Doctor Shopping - Rush Ordered

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid...

I guess paybacks a bitch. I wonder if Mr. Limbaugh believes in karma now?

he is being subjected to an invasion of privacy no citizen of this republic should endure."

Hmm.... adultery or drug abuse, adultery or drug abuse?

I guess I''ll throw myself to the wolves.

There is no karma here. Limbaugh has admitted that he isn''t a victim; he is at fault.

If I''m understanding the reference correctly it should read ""perjury or drug abuse"".

"Gorack" wrote:

If I''m understanding the reference correctly it should read ""perjury or drug abuse"".

In Rush''s case, maybe both.

I''m not fan, but I fail to see how this is karma. He''s almost certainly getting investigated more thouroughly then other people might be. What WOULD be karma, and maybe even ironic, is if they subpoened his records under the Patriot Act. Now that would be funny.

In Rush''s case, maybe both.

Uh-huh - and when has he perjured himself? Maybe you should look up the word.

On the flip side, it is pleasant to see the liberal crowd more willing to seek punishment for drug offenders.

On the flip side, it is pleasant to see the liberal crowd more willing to seek punishment for drug offenders.

Tee hee.

Gambling and drug addiction are apparently only unforgiveable human frailties when conservatives are involved.

"Gorack" wrote:

I guess I''ll throw myself to the wolves.

There is no karma here. Limbaugh has admitted that he isn''t a victim; he is at fault.

If I''m understanding the reference correctly it should read ""perjury or drug abuse"".

Which means he''s guilty.

Throw him in the slammer.

"Kriegshund" wrote:

I''m not fan, but I fail to see how this is karma. He''s almost certainly getting investigated more thouroughly then other people might be. What WOULD be karma, and maybe even ironic, is if they subpoened his records under the Patriot Act. Now that would be funny.

He''s getting investigated more thoroughly yes, but anyone else would be in jail right now waiting for trial.

He''s getting investigated more thoroughly yes, but anyone else would be in jail right now waiting for trial.

Ya, that goes for all celebrities. It''s funny because he used to say they should lock up all drug addicts and throw away the key. Now he might actually be looking at drug addiction as a health problem. Can any Rush*tes see the hypocracy there?

I believe the karma in question is the Rush quote where he says that the disproportionate number of black men in jails on drug charges simply means not enough white men are being charged.

So I could see some folks crying karma or comeupance (however you spell that).

We''ve already had this discussion, but there''s a big difference between people who abuse drugs for recreation and those who got addicted under the care of a physician...

"Slick" wrote:

It''s funny because he used to say they should lock up all drug addicts and throw away the key.

Right. How about posting said quote?

Also, the idea that ""anyone else would be in jail right now waiting for trial"" is ludicrous. First of all, when most dealers are stung, the users they supply are never targeted. Secondly, anybody accused of possession or abusing perscription drugs is going to get bail.

Of course none of that matters - the fact that you guys are wishing for this person to come to harm, in the name of ""karma"" says a lot. Hopefully you won''t get your ""comeuppance"" anytime soon...

Of course none of that matters - the fact that you guys are wishing for this person to come to harm, in the name of ""karma"" says a lot. Hopefully you won''t get your ""comeuppance"" anytime soon...

Do you actually believe anything you write? That was a nice play at trying to twist words profoundly. So I take it we should use the same standards for you when you are satisfied that justice has been served?

I never said I was happy to have anyone be harmed even in the guise of karma. Rush is now a proven hypocrite.

It just goes to show that anyone who applauds the vocal self-righteous is a fool.

"ralcydan" wrote:

We''ve already had this discussion, but there''s a big difference between people who abuse drugs for recreation and those who got addicted under the care of a physician...

"Slick" wrote:

It''s funny because he used to say they should lock up all drug addicts and throw away the key.

Right. How about posting said quote?

Also, the idea that ""anyone else would be in jail right now waiting for trial"" is ludicrous. First of all, when most dealers are stung, the users they supply are never targeted. Secondly, anybody accused of possession or abusing perscription drugs is going to get bail.

Of course none of that matters - the fact that you guys are wishing for this person to come to harm, in the name of ""karma"" says a lot. Hopefully you won''t get your ""comeuppance"" anytime soon...

So someone who becomes addicted to heroin because they needed the drug for pain but somehow lives through that and becomes addicted should not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Rush is now a proven hypocrite.

Again, still waiting for a quote from Rush showing he is anything of the sort. You call me a fool, but you guys, who I somewho doubt are among Rush''s listeners, are nonetheless telling us all what his positions are with no quotes or evidence whatsoever to back up your foolish assertions - kind of foolish.

So give me a quote to discuss, or as far as I am concerned, your only real motivation is to show you own lack of compassion for comeone having troubles in life - and coming from someone who preaches about compassion and understanding, who does that make the hypocrite?

So someone who becomes addicted to heroin because they needed the drug for pain but somehow lives through that and becomes addicted should not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

How is that analogous? Do you know of anyone prescribed heroin by a doctor for pain?

Here''s your fact Ralcydan.

""In the past, Limbaugh had decried drug use and abuse on his bluntly conservative show, arguing that drug crimes deserve punishment.""

From here.

I tried Rush''s website for a quote but didn''t feel like registering as a dittohead.

This one is even better.

My questions are:

Did Rush take these drugs without a Doctor''s prescription?

If the abuse did occur--

Did he make these statements regarding ""drug crimes deserve punishment"" before or after his back surgery?

Tanacite click on ""this one is even better"" in my above post for a good answer.

I walk away from the OpEd a little hazy; he takes both sides: he is a hypocrite or not a hypocrite. We know he abused drugs.

This leaves me feeling like ""hypocrite"" is an appropriate term.

""...by blasting drug addicts either on or off the air while simultaneously swallowing a virtual drug store every few days.""

Slick, I guess you aren''t familiar with the terms ""quote"" or ""hypocrisy"" as they are usually understood. Show me what Rush said, and tell me why it was hypocritical. If you can''t, then I stand by my statement that a) you have no idea what you are talking about; and b) your lack of compassion for someone suffering problems shows you to be the same type of person you claim to hate.

I guess when it comes to hypocrisy, your position is it takes one to know one...

By the way, the fact that you won''t be able to find a quote from Rush about drugs from the last 4-5 years is proof that he isn''t a hypocrite. To be a hyprocrite you have to be decrying something while doing it, and the few Rush drug quotes that are out there (all of which are in the context of recreational or street drug abusers, not anyone addicted after doctors prescribed the substance) are from years before his addiction. Changing one''s perspective based on experience isn''t hypocrisy, it''s intellectual maturity...

Changing one''s perspective based on experience isn''t hypocrisy, it''s intellectual maturity...

I don''t know that I''d call it intellectual maturity, but definitely cognitive maturity.

And that''s the crux of this matter. It''s easy to crusade against something until you experience the grey areas yourself. My own ideals and beliefs have changed over time as I learn that things aren''t as black and white as I believed growing up.

Prescription painkillers are extremely habit-forming, and Rush''s experience isn''t all that unique. I haven''t been there myself, but I live with pain every day and can understand the temptation to have something to take it away. When pain is your life, it has an effect on you that people who haven''t lived that way can''t understand.

By the way, the fact that you won''t be able to find a quote from Rush about drugs from the last 4-5 years is proof that he isn''t a hypocrite. To be a hyprocrite you have to be decrying something while doing it, and the few Rush drug quotes that are out there (all of which are in the context of recreational or street drug abusers, not anyone addicted after doctors prescribed the substance) are from years before his addiction. Changing one''s perspective based on experience isn''t hypocrisy, it''s intellectual maturity...

You blame for not having an adiquate quote for you and then you say there are quotes out there, and that illegally obtained street drugs is somehow different from illegally obtained prescription drugs. Where''s the quote saying that his views have changed?

I never said that I don''t feel sorry for him. He''s the one that expressed a lack of compasion and then became what he hated. He built his reputation railing against those with compassion for the less fortunate (ie., drug addicts). If indeed he has changed his opinion through lack of recent quotes, lets hope he continues to ""mature"".

You blame for not having an adiquate quote for you and then you say there are quotes out there,

Hey, just because you (still) don''t know what you are talking about doesn''t mean I don''t. Rush analyzes the news. Has he made comments in the context of specific people who abuse street drugs and use recreationally? Yep. But that''s a big leap to having ""built his reputation railing against those with compassion for the less fortunate"", which is simply untrue.

Not that it matters. I think the fact that you can''t be bothered to even know what the man himself supposedly said, speaks volumes about the basis of your opinion of him.

I''ve said this before, and I''ll say it again: Rush roundly criticized recreational-drug use on multiple occasions. To my knowledge, he never once said a word about someone that began using drugs under guidance from a physician for a legitimate reason and then let it get out of hand.

There is an enormous difference between the two. Slick, your second link is very accurate. People allow their personal biases to come to the forefront on these issues, especially if they have no first-hand knowledge of the situation.

But the fact that Rush, who so widely spoke against the dangers of drugs, got addicted is a sure indicator that he was right all along. He knew the dangers. He knew the media frenzy and calls of hypocrisy that would come out if he was discovered. And yet he couldn''t stop himself. Like him or not, Rush is a damn smart man. He knew he was risking everything on this habit of his. That''s why he went to such lengths to keep it secret. The fact that he found himself in this situation indicates that his previous calls for strict punishment of dealers and tighter drug laws were probably right on the money.

Rush shows that these drugs are habit-forming enough that they can get anybody. It proves that the people who use these drugs need to be helped, and the people that sell them need to be locked away. And that is what I like to think of as ''compassionate conservatism''.

Not that it matters. I think the fact that you can''t be bothered to even know what the man himself supposedly said, speaks volumes about the basis of your opinion of him.

Fine, I''m sure you''ll still keep your head buried in the sand, but here you go.

""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 5, 1995 show transcript.

and

""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 5, 1995 show transcript.

I''m sure these quotes are to old for you. Why don''t you show me a newer one that states him believing otherwise. Because you can''t.

By the way my opinions are based on more than just his view on drug abuse. He just replaces the term liberal or democrat where a fascist would have used jew.

First of all, I can''t tell whether you agree with his quotes. There is nothing he says in either that isn''t true, nor do they make him a hypocrite, as neither address his situation and both predate it. So what is your exact problem?

And what was the context of the two quotes? I''m pretty sure he didn''t start the show, say the above, and go to commercial. Just like liberals claim to be ""pro-choice"", they aren''t advocating choice in general. They are really for legal abortion. Specific context matters there and here. As I said, Rush analyzes the news. What was he talking about?

By the way my opinions are based on more than just his view on drug abuse. He just replaces the term liberal or democrat where a fascist would have used jew.

Yes, this quote shows your opinions are based on hatred of the man, not any awareness of what he actually has said or stands for. By the way, if this is any indication of your knowledge of facism or the Holocaust, I was too kind in the other thread when I suggested you get your history from bubble gum wrappers. And you accuse others of ""extremist rhetoric""...laughable.

From his quotes he believes people like him should be in jail instead of being a nationally sindicated talk show host.

""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.""

Instead, he must now feel that these people have health problem and need treatment instead of a criminal sentence. That''s the hypocracy. I don''t think he should go jail for his health problem.

Yes, this quote shows your opinions are based on hatred of the man, not any awareness of what he actually has said or stands for. By the way, if this is any indication of your knowledge of facism or the Holocaust, I was too kind in the other thread when I suggested you get your history from bubble gum wrappers. And you accuse others of ""extremist rhetoric""...laughable.

Personal attacks really support your position well. There''s no beating my magic bubble gum wrappers

Rush shows that these drugs are habit-forming enough that they can get anybody. It proves that the people who use these drugs need to be helped, and the people that sell them need to be locked away. And that is what I like to think of as ''compassionate conservatism''.

That''s not compassionate conservatism, that''s common sense.

I''ve said this before, and I''ll say it again: Rush roundly criticized recreational-drug use on multiple occasions. To my knowledge, he never once said a word about someone that began using drugs under guidance from a physician for a legitimate reason and then let it get out of hand.

There is an enormous difference between the two.

There is not an enormous difference. I don''t believe that any recreational drug user sets out to become addicted any more than I believe Rush wanted to become addicted. I only believe that addicts have a health issue that needs treatment not to be just locked up and forgotten. This has gotten to be a much larger topic than that at the begining of the thread. I just thought Rush was a hypocrite. Then Ralcydan made me get out the bubble gum wrappers.

There is not an enormous difference. I don''t believe that any recreational drug user sets out to become addicted any more than I believe Rush wanted to become addicted.

Of course there is. The recreational drug user starts his habit by engaging in an illegal activity. The person that becomes addicted to prescription drugs doesn''t engage in an illegal act until after the addiction is in effect. It is a matter of intent, and that makes all the difference in the world.

Of course there is. The recreational drug user starts his habit by engaging in an illegal activity. The person that becomes addicted to prescription drugs doesn''t engage in an illegal act until after the addiction is in effect. It is a matter of intent, and that makes all the difference in the world.

I''ll give you that difference. Intent in the begining is a big difference.

In the end though, don''t both types of drug addicts have a health problem and need a real chance at treatment instead of just throwing them jail.

In the end though, don''t both types of drug addicts have a health problem and need a real chance at treatment instead of just throwing them jail.

Which would be fine and dandy if the purpose were simply to address addicts. Stopping drug use is all about deterrence - you have to deter people from starting by threatening the recreational users (who are the majority) with punishment, as well as enact the social pressures to get people to deter themselves by realizing the dangers of use. Which is of course all Rush was talking about above. Neither deterrent applies to his situation.

Ok, good. So we''ve established that Rush is no hypocrite, recreational drug users are different than people addicted under the care of a doctor, and people who don''t actually listen to Rush have some pretty weird and misguided opinions about him.

I feel pretty good about the way this thread turned out.