Full Version: Rush Limbaugh Drug Disgrace Part II
QUOTE(Conagher78 @ Oct 22 2003, 10:12 PM)
What I find disgusting is the fact that so many liberals that were silent about Bill Clinton, Marion Berry and so many others find their righteous anger (albeit in a godless athiest way) just now. Drug addicts were heroes before now; they were martyrs. All of the sudden, those that cared so very little about the president's not inhaling find the need to pile on to a mere radio personality. Rush may come across as a hypocrite, but the pilers-on are no less hypocritical themselves!
By the way, I think it's interesting that anyone who holds a firm conservative opinion is classified as "self-righteous," "holier-than-thou," etc. Personally, I find such liberals as Howard Dean to be imminently more arrogant than Rush ever was.
By the way, I think it's interesting that anyone who holds a firm conservative opinion is classified as "self-righteous," "holier-than-thou," etc. Personally, I find such liberals as Howard Dean to be imminently more arrogant than Rush ever was.
Once again, it's people like you who make the point you're trying to refute. The vast majority of people here who have criticized Rush angrily- liberal or not- have focused on the fact that he decried similar actions, not on what he did alone. Clinton didn't rant and rave about college kids not inhaling pot, he owned up to it, or at least more so than Bush owned up to allegations of cocaine use. I've seen alot of very calm critiques that wish Rush well, and saw them responded to with this kind of "all you godless atheists"/"liberals have no morals" crap. Did anyone ever tell the religious right that humility and honesty are virtues? Sorry, but your defense rings false after you declare yourself the judge of who can or cannot be considered a moral human being.
In a way I pity Rush Limbaugh. For someone with a self-proclaimed high moral standard, this has really blown up in his face. Liberals will of course attack him on this issue, which is understandable; he has made very inflammatory remarks about morals of the left. Also, the public always likes to scrutinize the lives of those in the media spotlight. 
Why would anyone refuse to acknowledge the immorality of Rush's misconduct. Conservative skepticism of liberal criticism is natural, but it really doesn't matter what the critic's motives are. The truth is the truth. Rush Limbaugh is an admitted junkie. By refusing to criticize Rush, every person who takes a tough law and order stance has been exposed as a hypocrite. There are hundreds of thousands of Amercans in prison for committing the same crime as Rush. Seems like these hypocrites believe in one standard of justice for ordinary people and another for themselves, their families and their political allies.
The defense that Rush is not like other junkies, the bad kind, who use drugs like heroin and cocaine is false. Under federal law there is no distinction between Oxycontin and drugs like cocaine, methadone, and opiates. All are Schedule II drugs, which have medical uses but a high potential for abuse, and illegal possession of any of them is punishable by time in prison.
Though Rush may have been introduced to his drugs via a doctor's prescription, the suggestion that he wasn't taking them recreationally to get high is silly. The prescribed dose of Oxycontin, one tablet, every 12 hours, is usually sufficient to relieve severe pain. According to newspaper report Rush had purchased nearly 12,000 tablets during a four month long period in 2001. That is enough to soothe his back troubles for sixteen years at the recommended dosage.
The defense that Rush is not like other junkies, the bad kind, who use drugs like heroin and cocaine is false. Under federal law there is no distinction between Oxycontin and drugs like cocaine, methadone, and opiates. All are Schedule II drugs, which have medical uses but a high potential for abuse, and illegal possession of any of them is punishable by time in prison.
Though Rush may have been introduced to his drugs via a doctor's prescription, the suggestion that he wasn't taking them recreationally to get high is silly. The prescribed dose of Oxycontin, one tablet, every 12 hours, is usually sufficient to relieve severe pain. According to newspaper report Rush had purchased nearly 12,000 tablets during a four month long period in 2001. That is enough to soothe his back troubles for sixteen years at the recommended dosage.
Oxycontin are punishable by the same laws as cocaine and herion- this is true. In Juneau, Alaska, 2 men were caught with illegal amounts of oxycontin, without a prescription. They had 500 pills total, they are not being charged with intent to distribute, but possession of a schedule 2 drug illegally. Possible sentence? 25 years! Probably will serve 5 realistically. You think Rushie will get 5?
QUOTE(pennDerek @ Oct 22 2003, 07:10 PM)
Once again, it's people like you who make the point you're trying to refute. The vast majority of people here who have criticized Rush angrily- liberal or not- have focused on the fact that he decried similar actions, not on what he did alone. Clinton didn't rant and rave about college kids not inhaling pot, he owned up to it, or at least more so than Bush owned up to allegations of cocaine use. I've seen alot of very calm critiques that wish Rush well, and saw them responded to with this kind of "all you godless atheists"/"liberals have no morals" crap. Did anyone ever tell the religious right that humility and honesty are virtues? Sorry, but your defense rings false after you declare yourself the judge of who can or cannot be considered a moral human being.
Those criticizing Rush have indeed pointed out his hypocritical position, then gone on to wish him the kind of ill that they never have wished upon liberals caught up in the same situation.
Clinton owned up to pot? "I smoked but I didn't inhale" is owning up to pot? Hardly. It's called trying to have your cake (be cool to kids, sound responsible by coming forward to adults) and eat it, too (not admit to going "all the way" with it). Clinton hasn't owned up to anything, ever, probably in his whole life.
The cocaine charges against Bush were nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations floated as a trial balloon. They didn't stick, and there probably never was anything there since the parties alleging it never followed up. It's called an attempt at smear, something that Democrats and liberals are all too ready to employ.
I wonder, were your "calm critiques" of Rush the ones demanding that the book be thrown at him? Or were they the smug ones gleefully revelling in the supposed fall of a prominent conservative?
I'm wondering, when is it permissible to judge others? Obviously there are many who are more than willing to judge Rush, but who also seem to have this fixation for projecting upon Rush the attribute of some sort of dispenser of morality. When is it okay to judge, in your opinion?
QUOTE(primitivegoonie @ Oct 3 2003, 02:41 PM)
My apologies to the forum members for not fully understanding the rules for posting new topics.
My new question is as follows:
Is personally attacking the character of individuals an acceptable form of public debate?
More specifically, should liberals use the allegations against Rush Limbaugh to attack his integrity?
The following is my opinion as referenced from Rush Limbaugh Drug Disgrace: Opportunity for All.
My new question is as follows:
Is personally attacking the character of individuals an acceptable form of public debate?
More specifically, should liberals use the allegations against Rush Limbaugh to attack his integrity?
The following is my opinion as referenced from Rush Limbaugh Drug Disgrace: Opportunity for All.
QUOTE
If what is being said about Rush Limbaugh's addiction to pain pills is true, I certainly hope that liberals don't immediately go for the jugular. Addiction is a disease - much like conservatism - that needs to be treated. Only kidding...
Seriously, what troubles me about Rush's alleged addiction is not the drug use. I am more bothered by the idea that a man can pass judgement about the integrity of others while not being honest about his own unscrupulousness.
As a liberal, I do not agree with Rush Limbaugh's politics or method of edification and it would be easy for me, and all liberals for that matter, to use this charge against Mr. Limbaugh to discredit and humiliate him. However, I think that just because I disagree with the man politically, and wouldn't want to associate with him socially, it would be a much bigger gesture to let Rush Limbaugh off the hook and admit that we all make mistakes.
We need to be honest with the fact that every one of us has been guilty of something in someway. Nobody has the luxury of sitting at the top with unsoiled hands passing judgement upon those who have taken wrong steps. We have the opportunity as individuals to allow our humanity to lead, instead of our disdain, and to use this example as evidence that we are all doing the best we can.
At a time in history where the United States of America is in dire need of solidarity, the right continues to attack the left and vice versa. The time for blindly towing party lines has got to stop. Everyone is guilty of it and everyone has been victim to it.
I do not mean to suggest that people join hands across America singing, "We Are The World", and that all our problems are solved. I am simply pointing out that personally attacking someone's character, or leaking sensitive information to the press, or harassing opposing party members is a detriment to democracy. Important issues get lost in the fog of suffering attack and enacting retaliation and debates become about the faults of our opponents instead of the prosperity of our country.
Rush Limbaugh claims to be a man of integrity. If this is so, I hope he will come forward and be honest about the allegations. Moreover, I hope he no longer uses his influence and media coverage to go after the personal character of his challengers and opts for thoughtful discourse of the issues instead.
I hope we all do.
Seriously, what troubles me about Rush's alleged addiction is not the drug use. I am more bothered by the idea that a man can pass judgement about the integrity of others while not being honest about his own unscrupulousness.
As a liberal, I do not agree with Rush Limbaugh's politics or method of edification and it would be easy for me, and all liberals for that matter, to use this charge against Mr. Limbaugh to discredit and humiliate him. However, I think that just because I disagree with the man politically, and wouldn't want to associate with him socially, it would be a much bigger gesture to let Rush Limbaugh off the hook and admit that we all make mistakes.
We need to be honest with the fact that every one of us has been guilty of something in someway. Nobody has the luxury of sitting at the top with unsoiled hands passing judgement upon those who have taken wrong steps. We have the opportunity as individuals to allow our humanity to lead, instead of our disdain, and to use this example as evidence that we are all doing the best we can.
At a time in history where the United States of America is in dire need of solidarity, the right continues to attack the left and vice versa. The time for blindly towing party lines has got to stop. Everyone is guilty of it and everyone has been victim to it.
I do not mean to suggest that people join hands across America singing, "We Are The World", and that all our problems are solved. I am simply pointing out that personally attacking someone's character, or leaking sensitive information to the press, or harassing opposing party members is a detriment to democracy. Important issues get lost in the fog of suffering attack and enacting retaliation and debates become about the faults of our opponents instead of the prosperity of our country.
Rush Limbaugh claims to be a man of integrity. If this is so, I hope he will come forward and be honest about the allegations. Moreover, I hope he no longer uses his influence and media coverage to go after the personal character of his challengers and opts for thoughtful discourse of the issues instead.
I hope we all do.
Wow, impressive debate room. I believe that the integrity of the national media is in question here. It has been said already, we all make mistakes, does Bill Clinton ring a bell. Can you belive we as a nation would have IMPEACHED A U.S. PRESIDENT! California just RECALLED A governer The mass media needs to come under some kind of scruteny, otherwise they will tell us everything they can to further thier own agendas. We need to set some guidlines for media on fair and balanced reporting.
I know I have just riled up a lot of liberals by being so passive to Rushes problems. I know if it were a liberal media figure that messed up Rush would be shall we say, LESS THAN KIND. We need to stop being so preoccupied with scandals because as we get tied into all of this by the media the bad guys are pushing their bills through and making legislation that is going to ruin our country. Wake up and smell the real issues. Thanks.
QUOTE
I'm wondering, when is it permissible to judge others? Obviously there are many who are more than willing to judge Rush, but who also seem to have this fixation for projecting upon Rush the attribute of some sort of dispenser of morality. When is it okay to judge, in your opinion?
Well, you might ask Rush himself. He has made MILLIONS judging others, and has carefully taught his millions of Dittoheads not to actually discuss the issues (i.e. listen, share ideas, etc.), but to simply pass judgement on others.
To say that Rush Limbaugh was not an extremely well paid "dispenser of morality" tells me that you've never actually listened to his radio show, or read his books.
QUOTE(Chipguy @ Oct 23 2003, 02:46 PM)
Well, you might ask Rush himself. He has made MILLIONS judging others, and has carefully taught his millions of Dittoheads not to actually discuss the issues (i.e. listen, share ideas, etc.), but to simply pass judgement on others.
To say that Rush Limbaugh was not an extremely well paid "dispenser of morality" tells me that you've never actually listened to his radio show, or read his books.
To say that Rush Limbaugh was not an extremely well paid "dispenser of morality" tells me that you've never actually listened to his radio show, or read his books.
I'm not asking Rush. I'm asking liberals. I thought I had made that clear.
Rush has made millions talking about politics. Unfortunately too many liberals in this country that worship at the altar of politics take other points of view to be personal attacks. Had you listened to five minutes of his show you would know this. Rather than listening, YOU YOURSELF HAVE PASSED JUDGMENT. I infer from this that you prefer to judge others by nothing more than your own uninformed opinion. Thank you for answering my question by your example.
QUOTE(Conagher78 @ Oct 23 2003, 08:02 PM)
Rush has made millions talking about politics. Unfortunately too many liberals in this country that worship at the altar of politics take other points of view to be personal attacks.
Nope, I actually used to listen to Rush until I got tired of the unsubstantiated daily PERSONAL attacks on Clinton (since when was talking about his sex life anything but personal? Oh, right: when he entered politics, silly me).
Rush's show is not politics, it's entertainment. That's why he's there: to get high ratings and the commensurate paycheck that comes with that.
Rush is a hypocrite. Open your eyes and deal with it. He may be a wonderful guy as a person -- although I don't know too many wonderful guys who would use their housekeeper to score prescription drugs -- but that's really not why everyone's having such fun with this. It's all about exposing a well-known, judgemental hypocrite.
We haven't had this much fun since Jimmy Swaggart was caught with a prostitute and Jim Bakker was caught with his hand in the till.
QUOTE
Nope, I actually used to listen to Rush until I got tired of the unsubstantiated daily PERSONAL attacks on Clinton (since when was talking about his sex life anything but personal? Oh, right: when he entered politics, silly me).
Unsubstantiated enough that Clinton had to lie to a grand jury about it, and unsubstantiated enough to get him impeached.
When was his sex life anything but personal? When he did it at the Office on company time. How many times does this need to be explained?
QUOTE
Rush's show is not politics, it's entertainment. That's why he's there: to get high ratings and the commensurate paycheck that comes with that.
Since when were politics and entertainment mutually exclusive?
QUOTE
Rush is a hypocrite. Open your eyes and deal with it. He may be a wonderful guy as a person -- although I don't know too many wonderful guys who would use their housekeeper to score prescription drugs -- but that's really not why everyone's having such fun with this. It's all about exposing a well-known, judgemental hypocrite.
No one can ever explain why it's bad to be judgmental. Except when you're a conservative, then it's a hate crime.
QUOTE
We haven't had this much fun since Jimmy Swaggart was caught with a prostitute and Jim Bakker was caught with his hand in the till.
Not a word about the "most ethical administration of the twentieth century" and Bill "I didn't inhale" "nose like a vacuum cleaner" Clinton. Hypocrisy? Naaah.
QUOTE(amf @ Oct 23 2003, 08:58 PM)
QUOTE(Conagher78 @ Oct 23 2003, 08:02 PM)
Rush has made millions talking about politics. Unfortunately too many liberals in this country that worship at the altar of politics take other points of view to be personal attacks.
Nope, I actually used to listen to Rush until I got tired of the unsubstantiated daily PERSONAL attacks on Clinton (since when was talking about his sex life anything but personal? Oh, right: when he entered politics, silly me).
Rush's show is not politics, it's entertainment. That's why he's there: to get high ratings and the commensurate paycheck that comes with that.
Rush is a hypocrite. Open your eyes and deal with it. He may be a wonderful guy as a person -- although I don't know too many wonderful guys who would use their housekeeper to score prescription drugs -- but that's really not why everyone's having such fun with this. It's all about exposing a well-known, judgemental hypocrite.
We haven't had this much fun since Jimmy Swaggart was caught with a prostitute and Jim Bakker was caught with his hand in the till.
Amen Brother. Pass the collection plate. OOPS!! Sorry, I don't know if I should have said that or not.
I used to listen to Rush until I too got tired of him bellyaching about Clinton. I believe it consumed his whole life. Then when Clinton was impeached but nothing was proven,Rush was really tore up. Now 3 years later he is still bad-mouthing Clinton but praising King George II.
I really think the problem with the Republicans is that Clinton was smarter than them and they never proved anything even after spending 50MILLION plus. What a waste of money.
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Oct 23 2003, 09:51 PM)
I used to listen to Rush until I too got tired of him bellyaching about Clinton (. . .) Now 3 years later he is still bad-mouthing Clinton but praising King George II.
Well, he's not totally on Dubya's side, but how would you know since you don't listen anymore?
QUOTE
Rush has made millions talking about politics.
You mean talking about politicians, particularly Democrats. There's a difference.
You might also remind yourself what the titles of his books were, and tell me he was not preaching his own particular brand of morality.
QUOTE
Unfortunately too many liberals in this country that worship at the altar of politics take other points of view to be personal attacks.
Very good, a personal attack contained in a sentence accusing others of imagining personal attacks. I see You've learned very well.
Tell us, what alter do you worship at?
QUOTE
Had you listened to five minutes of his show you would know this. Rather than listening, YOU YOURSELF HAVE PASSED JUDGMENT.
You have no idea what you are talking about. How can you possibly claim to know what I have and have not listened to?
Do you think typing in ALL CAPS makes what you wrote automatically true?
I've listened to Limbaugh a whole lot more than five minutes. I was a daily listener for several years (until he started insulting teenage girls about their looks, and using racist voice characterizations as "humor"), and still caught a couple of hours a week, just to see if he was still mentioning Clinton every quarter hour.
And if you don't understand that Limbaugh made his millions by bashing "liberals" and fostering divisiveness in this country, then you've been brainwashed. Look at you, you bash liberals yourself in your posts.
So, you are entirely wrong about what I have and have not listened to. Can you admit it? That you are wrong?
QUOTE
I infer from this that you prefer to judge others by nothing more than your own uninformed opinion. Thank you for answering my question by your example.
You can infer whatever you like, but it will not make you correct. It will just make you a mini-Rush. Rush was wacked out on illegal narcotic drugs, what's your excuse for the mean spirited attitude, lofty attitude, and total disregard for facts? What's your excuse for confusing your personal opinion with the truth?
Chipguy - you are making this too personal. The rules require we keep it to the issues, please.
DEBATE QUESTIONS:
Is personally attacking the character of individuals an acceptable form of public debate?
More specifically, should liberals use the allegations against Rush Limbaugh to attack his integrity?
DEBATE QUESTIONS:
Is personally attacking the character of individuals an acceptable form of public debate?
More specifically, should liberals use the allegations against Rush Limbaugh to attack his integrity?
QUOTE(Conagher78 @ Oct 24 2003, 02:55 AM)
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Oct 23 2003, 09:51 PM)
I used to listen to Rush until I too got tired of him bellyaching about Clinton (. . .) Now 3 years later he is still bad-mouthing Clinton but praising King George II.
Well, he's not totally on Dubya's side, but how would you know since you don't listen anymore?
I was listening to him until he courageously(ha ha) placed himself into a rehab. And I believe that was about 2 weeks ago. Oh yes I listened to him, to get my daily dose of humor.
I just love it when he decided to tell all about his drug use(that is after he was being investigated by the police). That really really took a lot of courage when everyone already knew about it.
And to answering your question: DUH
QUOTE
You might also remind yourself what the titles of his books were, and tell me he was not preaching his own particular brand of morality.
It's called humor. It was done in order to poke fun. Obviously not everyone gets it, but quite enough do. I think the number is around 20 million.
QUOTE
I see You've learned very well.
I have. Too many liberals take politics as their religion. I learned that as an undergrad at my beloved alma mater.
QUOTE(Chipguy @ Oct 23 2003, 10:07 PM)
You have no idea what you are talking about. How can you possibly claim to know what I have and have not listened to?
Compare with:
QUOTE(Chipguy @ Oct 23 2003, 02:46 PM)
. . . you've never actually listened to his radio show, or read his books.
Pot, meet kettle.
QUOTE
Rush was wacked out on illegal narcotic drugs, what's your excuse for the mean spirited attitude, lofty attitude, and total disregard for facts?
End of debate. Good day!
Edit: formatting changes.
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Oct 23 2003, 10:12 PM)
I was listening to him until he courageously(ha ha) placed himself into a rehab. I just love it when he decided to tell all about his drug use(that is after he was being investigated by the police).
I just love to hear compassionate liberals. Makes my heart feel all warm and fuzzy.
I guess personal attacks are okay to debate with conservatives, but off-limits for anyone else. I have yet to see any liberal here say or act any differently.
QUOTE
And to answering your question: DUH
O-kay. First you say you don't listen, then you say you do. I'm the one who is confused? Please try to get your story straight before you post to this board. It makes it easier on us all.
Conagher78: I'm all about judgement, when it's even-handed and honest. It's the suspicion that Rush will get off easier than another in his position- and much easier than he thinks drug addicts should- that many have chosen to focus on. Despite the muted tone of these critics, some Dittoheads have sallied forth to not only make ridiculous claims about Rush not making personal smears, but to make broad attacks on everyone that doesn't agree with them.
Rush expresses less in the way of concrete policy analysis and more in the way of name-calling and mudslinging. A visit to his website makes it difficult to defend him as a high-minded gentleman, yet so many people here have asserted as much in response to comments that amount to "he's no better than anyone else, although he pretended like it".
As I said in my original post, I originally only hoped that Rush would come back a little wiser and more humble. Judging from his fans' denials, though, I hope he's not made in mold of many of his supporters.
P.S. Gee, I've always been happy about the impeachment proceedings b/c how huge it blew up in the face of the Inquisitors, proving that normal Americans don't think we should spend more than most will make in a lifetime to produce the low-grade porn of the Starr report. But if it weren't for Clinton, we'd have half the links here filled with personal attacks on Carter's brother what's-his-name.
P.P.S: I believe popeye47's post was regarding the assertions of many conservatives that Rush was "courageous" for coming out on his drug problem. This is discussed throughout the thread, and is certainly dumb enough in light of the circumstances to warrant laughter. If you honestly thought this was just laughter at another's misfortune, maybe you should take a deep breath and re-read posts instead of complaining about how mean we big, bad, liberals are, to dare suggest that Rush get a fraction of the punishment he advocated.
Rush expresses less in the way of concrete policy analysis and more in the way of name-calling and mudslinging. A visit to his website makes it difficult to defend him as a high-minded gentleman, yet so many people here have asserted as much in response to comments that amount to "he's no better than anyone else, although he pretended like it".
As I said in my original post, I originally only hoped that Rush would come back a little wiser and more humble. Judging from his fans' denials, though, I hope he's not made in mold of many of his supporters.
P.S. Gee, I've always been happy about the impeachment proceedings b/c how huge it blew up in the face of the Inquisitors, proving that normal Americans don't think we should spend more than most will make in a lifetime to produce the low-grade porn of the Starr report. But if it weren't for Clinton, we'd have half the links here filled with personal attacks on Carter's brother what's-his-name.
P.P.S: I believe popeye47's post was regarding the assertions of many conservatives that Rush was "courageous" for coming out on his drug problem. This is discussed throughout the thread, and is certainly dumb enough in light of the circumstances to warrant laughter. If you honestly thought this was just laughter at another's misfortune, maybe you should take a deep breath and re-read posts instead of complaining about how mean we big, bad, liberals are, to dare suggest that Rush get a fraction of the punishment he advocated.
QUOTE(pennDerek @ Oct 23 2003, 10:37 PM)
Conagher78: I'm all about judgement, when it's even-handed and honest. It's the suspicion that Rush will get off easier than another in his position- and much easier than he thinks drug addicts should- that many have chosen to focus on.
I can't speak for others who defend him, but I don't think he deserves mercy any more than anyone else. If we conservatives are to be consistent we must be consistent! Although I love listening to him and would greatly miss him if he were no longer on the radio, he deserves no more nor no less than any one else.
This should be a nation of laws, not of men. If liberals are not above the law, then neither are conservatives.
Edit:
PS: I don't think it takes any courage in the true sense to come forward as Rush has done. Overcoming the fear of punishment isn't really courage, it's more like responsibility. And it is something we as a society should expect from all people regardless of class or ideology.
I think most of us here are in agreement about that- and genuine thanks on one of the most civil posts in this thread in awhile.
QUOTE(Conagher78 @ Oct 24 2003, 03:34 AM)
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Oct 23 2003, 10:12 PM)
I was listening to him until he courageously(ha ha) placed himself into a rehab. I just love it when he decided to tell all about his drug use(that is after he was being investigated by the police).
I just love to hear compassionate liberals. Makes my heart feel all warm and fuzzy.
I guess personal attacks are okay to debate with conservatives, but off-limits for anyone else. I have yet to see any liberal here say or act any differently.
QUOTE
And to answering your question: DUH
O-kay. First you say you don't listen, then you say you do. I'm the one who is confused? Please try to get your story straight before you post to this board. It makes it easier on us all.
QUOTE
I used to listen to Rush until I too got tired of him bellyaching about Clinton. I believe it consumed his whole life. Then when Clinton was impeached but nothing was proven,Rush was really tore up. Now 3 years later he is still bad-mouthing Clinton but praising King George
My goodness,I do apologize for being confused and just making it hard for you.
Read the above quote. I used to listen to Rush until about 2 weeks ago,which at that time he was still raving about poor old Clinton, who left office almost 3 years ago.
Read the below quote if you are still puzzled.
QUOTE
I was listening to him until he courageously(ha ha) placed himself into a rehab. And I believe that was about 2 weeks ago. Oh yes I listened to him, to get my daily dose of humor
Now can you understand that.
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Oct 23 2003, 10:53 PM)
My goodness,I do apologize for being confused and just making it hard for you.
Read the above quote. I used to listen to Rush until about 2 weeks ago,which at that time he was still raving about poor old Clinton, who left office almost 3 years ago.
Read the above quote. I used to listen to Rush until about 2 weeks ago,which at that time he was still raving about poor old Clinton, who left office almost 3 years ago.
Okay, got it. Thanks for clarifying!
Theres no need to *use* this against Limbaugh as the story pretty much does that automatically. Most people can recognize hypocricy all by themselves. His fans wont care anyway.
I didn't know which debate to place this:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/rush...h_031118-2.html
Nov. 18 — Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh may have violated state money-laundering laws in the way he handled the money he used to buy the prescription drugs to which he was addicted, law enforcement officials in Florida and New York told ABCNEWS
Could this be true?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/rush...h_031118-2.html
QUOTE
Nov. 18 — Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh may have violated state money-laundering laws in the way he handled the money he used to buy the prescription drugs to which he was addicted, law enforcement officials in Florida and New York told ABCNEWS
Could this be true?
Popeye,
Today Rush explained everything and I doubt this story has any merit. We know he was up-front with us on his drug charges as soon as legally possible and chose not to talk about it until such time as it was legally safe for him to talk. However he reckognized that issue prior to him being able to talk about it.
Today he went into detail about these allegations and explained that there was a bank laundering money, he was checked out by the feds and told them everything he knew, now he is cleared. That is as far as I know, case closed.
Today Rush explained everything and I doubt this story has any merit. We know he was up-front with us on his drug charges as soon as legally possible and chose not to talk about it until such time as it was legally safe for him to talk. However he reckognized that issue prior to him being able to talk about it.
Today he went into detail about these allegations and explained that there was a bank laundering money, he was checked out by the feds and told them everything he knew, now he is cleared. That is as far as I know, case closed.
How can Limbaugh be considered "upfront" with his addiction when he didn't admit to it until it hit the newspapers, television and tabloids? Limbaugh was not cleared of money laundering. He is under investigation and merely because he proclaimed his innocence does not put an end to the matter.
Authorities learned two years ago during an investigation of U.S. Trust bank in New York that Limbaugh withdrew cash 30 to 40 times from his account at amounts just under the $10,000 bank reporting requirement, ABC News reported Tuesday. A bank employee was reported to have delivered some cash to Limbaugh.
Limbaugh told listeners the report was misleading and said that he had the bank bring cash to him at his New York office "maybe four times, if that many." Otherwise, he said he obtained cash from a bank in Florida, where he was living.
"When I went to get cash, I took a check to the bank. I went to the bank officer. I said, `Here's my check,' and they gave me the cash. There were witnesses to this," he said.
Limbaugh's lawyer, Roy Black, did not return a phone call for comment Wednesday.
It can be a federal crime to structure financial transactions below the $10,000 limit to avoid the reporting requirement.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._painkillers_11
On its face, it sounds as if Limbaugh has a plausible explanation for the financial transactions. However, the authorities aren't going to just take his say-so as the gospel truth.
Case most definitely NOT closed.
We are all human, none of us perfect, not even me and not even Rush. What's important is how we deal with our imperfections. None of us like to face them until there is no choice, and I bet you're no different. But when he was forced to face it, what did Rush do? He admitted he had a drug problem and checked into a rehab clinic. Now that he's back, he knows it isn't over and he'll still have to struggle with it, so he's continuing outpatient treatment, which is again the right thing to do. Looking good to me.
QUOTE(Izdaari @ Nov 20 2003, 03:10 PM)
We are all human, none of us perfect, not even me and not even Rush. What's important is how we deal with our imperfections. None of us like to face them until there is no choice, and I bet you're no different. But when he was forced to face it, what did Rush do? He admitted he had a drug problem and checked into a rehab clinic. Now that he's back, he knows it isn't over and he'll still have to struggle with it, so he's continuing outpatient treatment, which is again the right thing to do. Looking good to me.
When he was forced to face it,he admitted it. Of course what choice did he have. Probably if he had not admitted anything he would have had to appear in court. So that doesn't take much to figure out what I would do.
So was the rehab clinic a place of his choosing or someone elses. I am sure if I was under investigation, I would be able to choose my own place of rehab.
I wish I had the character of honesty and doing the right thing, just like ole Rush.
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Nov 20 2003, 12:54 PM)
I wish I had the character of honesty and doing the right thing, just like ole Rush.
What part does 'honesty' play in this, popeye?
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Nov 21 2003, 02:12 AM)
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Nov 20 2003, 12:54 PM)
I wish I had the character of honesty and doing the right thing, just like ole Rush.
What part does 'honesty' play in this, popeye?
If my memory serves me correctly,Rush said he would be honest and admit that he was hooked on the drugs he was taking. If I am wrong, I stand corrected.
. . . . and in more recent news:
Rush's 10 Felony counts...
The Associated Press
Updated: 9:43 a.m. ET Jan. 23, 2004WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Prosecutors rejected a proposed deal offered by Rush Limbaugh’s attorney that would have seen the radio commentator enter a court-sponsored drug intervention program rather than face charges, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported Friday.
Edited to remove copyrighted content
Rush's 10 Felony counts...
The Associated Press
Updated: 9:43 a.m. ET Jan. 23, 2004WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Prosecutors rejected a proposed deal offered by Rush Limbaugh’s attorney that would have seen the radio commentator enter a court-sponsored drug intervention program rather than face charges, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported Friday.
Edited to remove copyrighted content
DVDAuthor, it is against the rules to post an entire copyrighted document on the site. If you are using copyrighted material post no more than 10% of the original document and then provide a link to the source.
QUOTE
Is personally attacking the character of individuals an acceptable form of public debate?
Yes.
When the individual makes their living by attacking the character of others and organizations they should expect the same in return.
When they take on a holier than thou air they should expect to get nailed when their mistakes become public. Especially when they use character attacks as a cornerpeice of their repretiore. Rush has been dealing these attacks out for years unapologetically. This particular happening is simply "As you sow so shall you reap"
Rush has on many occasions given his veiw that the best way to go about fighting the drug war is to go after the white collar users who generally have enough money to keep themselves out of prison. This is often aimed at Hollywood elite types. That to allow such people to evade any penalty for their action is immoral and criminal.
I listen to Rush and I often agree with him on many points. However he has a bad habit of taking it too far and attempting to paint beleifs negativly with a broad brush and proclaiming all who beleive different than his officially released veiws as fools, ignorant or worse. I realize this is often frustration with dealing with irrational people who are ignorant on the reality and truth of certain issues but assume themselves well informed. Rush should have known that society loves the downfall of those who appear to beleive themselves better than the rest. He walked right into this and definetly can't be suprised.
Sorry Rush but Reap it.
More specifically, should liberals use the allegations against Rush Limbaugh to attack his integrity?
Again Yes they should. Rush has built his Empire saying the things conservative Republicans cannot say and get elected. He has assaulted Liberals unabashedly for many years for their veiws and beleifs. He has attempted to completely discredit what they beleive often in a manner that pushes the boundries of reasonable debate to the point of maliciousness. More power to them as they return fire.
In the end Rush will merely use this to "confirm" his beleif in the vacuoness
of the Liberal mindset and make even more money with a best seller. "You see my friends. The very people who claim to care SO deeply about the welfare of their fellow human beings (sound of paper being fondled and snapped) This just shows depths of their hypocrisy,,ramble ramble ramble).
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Jan 24 2004, 06:00 PM)
DVDAuthor, it is against the rules to post an entire copyrighted document on the site. If you are using copyrighted material post no more than 10% of the original document and then provide a link to the source.
Okay, fair enough then. My bad.
Guess I was just a bit too anxious to share the article before considering the Copyrighted content.
Next time I will follow your guidelines on this.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.