It's happened again.



This follows an earlier incident that ultimately was settled out of court. In the past, Rush has come out for a hard line against drug users, bemoaning the fact that we have become "too tolerant" of drug use.

Questions for debate:

1.)Will this incident, and perhaps subsequent more drug related incidents be the undoing of Rush Limbaugh?


2.)Should we to try and understand that this is a daily struggle, or are we to demand 100% abstinence from Rush and other drug users who suffer from the disease that is known as drugs?

1.)Will this incident, and perhaps subsequent more drug related incidents be the undoing of Rush Limbaugh?

I doubt it; the apologists for Rush will merely do what they always do - blame the media for picking on poor widdle Rush. One must wonder, tho, what he was doing with bootleg Viagra in the Dominican Republic.

2.)Should we to try and understand that this is a daily struggle, or are we to demand 100% abstinence from Rush and other drug users who suffer from the disease that is known as drugs?

Of course, drug addiction is horrible, and those who are struggling to overcome it shouldn't be stigmatized. But, that presupposes that the person has admitted to having a problem, and is willing and working to overcome it. And it also presupposes that said person hasn't gone on national radio condeming those who have drug problems and denying that he even has a problem.

1. Probably not. Martin Luther King cheated on his wife. John Wayne was a bigot. John F. Kennedy was a man-whore. Bill O' Reilly is a sexual harasser. The fact that Rush is a drug-addled hypocrite will in no way damage his reputation among his supporters and only reaffirm the scorn he's earned from his critics. It only proves he's really just another ordinary slob with bad habits.

Have no fear. Rush won't go soft on liberals. He will rise again and be as hard on them as he's ever been.

2. I never knew Viagra was such an addictive drug. As compassionate liberals we should be understanding and tolerant of Rush's struggle to maintain "a hard line" and hope that he learns to live with and accept the difficult disease that he has been afflicted with. I'm sure over time, he will recover and be able to stand erect on his two feet confident in his ability to satisfy the cravings of his audience for more right-wing, misanthropic cant.

Perhaps Rush will check into a clinic to recover from his demons. Mr. Dittohead needs to find the silver lining in this grey cloud. He can learn to live with Erectile Dysfunction if he seeks help.

"Hi, I'm Rush and I'm a Viagra-popping addict."

Should we to try and understand that this is a daily struggle, or are we to demand 100% abstinence from Rush and other drug users who suffer from the disease that is known as drugs?
A bottle of Viagra with his physician’s name on the bottle was confiscated. Rush told police it was issued to his physician for “privacy purposes”. That rules out therapeutic use.


I wonder how many Floridian physicians take an ego hit on behalf of their clients. In any event, we’ll find out if it’s true.

Without guessing at Limbaugh’s physical health (something I’d rather not dwell on) Viagra is not considered addictive. I do feel we should revise laws on the books for “addicts” like Richard Paey:

You have got to be kidding me. The "undoing" of Rush is going to be Viagra? Lmao....you wish it was, Nebraska!

No, I dont think it is, and I think that there's a difference bewteen being hard on drug *users* (all of us) and drug *abusers*. I think all this hub-bub is just another chance for the Left to kick dirt in the face of a conservative media host.

LOL-Good line Titus, it does sound pretty comedic now that you'vep ut it that way.





I see your point on this, but drug *users* have prescrptions, they don't harass their maid to buy them more, nor do they go off to Hispaniola to get what they want.

Will this incident, and perhaps subsequent more drug related incidents be the undoing of Rush Limbaugh?

I don't think this can be answered until it's determined whether or not this violates the conditions of Limbaugh's deal with the prosecutors in his last illegal drug charge. It also remains to be seen whether or not anything else will arise from this case. The Dominican Republic is famous (or infamous) for having one of the western hemishpere's largest problems with child prostitution and sex tourism. What, one wonders, was Limbaugh doing there with a Viagra prescription?

Should we to try and understand that this is a daily struggle, or are we to demand 100% abstinence from Rush and other drug users who suffer from the disease that is known as drugs?

There is obviously a difference between addictive substances like OxyContin (a.k.a. Hillbilly Heroin) and non-addictive substances like Viagra. I think the question here is whether or not it was wise for Limbaugh to be carrying prescription drugs that were not in his name a mere month after his deal in relation to another prescription drug abuse charge. Ultimately, I don't believe that addiction should be a legal matter regardless of who's involved. It is a medical issue, not a criminal issue.

Probably not. The fact that his show has been utterly unlistenable for the past 4 years should be. If that hasn't undone him I don't see why his Viagra should.



Unless his daily struggle is that he can't get it up I think we're barking up the wrong tree here. While you may see drug use as a disease it isn't. It's a choice. No one has ever been addicted to something they didn't ingest voluntarily. (yeah, yeah crack babies - people shot up with heroine against their will - save it)

Rush is a drug addict. Viagra probably isn't a drug he's addicted to... he may have kicked the other one but the fact is he's weak and he talks garbage when he talks about drugs. He lost his hearing from his drug use and he was probably high as a kite while he moralized to the AM Radio world they were weak for taking drugs.

Let's hope Sean Hannity doesn't go bonkers and make it with Flipper because then the Right and AM radio will have a serious problem.

Not certain if there is merit here, but one blogger in particular is wondering why they held him for Viagra. In case you don't know, Oxycontin is also a little blue pill-and Rush's addiction is pain killers. Where there's smoke?? Conflated conjecture?

First(ly), I am not a Rush Limbaugh fan or listener. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

But, you really ought to be ashamed of yourself. Apparently, reading something on a blog means that you can repeat it without consequence, as long as you include a to let us know you're not really serious (except maybe you are). I thought that you were better than this. Just imagine how you would feel...

Wertz is a (insert worst-possible insult here) . Well, one wonders, you know, given his proclivities, you know, and what have you.

How's that make you feel? Scum like Jason Leopold or whatever genius thought up the sex tourism talking point are beneath contempt. For those self-proclaimed defenders of our freedom and privacy, there is a whole lot of gleeful 'gee he has viagra' beavis and butthead on the leftist blogosphere. And the hypocrisy reeks.

carlitoswhey,

"But, you really ought to be ashamed of yourself." Try to climb down from the pulpit. In his second paragraph, which you ignored, Wertz expressed some sympathy and compassion for people - in general - who have addiction problems, including Rush.



In my opinion, Limbaugh—a man with ego in overdrive, undereducated, ill-informed, overexposed, outsized cigar protruding from his lips and a loud mouth—does not need punishment.

There is something hilarious about this story. Poetic though it may be, he has already been punished. Justice has been served. If indeed the prescription were legal in Florida, that is, written to a third party and designed to protect Rush’s privacy, it failed miserably. The whole world now knows that Rush can’t rise to the occasion, whether than in the Dominican Republic, the U. S. A. or elsewhere. When he goes out in public, he’ll probably imagine that teenage girls snickering on corners of from New York, to Miami, to Los Angeles to Fort Worth/Dallas are giggling about his need for an erectile dysfunction drug. Priceless.

I find it funny simply because this person held such a hard line against the same issues he is now faced with in regards to dope.

Now I will not go so far to say that rush is some junkie dope head, but really as a person the same as the rest of us I wonder how he will be treated in the legal system.

I also wonder what degree of support he will get not only from his audience but those that support him in politics, it would be a prime place to see bias overall.

This will not be Rush's undoing. I think anybody with one objective brain cell left in their head can see this is nothing but revenge politics. This will actually help him - not hurt him.

I think Rush is a partisan hack, a hypocrite, and a mouthpiece of the office of Dick Cheney. But Rush is a great entertainer, well spoken, highly intelligent, and someone I listen to 3 hours almost everyday even though I disagree with almost everything he says.

Given this, this should concern you. It might be good entertainment to watch someone fall from the top, but these attacks on him are far reaching. Prosecutors seized his medical records in trying to make a case. No, they didn't get his records to substantiate facts, they got his records to substantiate the claims of two people who sold him out. In other words, they had no proof or indication a crime was committed, so they opened up his medical records to build a case. A good place to learn a little about thew shady dealings of the prosecutors can be found here.

The warrants used to get his medical records was non-specific. It didn't define what records they wanted. They wanted anything. This had never happened before and I doubt it will ever happen again. Basically, they enforced the law as they did specifically for Rush Limbaugh. This is wrong no matter how much you despise the person.

Now, with the Viagra, if the doctor said it was a legal prescription for Rush and kept in his name because of Rush's celebrity, I will take him at his word for it. Do I take their word for it because I think it's true? No. Of course not. But everytime we hold Rush to a different standard, prosecutors have more ability to create criminal cases where none existed before. Besides, I'm not sure Viagra is a controlled substance in the same class as narcotics, but I could be wrong.

I imagine the same people languishing in the failures of Rush Limbaugh would have a problem with these tactics if this happened to Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, or Bob Murtha.

1.)Will this incident, and perhaps subsequent more drug related incidents be the undoing of Rush Limbaugh?
This is Viagra we're talking about here. If anything, comedians will probably start referring to Rush as "Viagra" Limbaugh.

2.)Should we to try and understand that this is a daily struggle, or are we to demand 100% abstinence from Rush and other drug users who suffer from the disease that is known as drugs?
Yes it is a daily struggle and we probably cannot expect total abstinence from him. However, I think it would probably do Rush some good to get dried out at a clinic with some junkies who are in worse positions than him. It might actually deflate his inflated ego a little bit and make him realize that he's a mere man and not a saint.

Calling someone out for repeating baseless rumors that Rush Limbaugh was a child molester makes me preacher in a pulpit? Maybe we should all check our meds here.

Wertz expressed sympathy for people with addiction. Let's give him a medal for that. I'm unaware of anyone anywhere 'addicted' to Viagra, but don't let that stop you from repeating the cruelest, baseless rumors of the blogosphere. We are supposed to be better than that here, and it's not preaching to say so.

I didn't realize an erectile dysfunction was reason for scorn and ridicule. If I had such a problem, I would think it could have a devastating affect on my marriage. Fortunately, there is help.

The left's tolerance of ED appears to be about the same as their tolerance of religion. They talk a good game, but when the rubber hits the....umm...err...road, it's all just talk - nothing more.

Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner. I just spent a couple of days in the hospital.


For the record, I don't even know who Jason Leopold is (though I'm not very good with names) and, unlike some, prefer to do my own research before consulting anyone's talking points. I came across this information through links related to a Google search of "Dominican Republic" and "Viagra" (though I had to subtract "Limbaugh" to narrow the field somewhat) and a follow-up search on "Dominican Republic" and "sex trade". I came across this [pdf] report on Child Prostitution and the Sex Industry: Dominican Republic and did my own speculating. I don't recall reading that he was travelling with any of his ex-wives or current girlfriends, though he may have needed the Viagra for purposes other than having sex with someone.

I was also unaware of any rumors that Limbaugh was a child molester, baseless or otherwise, but have long heard stories about his purported homosexuality. The "sex tourism" (to which the report also refers - it was you who chose to leap on the "child prostitution" for whatever reason) includes a lot of gay male prostitution and, if I wanted to traffic in a rumor, that's the direction I'd head.

In any event, I don't want to know about the sex life of Rush Limbaugh - *shudder* - except to the extent that it may be yet another symptom of his rank hypocrisy. Similar, say, to his position on drug use:
Please note: he is speaking of sending convicted drug users up - not keeping them up.

When take it upon yourself to proclaim what they should be ashamed of and what standard we are to “be better than,” then you are preaching.



You completely misunderstood what I was saying. From the amount of money spent on advertising erectile dysfunction drugs, I guess is that the problem is widespread. I don’t think its something to be joked about. I am personally sympathetic to persons with this problem, but it is apparently a hidden problem. Other than Rush and people who do commercials for erectile dyfunction drugs, (Raphael Palmeiro and Bob Dole, for example) I have no knowledge of who is impotent and who isn’t and quite frankly, I don’t give a damn.

The joke here is not Rush’s dysfunction, but the irony of the fact that he got the drug under someone else’s name to protect his privacy, but now the whole world knows. As Robert Burns wrote…”the best laid plans.”

http://www.robertburns.org/works/75.shtml

Just for the record DR, this lefty doesn't think what RL does is worthy of attention, so I've refrained from commenting. You have to admit though, as the right likes to point out, if you're in the public eye, expect to get publicity. It can also be said that the right talks a lot about this (quite loudly and without relent) when it's a Demo who gets caught doing something sexually questionable. They even went for impeachment, which possibly took the government's eye off the real threat of terrorism (my take on it).

We are the party of sexual liberation after all. It just follows that we'd forgive a marital transgression.

On the other hand, the Repubs have among them those who want sex only for procreation and within traditional marriage. There's a comedic irony when a former presidential hopeful advertises like that guy with the silly grin about living large. RL getting nabbed is almost equally as comedic creepy.

So really, get off the high horse. We're laughing at RL, not ED. But then it might be one of those difficult-to-understand fine points, like supporting the troops but not the mission creators, or the ideals and not the symbol. I know you're smarter than this, so I'm not lumping all Repubs or right-wingers into one big thing.

On religion: I only tolerate the tolerable. Edited to remove inappropriate comment It's okay to differentiate between bona fide religions and the fakers. It's also okay to take a good look at what Viagra is for, and I bet most of its use is for pleasure from prostitutes. Regarding the rubber meeting its designated target, the ACLU has protected religious freedom, and liberals around here protected innocent Muslims and others from attacks directly after 9/11.

Anyway, RL is on his way out of town on a rail (pole?). It is terribly funny, more terrible for sure.

So what was he doing in another country with an ED drug? I mean, what would a person on that medication be doing in another country? I would really like to hear a good explanation of that as it relates to my first question. If he isn't abusing drugs, then it can be inferred that he planned on having some fun, some ilicit, out-of-wedlock, non-Jerry Falwell approved fun. If anyone would care to address the underlined portion and how it portends for his effectiveness as a speaker of conservative ideals, especially "moral values" ones.

1.) Will this incident, and perhaps subsequent more drug related incidents be the undoing of Rush Limbaugh?

This incident? Probably not, but it is funny that Mr. "Let's Throw the Book at Them All" doesn't practice what he preaches about people possessing or using drugs unlawfully. But don't believe for a minute that the Dittoheads are going to cut loose their beloved blowhard, unless they opt to have that harpy Ann Coulter go on radio in his place.

2.)Should we to try and understand that this is a daily struggle, or are we to demand 100% abstinence from Rush and other drug users who suffer from the disease that is known as drugs?

Who among us here doesn't understand that this is a daily struggle for people habituated to drug use/abuse? Seems to me that only Rush himself was having trouble walking in someone else's shoes, until he was caught. But I gotta tell you, pain medications are one thing; getting national exposure about taking an erectile dysfunction drug garners an entirely different type of publicity. (A fat person joke comes to mind about a person thinking he may need the drug, but he just doesn't see it... )

And Rush Limbaugh, who is habitually intolerant of others, would probably scorn any pity generated for his plight. Who, after all, is addicted to Viagra?

No, erectile dysfunction is not funny; the buffoon who has once again risked his reputation for gratification or comfort is. Why in the hell didn't he just get his own Rx from his own doctor before he went on the trip?

1.)Will this incident, and perhaps subsequent more drug related incidents be the undoing of Rush Limbaugh?
I don't know how this will affect his career......my gues is that it won't. But CNN is reporting the following:


CNN

While I’m all for humor to defuse an embarrassing situation, there’s a disturbing little nugget in that quote. For all the outrage expressed here about our musing about Rush and possible underage sex partners, what WAS Rush doing in the Dominican Republic, a country who advertises itself as “a single man’s paradise” with a bunch of Viagra?

So, regardless of the gender of the "good time" ol' Rush was having, chances are s/he was underaged.

And, as usual, Rush has managed to skate where anyone else would have been penalized for having prescription medication not prescribed to them.

This is amazing. Rush Limbaugh, a conservative radio talk show host, someone with no legislative or any other kind of governmental power is being attacked for having unprescribed Viagra with him...Whooooo cares? Second of all, this is an unbelievably cheap shot and is based on nothing but your apparent loathing of Rush Limbaugh. "Chances are s/he [he...very nice touch ] was underaged." Oh, so now he's a pervert too, awesome, character attacks based on nothing but the fact that the DR's record on underage sex isn't good? So anyone with Viagra in the Domincan Republic, I hearby accuse you of having sex with an underage child, after all you must, why else would you have Viagra with you? Excuse me for saying so but why in God's name is it any of your business what he was doing with Viagra in the Dominican Republic; considering he won't be charged with any crimes. Why does Rush Limbaugh need to explain to anybody WHY he had Viagra with him, that is none of anybody's damn business. Obviously he must comply with whatever investigation there is, but he doesn't need to explain why he had Viagra to anybody. If instead of Rush Limbaugh, this was Al Franken and some conservative made comments about him being a possible sex offender what would you have to say? Ridiculous.

So what's the most embarassing thing you own? How would you like it if you had to explain yourself to perfect strangers, a good portion of whom will hate you no matter how you answer? How would you like people implying that you performed disgusting acts without any evidence whatsoever? Put yourself in Rush's shoes and then ask yourself what he would think of someone calling him a sex offender in a way like this.

CP

Sheesh, someone needs to chill. What did I say that was so inflammatory that others haven't already said or implied? Simple logic says sexual enhancement aid + country known for sex tourism (FACT: a good portion of it underage) + "good time" comment = having sex. What the heck else is Viagra FOR? I could really give a sh... less what Rush Limbaugh thinks or does, but it was the subject of the thread and I thought I'd comment...just like others on the board. Why do YOU care so much about defending his "honor"?

I don't really appreciate being attacked for expressing similar thoughts as others have on the board.

And just BTW, I don't travel to third world countries with sexual aids prescribed in someone else's name so that I HAVE to explain myself. And I also don't hyprocritally bash others who use/abuse drugs, whether they be prescription or otherwise.

The only person I know of who implied what you implied was Wertz, and Carlitoswhey responded to him...if you want I can copy and paste what I said to you and just address Wertz.


You didn't just say that he was having sex [obviously he did], you implied that he was doing so with a minor, without a shred of evidence, doesn't that seem wrong to you? Viagra+country known for sex tourism [a fact which I have not disputed] + good time JOKE does not= underage sex.


And I couldn't possibly care any less about Rush Limbaugh or his honor. So to answer your question, I don't. I simply find it Bush league to imply that someone did something disgusting simply to take a swipe at him, which is exactly what you did. I'd be doing the same thing if someone implied that say Bill Clinton did something horrible without ANY evidence to back it up, it's a matter of principal, not Rush Limbaugh or his "honor".


Attacking? Please. You imply Rush had sex with a kid, I call you on it, and I'm "attacking you"? Here's what I said about you, DaffyGrl:
-you "apparently loath" Rush Limbaugh, correct me if I'm wrong.
-you don't have evidence of any underage sex that Limbaugh was a part of, correct me if I'm wrong.

I then asked if this was Al Franken instead of Limbaugh, would you think if fair that a conservative implied that he had sex with a child? [and I didn't get an answer, by the way]

So if that qualifies as an "attack" to you then I'm sorry, but to me, calling someone on a cheap shot trying to defame someone's character even more so than they have already done to themselves is not an attack at all. As for the fact that others have said it, so what? It's a cheap shot, and as I said before, if you'd prefer, I"ll copy and paste my last post and address it individually to every person who implied what you implied, just give me the word.

CP

Fine, you're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I find it hinky that a guy is in a 3rd world country with a sexual enhancement drug - call me cynical. IMHO, Rush doesn't have much in the way of character to impugn or defame.

As for your "what if it were Al Franken", I didn't think it was worthy of comment. So, if you insist, if Al Franken (or anyone else for that matter) I'd say he was a filthy pervert as well. I have zero respect for these nasty old fogies who grab some little blue pills and go on a sex junket to a third world country so they can indulge their sick desire for sex with young girls or boys (and please spare me your outrage).

Hell, does the "attacking without a shred of evidence" only apply when the target is a well-known conservative, but doing it to a liberal is OK. Please, get off your high horse.

So, you don't see a finger being shaken in your face with this?


And FYI, I don't care enough about Limbaugh to loathe him. He's not worth a moment of my time.

And I still can't quite figure out why you're so steamed up about the whole thing...seeing as how you "don't care".

Please don't confuse me for anything other than a cynic...I do however think that saying someone molested a child without evidence floats just beyond the realm of "cynical".


I have to chuckle when I see someone calling a question of mine "not worthy of comment" and in the next comment telling me to get off my high horse . it's also entertaining to me that I was also just told in your last post to "chill" and that I was guilty of "attacking" you, yet if you'll reread our conversation, I have made no personal attacks but have been told to get off my high horse and that my question was not worthy of comment...High horse indeed.

But fair enough, cynic as I am, I don't buy that this isn't political. If Rush Limbaugh wasn't a popular, out-spoken Republican party mouthpiece this wouldn't be as much of an issue and that's a fact.


No, not even close to being anywhere near a finger being shaken. I'm asking you to put yourself in Rush's shoes...gasp, what a high-horsing, down-talking, sanctimonious preacher I'm being. There is no preaching in anything I said. What I did say is that it is ridiculous for Rush Limbaugh [or ANYONE for that matter[]to be accused by strangers of acts of perversion when no FACT or evidence has come to light to prove those accusations as anything but attempts to further destroy what is left of his character. That's all that your implication was, a jab at Rush Limbaugh based on what you said was "cynicism", that's a pretty lame excuse for calling someone a child molester.


Maybe you missed this: It's a matter of principal, accusing someone of child molestation without evidence gets me "steamed" or something like that.


On edit: Sorry Jaime, we posted simultaneously.

CP