Say Anything Blog

LOVE the way you headlined this; skewed the bottom line didn’t it?

The bottom line:  Rush has a BIG FAT problem with painkillers and he landed himself in hot water again.

But so much better to spin and spin and spin and make it into a ‘so silly that the prosecutor won’t bother’ headline.

So typical.

Or it could be that he got off scott free while others would be spending time in  jail, Hm..... let’s see 4 doctors in 6 months and found with 2000 pills.  Sounds like a dealing quantity, I guess you do get the justice you can pay for.

And now we understand why he had to do his show with his brain tied behind his back.  Or whatever the heck his line is.  His brain may be stewed and he’s just channeling Ann Coulter.

Limbaugh, along with 1 billion other people on this planet. Tell us some more funny lies about your"family".

It must be tough to see one of the Star NeoCONS in this kind of condition, eh?  Where will you get all your buzzwords and witticisms if he can’t think at all anymore?

You know, it’s just SO much easier to have compassion for someone who doesn’t get rich off of putting other people down and rejoicing over their misfortunes whenever possible....if they’re not Republicons, that is.

"There’s nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. 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,"  Rush Limbaugh October 5th, 1995.

So, Rick, you agree with me? No more drugs for anyone?

The bottom line:  Rush has a BIG FAT problem with painkillers and he landed himself in hot water again.

You would too with the compressed (crushed?) discs in the back.

let’s see 4 doctors in 6 months and found with 2000 pills.  Sounds like a dealing quantity, I guess you do get the justice you can pay for.

Guilty until proven innocent huh?

  His brain may be stewed and he’s just channeling Ann Coulter.

Then he’d have no brain.

“and they ought to be sent up”

But the fat boy copped a plea.

I gotta say it’s a great plea bargain for the gas bag.

Sorry, 2H9 . . . I was just quoting a hypocrite.  I didn’t offer judgement.

Oh and let’s not forget that he decried drug use on his show regularly and stated time and time again that druggies deserved punishment. Boy what money can buy these days.   For someone who hates attorneys he ran right to one.

Guilty until proven innocent huh?

He copped a plea, FreeR! Rich guilty fellers don’t cop many pleas.

Yeah, its too bad they cant just go after real criminals like child molestors.

 
(I’m not in favor of jailtime for any non-violent users by the way, regardless of wealth.) 

I am sure that Andrea Mackris is of age, but I sure wish they had gone after her molester.

The bottom line:  Rush has a BIG FAT problem with painkillers and he landed himself in hot water again.

You would too with the compressed (crushed?) discs in the back.

*******

My dad lived with pain most of his life as I already posted here or elsewhere and never got into trouble with the law for using painkillers because he did it LEGALLY.

There IS a difference.

I’ve also had my share of back problems until I found the BackTech machine hawked by Arnold Palmer in a magazine and it changed my life.  Doctors can LEGALLY give anyone with intense pain PLENTY of medication to ease it, or don’t Republicans know this yet?

I always just toughed it out; my dad had more pain than would make that possible.  Neither of us were in trouble legally over back pain.

Love the way you make exceptions though for a prominent Republicon Talking Head.

Diane, he does his talking from a little further south

Oh, that must by why he sounds so constipated.

Well, that’s one way to engage the younger generation.

There you go:  What’s a little illegal drug problem when there is news like this to chat about???

CV Rick

That’s quite statement you quote from Limbaugh.  And from 1995, too.  Impressive.

Perhaps you could help me.  I was looking for a similar mea culpa on perjury, subornation, and serial sexual assault from Bill Clinton.  Have you got THAT particular URL handy?

Yeah, Bat One . . . that would be you changing the subject.

Start a new thread 

And from 1995, too.  Impressive.

So, it sounds as though your point is that, after 1995, Rush changed his views on illegal drug use?

I wouldn’t doubt that for a minute.  It’s quite obvious.

How many poor unknown chumps will the State of Florida " make an example of this week.

They certainly made an example of Rush. 

In the Halls of Justice the only justice is in the halls. Lenny Bruce.

 I was looking for a similar mea culpa on perjury, subornation, and serial sexual assault from Bill Clinton.

Have we missed something?  Is Bill currently in trouble with the law?  If not, I doubt you’ve made a valid parallel, but keep trying.

BBBRAAAAAAGHWWWWWWWWWWW

Adios, mi amigos. 

This is too much fun.  Really.   It’s like watching someone drown in two inches of water.

And, no, I don’t mean Rush.  I mean his glazed-eyed followers.

This honestly must be so embarassing for them.  You ALMOST feel sorry for them, don’t you?

Okay, no you don’t.

Come on, kids. Total prohabition on pharmaceutics. It worked for alcohol!

I guess I should address the first commentator. 

LOVE the way you headlined this; skewed the bottom line didn’t it?

Actually I got it exactly right.  

In thinking about this I have to think that Rush did the right thing for himself.  As he has publically admitted he has an addiction to painkillers that were prescribed by a doctor.  

Addictions are tough to break, but it’s got to be near to impossible to break an addiction when your experiencing Chronic back pain.  It’s got to be even worse when you’re being hounded by a politically-motivated prosecuter.

This way Rush gets done with his problems for the price of $30,000.  If I had a family member fighting an addiction I’d want them to focus on their recovery.

in the face of Rush copping a plea

Rush pled not guilty.  The prosecuter agreed not to challenge that plea provided Rush continue doing what he’s doing.  Who won? 

But you wont leave.  Your ego is far to inflated for that.

The windbag copped plea for DOCTOR SHOPPING… not being addicted

Being addicted to prescribed medication is not a crime and therefore not subject to a plea.

Rush pled not guilty and the prosecuter will not challenge his not guilty plea. 

furthermore; if the prosecuter could prove his case, he wouldn’t accept Rush’s not guilty plea.

According to attorney Roy Black, a single charge of doctor shopping will be filed in court by the state attorney, and as long as Limbaugh "completes an additional 18 months of treatment" by his physician, and pays $30,000 "to the State of Florida to defray the public cost of the investigation," the charge will then be dropped.

tell me where the not guilty comes in here

 Rush was in no pain.


Limbaugh received from Florida and California doctors between March 2003 and September 2003, when he allegedly picked up 1,733 hydrocodone, 90 OxyContin, 50 Xanax and 40 time-release morphine pills.

found another drug source for Limbaugh, she told the tabloid, getting him at one point 11,900 pills in a four month period in 2001.

ttp://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/orl-bk-rush042806,0,5687499.story?coll=orl-news-headlines 

"she told the tabloid"

Throw away the key! 

Yea yea he plead not guilty…with the caveats

Rush pled not guilty to the one charge.  The prosecuter will not challenge that provided he continues his treatment that he entered voluntarily.

That’s the third time I’ve said that.  I guess I have to explain a bit more for some of the slower fans.  If the Prosecuter let’s the not guilty plea stand, that means Rush is not guilty.  You see, in this country you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. 

You see, in this country you are innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Conservative = Guilty, remember? 

In a plea bargain, you plead guilty in order to receive a lesser punishment.

This case is different than that because Rush pled NOT guilty. 

I’m sorry Free, I forgot.

I’m sorry Free, I forgot.

No prob.  I got your back this time, but next time your on your own. 

found another drug source for Limbaugh, she told the tabloid, getting him at one point 11,900 pills in a four month period in 2001.

That’s interesting because these are the folks that got the immunity deal from the prosecuter.  (The HOUSEKEEPER).  If this person was credible Rush should be up on charges for obtaining drugs illegally.  As it is Rush is kinda charged with Doctor shopping(which has nothing to do with this.)

So what we have is someone who attempted blackmail of Rush’s addiction who was given immunity.  Apparently the prosecuter was so excited he forgot to check out her story before he gave her immunity for a crime greater than what she was excusing Rush for. 

(The HOUSEKEEPER).

Did she get Amensty with the Immunity?

Rush pled not guilty to the one charge.  The prosecuter will not challenge that provided he continues his treatment that he entered voluntarily.

 

And if your boy does not continue the treatment voluntarily...then what? Ya see he will be prosecuted if he fails in satisfying his plea bargained deal.

well it’s true that if Rush drops his treatment that he probably needs the rest of his life (like an alcoholic attending AA his whole life) then the prosecuter can procede.

On the other hand I think if he could prove it now he would.  He knows he doesn’t have a case.   

So, we are all in agreement? No more painkillers for anyone, ever, period. Glad to see that is taken care of.

The rule is apolitical types may, liberals must and conservatives must not if I understand the Florida prosecuter.

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we’re not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."  Rush Limbaugh, October 5th, 1995.

Nope. Either no one gets to or everyone gets to. No grey. Black and white. Yes or No. Teddie gets to gobble percs and oxys like M&Ms then everyone gets to do it. EQUALITY! If real human beings can not do a thing, then politicians can not do it either.

CV...I believe that if the prosecuter could prove it he would be prosecuting Rush.

Whistler,

Good thing your beliefs aren’t part of the legal process. 

CV I think I’m being very fair and accurate on this. 

Furthermore if you don’t like this outcome you should take it up with the liberal prosecuter in Florida.  Don’t whine around here.

So, a leftie prosecutor jacked him up for 30 grand on a phony charge.  That’s leftie justice;  Teddy Kennedy goes free for manslaughter. 

So, are you saying that he was NOT illegally obtaining drugs?  Are you further saying that he was NOT abusing medications illegally?

So, are you saying that he was NOT illegally obtaining drugs?  Are you further saying that he was NOT abusing medications illegally?

I’m saying that the Florida prosecuter who seemed to have it in for Rush has done an exhaustive investigation.  He has given immunity to felons in order to get them to cooperate fully.

The Prosecuter has thrown in the towel.  He has given up.  He apparently is unable to prove the charges or even bring said charges to court.  This leftie prosecuter is saying those things, not me.

So, a leftie prosecutor jacked him up for 30 grand on a phony charge.

Robert, that’s a good characterization.  I think it was in Rush’s best interest to agree to that to stop this fishing-forever expedition the prosecuter has been on.

It’s got to be tough to like an addiction to a prescription narcotic.  It’s got to be unbelievably worse when the condition you were prescribed the narcotic cannot be cured.  

Add in the fact that the local prosecuter is engaging in a partisan witchhunt to that mix.  How in the world can someone beat the addiction? 

"If the prescription was never filled, then he never paid the bill." - Jonny Cochran (deceased) on news Rush Limbaugh had been arrested.

I thought I’d seen it all, but I was wrong.

L

O

L

realitybob, how long have you been around ‘this’???????

Actually realitybasedbob, we could take lessons from these folks.  The next time they jump on someone just because the person happens to be anti-war, like Cindy Sheehan, and they can’t deal with it, we could use some of these arguments in that person’s defense.

For example:

If Cindy was caught taking drugs in front of the Bush Prop Ranch, we could argue that grief over her son had caused her to need prescribed mood elevators (all 2000 of them) to keep her from becoming depressed, as would any of us who had lost their only son because of Bush’s immoral war.

Or if Michael Moore was caught with 5000 Prozac, we could argue that depression over the war had overcome him, as it surely would anyone as deeply against the war as he, and he absolutely needed them to ease his emotional pain.

Yep, I think we’re onto something here, thanks to BLOBBO’s fan club/defense club here.

Hypocrisy: hy-poc’ri-sy, n.(LL. hypocrisies; G;R. hypokrisis, a reply, acting a part, feigning, from hypokrinesthi, to answer, play a part, pretend; hypo, under and krinisthai, to contend, dispute.) a feigning to be what one is not; the acting of a false part; a deception as to real character and feeling, especially as regards to morals and religion.

Rick: I’m saying what I’m saying, not what you want to assert.  If you have any evidence of what you want to believe, there’s a prosecutor in Florida who would like to hear about it.

The prosecutor already had him arrested.

Not really.  No cuffs, no perp walk.  It was an arraignment for show.  More phony leftie stuff.

This has just been a hoot reading all the righties coming to the defense of a drug addict, making excuses for his behavior. "he’s in pain", it’s ok, "it’s hard to break an addiction’, it’s ok, man you all sound like the "feeling lefties" you scream about on this site.

He was arrested, period. He was photographed, fiingerprinted.  You don’t have to do a perp walk or be cuffed to be arrested. 

So let’s compare this to OJ Simpson, he’s innocent, right? He was found not guilty by a jury, so he’s innocent. 

See, I actually believe in rehabilitation for drug users and addiction to meth and Oxy are hideous addictions and the users need treatment not jail.  But the sheer hypocrisy of the writers here is simply laughable.  If this were a leftie, you’d all be calling for his head, just like you call for Kennedy’s head on a platter. Too, too funny

I don’t see what they hypocrisy is.  If the prosecuter had a case he’d pursue it.   The prosecuter is not going any further with this.  One can only conclude that he doesn’t have a case.

What is interesting is that we don’t know that much about the so-called charge against Rush.  For that we’d need to see his medical records.  Did he go to Doctor A and Doctor B without inappropriately.  Unless you get into the entire medical case you can’t make a judgement.  So the lefties here that are assuming Rush guilty really have no grounds.

Frankly I think I’m being entirely consistant on this.  Rush was prescribed narcotics for his back pain.  He became addicted to them.  He went to treatment.  Some politically motivated prosecuter tried to make a case about it and failed.

And the leftie commenters think I’m a hypocrite for pointing out those facts.   You may think you’re making points somehow but you’re only looking stupid.  You’re not convincing one person whereas everytime I reply I’m informing folks that may not have the story. 

Whistler writes: “Frankly I think I’m being entirely consistant on this.  Rush was prescribed narcotics for his back pain.  He became addicted to them.  He went to treatment.  Some politically motivated prosecuter tried to make a case about it and failed.”

Now here’s what really happened:

“Investigators connected Limbaugh to 19 prescriptions for the drugs Lorcet, Norco, and hydrocodone called in between April and August 2003. The prescriptions were issued by doctors in New York, Florida and California.  According to medical records, Limbaugh’s doctor in Palm Beach County was unaware of some of the other prescriptions.  Limbaugh was using prodigious amounts of the painkillers, according to the documents. 

In May 2003, a prescription for 50 tablets of Lorct was filled for Limbaugh at the Zitomer Pharmacy on Madison Avenue in New York.  The tablets were to be taken at a rate of two a day, and that pace the prescription should have lasted 25 days.  Three days later, a prescription was filled for Limbaugh at the same pharmacy for another 50 tablets.  A third prescription for 96 tablets of Norco was filled about the same time at the Lewis Pharmacy in Palm Beach, according to the court documents.” Washington Post, 4/29/06.

Yeah, right Whistler, You’re the one looking stupid.

Apparently that information came from the prosecuters offfice.  After all they seized the medical records. 

If they could prove this they would prosecute right?  They aren’t.   

Wrong, Whistler, deals are cut for lots of reasons, Why didn’t Rush fight this if he is not guilty.  Knowing Rush, he would want to fight this and prove to us lefties that he didn’t do anything wrong.  Now there will always be this cloud over his head.  We lefties will always be able to use this.  Gees what a party there could have been if Rush had gotten together with Cunningham and all the babes at the Watergate, plus more house members to come.  Oh what fun this will be to watch.

Umm as I’ve already said a number of times Rush agrees to this deal and it’s done.  He pays not even a "fine" but reimburses the taxpayers for the cost of the investigation.  The cash settlement amounts to about an hour or two of his show revenue.

As I said it’s tough to break an addiction.  It must be very very tough to break an addiction when you’re experiencing pain.  How much harder is it to have this kind of politcally motivated prosecution against you and do that? 

Monday.Here comes the Judge .

It ain’t over till the fat lady sings.

I expect Woof is right that a judge needs to approve the deal. 

Woof is right,

But, if the lefty driven prosocution (Ronnie Earle anyone?) really thought they could have Rush in chains they wouldn’t be taking this offer.

Does Rush have a problem with pain killers?  Sure.

But if the left thought they had a chance of taking him out for good they would.

So, good on Rush for getting this behind him.  I for one will still look forward to his insight.  

The good news for the left is unlike Nixon they still have Rush to kick around.  They will.  The bad news for the left is Rush is still around to kick their butts.  

My bet is on Rush.  Back to kicking some serious leftwing butt big guy. 

Puzzle,

Rush has been fighting this for several years now.  The PB DA was after a lengthy court battle that they could NOT legally appropriate the medical records, violating the doctor/patient privilege, without the requisite court order… which the DA never could get.

Whistler,

FYA, last year’s figures idicate that Rush makes between $25 and $30 million per year.  One hour of his show’s revenue wuold more than cover the state of Florida’ invstigative expenses.  Court costs and the expense of the DA’s unsuccessful appeals are likely not included. 

Bat1.  Wasn’t his deal 280 million over 10 years?

Whistler,

I believe you’re right.  Of course, that doesn’t include a lot of the peripheral stuff, but is strictly EIB and the radio show itself.

I’d like to see him do another "Rush To Excellence" tour, but then I’ve been a ditto-head for about 15 or 16 years now.

He was in Grand Forks before November of 1992.  Something terrible happened that month that led me to start listening to Rush.  I guess afterwards he had a reception and was visiting with folks and stuff.

Bat One,it looks like a few words are missing from one of your posts so I’m not sure what you were sying. But Rush lost those appeals to the higher courts of Florida, that said the county had not violated the rules of supoena and seizure of records. 

I will say this though, it sure is nice that you guys are williing to give any other drug using citizen the same support you are giving Rush when they get caught.  Every defense attorney in the country will be bringing that plea agreement to an arraignment of their clients. 

Do any of you have any proof that this prosecutor is left-wing, leftie, or following a leftist agenda?  Please provide it.

Furthermore, do you believe that any prosecutor pursueing narcotics charges is left-wing or just those prosecutors who go after Right-Wing sacred cows? 

Puzzlefeet wrote:  "Now there will always be this cloud over his head.  We lefties will always be able to use this."

This is the real agenda of the lefties.  They don’t care about rehabilitating a drug addict, they just care about the political soundbite.  When a famous leftie is revealed as a drug addict, all we hear from the MSM is how brave he or she is to be fighting their addiction, and how they are not to blame for this "disease".  With Rush, it’s just "gotcha" 24/7.  Can you spell "hypocrisy"?

Rick: The political affiliation of the prosecutor is well-known.  You can Google it if you want.  No, I don’t believe that.  Just leftie prosecutors who try for years to use unethical methods to take out the free speech rights of conservaives. 

Robert108,

While you are certainly correct about the Left’s agenda here, I have to point out that Liberals’ constant braying about rehabilitation, whether it’s Rush, some street junkie, or Tookie Williams, is still just so much rhetorical nonsense anyway.  Hypocrisy and expediency are the two bywords of contemporary liberal politics.

As for the Palm Beach County DA, if I’m not mistaken, Palm Beach was one of AlGore’s most favored recount counties in 2000, with a heavily Democrat country administration.  That’s why it was chosen.  Shouldn’t surprise anyone that this guy is a liberal as well.  Interestingly, there’s been no suggestion from the DA’s office of a more serious possession with intent to deliver charge against Rush.  Nobody can seriously believe that they’d go after the medical records of Little Suzie Creamcheese who’s dropping Valiums with her mid afternoon toddy. 

Bat: Like I said, they just want the soundbite.  They are only results oriented when it comes to seizing and holding on to power.

One of Robert Perry’s humble, ‘christian’ friends:

Woof is right,

But, if the lefty driven prosocution (Ronnie Earle anyone?) really thought they could have Rush in chains they wouldn’t be taking this offer.

Does Rush have a problem with pain killers?  Sure.

But if the left thought they had a chance of taking him out for good they would.

So, good on Rush for getting this behind him.  I for one will still look forward to his insight.  

The good news for the left is unlike Nixon they still have Rush to kick around.  They will.  The bad news for the left is Rush is still around to kick their butts.  

My bet is on Rush.  Back to kicking some serious leftwing butt big guy. 

No WONDER he needed to hoard 2000+- painkillers.  It’s hard to play golf with crushed discs without loading up on drugs.  Every try to swing a golf club with intense back pain.  Of course, I don’t expect honesty so dont disappoint me, folks:

http://www.badgolfer.com/departments/features/rush-limbaugh-radio-king-golf-2124.htm

In fact, Rush is quite the golfer.  Now, if there was a doctor on this ‘blog’ who specializes in disc problems, I’m sure he’d verify that someone with a really bad back doesn’t golf much, if at all, let alone be up to his hamhocks in the sport.

From the article:

"Rush Limbaugh isn’t afraid to admit he sometimes feels inadequate off the tee."

LOL.  Inadequacy:  The story of his life.  Lucky for him, there are masses of even more inadequate people that consider him a hero.

Okay, so he recently golfed his fried brain off.  I have one question folks:

How’d he do it???  Loaded up on illegal prescriptions or in horrendous, excruciating, disabling pain?

Where is all the leftie compassion for the poor drug addicts?

Where is all the leftie compassion for the poor drug addicts?

Well, we’re making progress.  You admit he’s a drug addict, although ‘poor’ is subjective and you don’t like subjective terms.

But I have something for you you just laid on me elsewhere:

Try to be honest.

No answer, I see.  Try to be honest next time.

You don’t want to be called a bleeding heart NeoCON, do you Bobby?  I guess the cause of the bleeding is the operative factor. 

Actually, I think defense lawyers for illegal prescription drug users/hoarders everywhere will soon be using the ‘Rush defense’ as their clients come limping into court using a putter as a crutch with an ice bag tied onto their waist, keeping that aching back numbed. and .

Robert and Bat One,

 The only Hypocrisy you’ll see here is that in the disconnect between Rush’s own words (on record) and his actions . . . and the hypocrisy of you hard-ass right-wing nuts coming to the defense of a lame-ass junkie who happens to also be your hero.

More nonsense from diane.

Rick:  You are always wrong when you try to put your ideas on me.  Rush isn’t my hero.  I was conservative long before Rush was born, but I’m glad he’s getting the message out to so man folks and countering and exposing the constant leftie lying.  Your smears will not stop that, or even slow it down.   

that’s "so many folks".

 I was conservative long before Rush was born

Yikes!!  That explains alot.  And you’ve never changed, by cracky, have ya???  Not even when the evidence demands it?  And you accused me of wanting to cling to 18th and 19th century thinking about the documents this country was founded on?  Hilarious, Bobby.

See ya later.

Nonsense, as usual.  I pointed out that your citing of 18th and 19th century immigration policy was no longer relevant to the present problem with illegals.  I also pointed out that the founding documents say nothing about immigration policy, so you are lying on both counts.

I have never had any good reason to change, having realized the truth.  No evidence demands I change.   

Robert,

I’m not wrong.  You have never been right about me, once.  And, I’ve caught you in over a dozen double-speak lies.  You’d best shut up before I embarrass you all over again. 

robert108,

I pointed out that your citing of 18th and 19th century immigration policy was no longer relevant to the present problem with illegals. 

No you claimed that was the case.  You never, ever demonstrated that was the case.  Unsubstantiated claims are exactly that - unsubstantiated claims.

Epi/diane:  As are yours.

Rick:  You hope to intimidate me with your blather?  Not bloody likely.  In future, speak for yourself.  You are unable to read my thoughts. 

Robert108...WILLisms. has a great quotational therapy up today by Teddy Roosevelt...If you get the time, go check it out. I think you will like it???

robert108,

If you want to know anything about 19th century immigration issues see The Impending Crisis.

As to the issue of relevancy, how is our situation any different today? 

Are you going to claim that the U.S. is unable to absord a lot of immigrants?  That seems to be a rather unreasonable claim in light of all the non-legal immigration going on.  Hell, the current situation, what with our robust economy, etc. simply undermines such claims.

Epi: I have stated my position on the present illegal invasion of our country through the southern border many times.  Our robust economy is not due to the illegal immigrants, it is in spite of them.  Their negative impact on the southwestern states is well known to the legal residents of those states.  I don’t like the dilution of our culture with unskilled people from socialist countries.  This is a big candy store for them.  I want to close that candy store in a number of ways.  The first step is to close the borders.

It’s not about being able to absorb them.  If we are willing to take the hit, we can do it, buy why do it?  What is the advantage to us?  The advantages to them are well known, but what is the advantage to us?  In the 18th and 19th centuries, there were some advantages to us from the legal immigration of that time, but times have changed.  The Roman Empire fell, in part, because of their extension of citizenship for political purposes.  I don’t want us to repeat that mistake. 

robert108,

I have stated my position on the present illegal invasion of our country through the southern border many times. 

So? 

Our robust economy is not due to the illegal immigrants, it is in spite of them. 

How do you know that?  How do know that they are a harm to the U.S. economy?  Earlier you claimed that $50 billion went out of the U.S. to Mexico in remittances.  Did you know that U.S. companies spend $100 billion in direct investment in Mexico.  Are you willing to claim that the $100 billion in direct investment is a harm to the U.S. too? 

Their negative impact on the southwestern states is well known to the legal residents of those states. 

This a throwaway, unsubstantiated claim.  What is the specific nature of this negative effect?  How are they harming the overall economy of the southwest? 

I don’t like the dilution of our culture with unskilled people from socialist countries. 

Now we see your ultimate objection.  You don’t like foreigners.   

The first step is to close the borders.

An impossibility.  You can’t close the borders. 

What is the advantage to us? 

Larger populations are good for capitalist economies, that’s why.  Like a typical mercantilist you think that the economic pie is limited.  The true socialist here is you. 

In the 18th and 19th centuries, there were some advantages to us from the legal immigration of that time, but times have changed. 

How?  You keep on claiming that they have changed.  How have they changed?

The Roman Empire fell, in part, because of their extension of citizenship for political purposes. 

No, it fell apart because of high taxes, mercantilist policies, etc. 

You’re such a posuer.

_______________________________________________

Who is the #1 employer of illegal immigrants?

HOMEONWERS!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10774146/