy, hungry and sleepy. We're talking about a very small impairment, especially for a regular user, that only lasts 1-4 hrs and drops significantly after the first half hour.

The dutch lawmaker acknowledges a difference between soft & hard drugs, I think the US should adopt such a policy.
 
Neal Boortz.
 
Well known is not the same as influential. The people I mentioned actually influence policy. The ones you mentioned, not so much.

You don't think millions of people calling, emailing and writing to their representatives because talk radio hosts have informed their audience what's really in the bills is not influential? The tea parties and townhall meetings where conservatives made their voices heard is largely due to talk radio, not politicians.
 
It isn't just that he popped some pills, but that he was addicted to painkillers. Clearly, he's of weak stock and should be culled from the herd. He's the suburban equivalent of a crackhead.

He is culled from the heard, in my opinion. . . all he has, now, is a radio show - and the only time anyone ever pays attention to him is when he blubbers out something stupid and controversial. . . if it weren't for such moments then no one would know about him - at all.

He really is far less influencial than most other known and ignored conservative voices out there.

That being said - anyone could get addicted to pain pills. . . it's extremely common, you might be surprised at how many people are on them in an addicted means. Most of these types of addictions start with a Dr's prescription - unlike any other drug out there. . . often people don't intend to become an addict - it just happens when the Dr can't find the cause of the problem and just keeps prescribing pills . . . next thing you know, you're hooked and then the Dr tells you he won't give you more.

My husband has over 20 vials of pills from the year that his torn tendon went undiagnosed - none of them worked - and instead of trying to find the source of the problem the Dr's just gave him more pills. . . if he had really started to take them all when was given them eventually he would have been hooked on them. he didn't, however, he just stopped taking them and put them away - they didn't really work because pills aren't the cure for a Dr's stupidity.

:shrug: anyway - I digress

Not saying it's right - but it's more understandable than drinking and smoking, imho.
 
Why is the list nothing but talk show hosts? You could not put an actual influencial conservative on the list? Where is John Boehner? Where is Mitch McConnel? Michael Steele?

Because puppets can not be considered influential. The discussion is about the puppeteers.

(exception: Steele is no puppet, but do you want to advocate he is the leader of the Republican party?)
 
And you're absolutely correct. Usage is condoned in NL and as a result we've been able to study 700.000 regular users. Maybe some day people like zyphlin & cc will realise that they have been believing false studies. People do exaggerate tho. I've used MJ for over 15 years, never once hallucinated. At best it makes me happy, hungry and sleepy. We're talking about a very small impairment, especially for a regular user, that only lasts 1-4 hrs and drops significantly after the first half hour.

The dutch lawmaker acknowledges a difference between soft & hard drugs, I think the US should adopt such a policy.

Just like LA, you are incorrect. Actual studies trump the agenda and anecdotal evidence of those who smoke. Zyph and I are absolutely correct. I have produced many peer reviewed studies on this topic here at DP. If you choose to not believe data and evidence, that's your business, but your own personal anecdotal evidence in this matter is meaningless. Oh, and btw, I also support legalization.
 
Just like LA, you are incorrect. Actual studies trump the agenda and anecdotal evidence of those who smoke. Zyph and I are absolutely correct. I have produced many peer reviewed studies on this topic here at DP. If you choose to not believe data and evidence, that's your business, but your own personal anecdotal evidence in this matter is meaningless. Oh, and btw, I also support legalization.
I can only laugh at the notion of being in favor of legalization while supporting the debunked studies meant to justify the criminalisation of MJ. If the US wants to regulate MJ usage in traffic, and find support for it among those who favor legalization, my thoughts go out the ones who have to enforce the law. It's fine with me but I can't motivate myself to debate this topic with someone who can't tell the difference between an anecdote and evidence, between an opinion and a proven fact. This is just an opinion board that does nothing to suggest it could be anything more; always interested in your opinion, never in your false sense of authority.
 
Just like LA, you are incorrect. Actual studies trump the agenda and anecdotal evidence of those who smoke. Zyph and I are absolutely correct. I have produced many peer reviewed studies on this topic here at DP. If you choose to not believe data and evidence, that's your business, but your own personal anecdotal evidence in this matter is meaningless. Oh, and btw, I also support legalization.

The scientific method is far from perfect. If it was then drug companies would no longer be sued. Just saying, you know.
 
Because puppets can not be considered influential. The discussion is about the puppeteers.

(exception: Steele is no puppet, but do you want to advocate he is the leader of the Republican party?)

I disagree. They set the policy that those on the list advocate for, and pick the targets for them to attack.

And as a good democrat, yes, I do want Steele to advocate for the republican party.
 
If more republicans were like Steele I might vote for a few of them. He has balls of steel.
 
I can only laugh at the notion of being in favor of legalization while supporting the debunked studies meant to justify the criminalisation of MJ. If the US wants to regulate MJ usage in traffic, and find support for it among those who favor legalization, my thoughts go out the ones who have to enforce the law. It's fine with me but I can't motivate myself to debate this topic with someone who can't tell the difference between an anecdote and evidence, between an opinion and a proven fact. This is just an opinion board that does nothing to suggest it could be anything more; always interested in your opinion, never in your false sense of authority.

I can only laugh at the notion that someone would be so rigid in their thinking that they do not understand that just because something is addictive, that does not mean it should not be legalized. I also find it sad that you do not seem to understand that anecdotal evidence doesn't mean squat when trying to prove a position, and since that's all you've presented, other than it being your opinion, your position doesn't hold any validity. Now, if you actually want to present some REAL evidence to support your position for us to examine, feel free. But until you do, your claims of "debunked" studies are meaningless.
 
The scientific method is far from perfect. If it was then drug companies would no longer be sued. Just saying, you know.

LA, prove that any of the studies that were presented in the links Zyph provided are flawed. You and Djoop are acting like some of our pro-gun folks. You're acting like someone is going to storm your house and take your weed away from you. No one is saying that, and as I have said, I am pro-legalization. Doesn't change the fact that marijuana is addictive. Less so than other drugs, but addictive nonetheless.
 
I can only laugh at the notion that someone would be so rigid in their thinking that they do not understand that just because something is addictive, that does not mean it should not be legalized. I also find it sad that you do not seem to understand that anecdotal evidence doesn't mean squat when trying to prove a position, and since that's all you've presented, other than it being your opinion, your position doesn't hold any validity. Now, if you actually want to present some REAL evidence to support your position for us to examine, feel free. But until you do, your claims of "debunked" studies are meaningless.

I don't know CC. In the studies only 20% had any kind of noticeable withdrawals and they did not come to any solid conclusion about mental or physical addiction, only that it can be in a limited amount of people.

Anything with that low a percentage of any kind of addiction is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme. You can't overdose on it and is less dangerous than tobacco and alcohol.

I agree his argument is pretty meaningless without anything to back it up though.

PS: Voted Rush Limbaugh.
 
Last edited:
I can only laugh at the notion that someone would be so rigid in their thinking that they do not understand that just because something is addictive, that does not mean it should not be legalized.
I never claimed that it wasn't addictive, I deserve a better mockery than this.
I also find it sad that you do not seem to understand that anecdotal evidence doesn't mean squat when trying to prove a position,
You talking about studies you have mentioned in the past are just as anecdotical to me. The difference is that I clearly presented an opinion, I stay well away from telling others what to believe.
and since that's all you've presented, other than it being your opinion, your position doesn't hold any validity.
That's were you are wrong, personal experience does count, it's just that we don't base scientific studies on the experience of one person. Opinion vs evidence, I thought it was pretty clear I presented the former.
Now, if you actually want to present some REAL evidence to support your position for us to examine, feel free.
There are countless studies on the subject, with a wide variety in quality. I have read numerous and came to my conviction. I wonder how that works for you, do you gather all the evidence first before you form an opinion? Do you hold any convictions that can't be proven? Step further, do you hold any convictions of which you know there is evidence against it? Personally, I realise that I'm severely limited when it comes to storing all the evidence, then again I am a habitual MJ smoker.
But until you do, your claims of "debunked" studies are meaningless.
Annoying isn't it, when people make unfounded claims. It seems you don't even realise your claims baited my response.

I never have to prove my opinion and my beliefs, I can always annoy you with them as you often annoy me with yours. Once you realise that all our positions are opinions we may find some room for a proper discussion.
 
Back
Top Bottom