Rush detained

[Laugh O. Grams]

But the differance is that a senior with his meds in a daily reminder pill box is that the senior's prescription was done in his name, not a thrid party. If the senior is detained by customs, the senior can provide the original prescription bottle, or it can be verified with the pharmacy and/or the doctors office that the prescription is valid and in his name.

Rush had his prescription in the name of a third party, it makes no differance if the pills were in a prescription bottle or a pill case, having it in someone else's name is a red flag for customs. It remains to be seen if it violates any law or the terms of his plea agreement.

Great point and really, that's the fly in the ointment. If carrying the third party medication violates the terms of his plea deal, whether the act is legal or not, can create big problems for Rush. For example, there are plenty of people on probation who are over the age of 21 but cannot have a drop of alcohol because they agreed not to under the terms of a plea. It's the cost of staying out of jail and that's why the Palm Beach police department continues to investigate.

 

[DawnCt1]

But the differance is that a senior with his meds in a daily reminder pill box is that the senior's prescription was done in his name, not a thrid party. If the senior is detained by customs, the senior can provide the original prescription bottle, or it can be verified with the pharmacy and/or the doctors office that the prescription is valid and in his name.

Rush had his prescription in the name of a third party, it makes no differance if the pills were in a prescription bottle or a pill case, having it in someone else's name is a red flag for customs. It remains to be seen if it violates any law or the terms of his plea agreement.

And the prescription is in Rush's name at his physician's office. While it may be a red flag for seniors, its not a violation of the law. Just as having a sample pack from a physician is not a violation of the law.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

And the prescription is in Rush's name at his physician's office. While it may be a red flag for seniors, its not a violation of the law. Just as having a sample pack from a physician is not a violation of the law.

And he was detained just like you or I would have been. The fact that he also happens to be a celebrity, and one with an admitted drug addiction and a history of drug related run ins with the law, makes the story newsworth. If it helps, just think of the Rush story as a porky, uglier version of Brangelina or Britney Spears. It the cult of personality, baby!

 

[Chicago526]

And he was detained just like you or I would have been. The fact that he also happens to be a celebrity, and one with an admitted drug addiction and a history of drug related run ins with the law, makes the story newsworth. If it helps, just think of the Rush story as a porky, uglier version of Brangelina or Britney Spears. It the cult of personality, baby!

Ewwwww! Don't post stuff like this! I just had a flash of Rush dancing around dressed like a school girl and belting out "Oops, I did it again"!!!!

 

[Galahad]

And he was detained just like you or I would have been. The fact that he also happens to be a celebrity, and one with an admitted drug addiction and a history of drug related run ins with the law, makes the story newsworth. If it helps, just think of the Rush story as a porky, uglier version of Brangelina or Britney Spears. It the cult of personality, baby!

Yep. If I'm a customs agent in Rush's "home" airport and I come across pills in HIS luggage, considering the recent history, I'd most definitely pay attention. That's not prejudicial, just common sense.

 

[TheDoctor]

Well it's Tuesday, or as Rush Limbaugh calls it, hump day." --Jay Leno

"What is it with Republicans and Viagra? First Bob Dole, he was doing the ads for Viagra. Now you got Rush Limbaugh. Say what you want about Bill Clinton, but the man was always there to answer the call, ladies and gentlemen" --Jay Leno

"Rush Limp-baugh was detained for more than three hours at the Palm Beach Airport after officials found a bottle of Viagra in his possesion with someone else's name on it. Oooooooooooh. How ironic is that: the one Republican with a plan to get cheap prescription drugs and they try to arrest him." --Jay Leno

 

[NewJersey]

Yes, the R party gets up in arms when (gosh!) Rush's "personal information was leaked." Yet, in the case of the CIA leak, mum's the word!

Tick, tock, tick, tock...their time in power is soon to be up.

 

[TCPluto]

You know, you're right...who are we to get in the middle of what Rush, 14 smarmy Dominican prostitutes, a goat and a bottle of Viagra do with their personal life!!! Go on, Rush, you sick twisted stud!!!

Since you bring up the ridiculous goat/prositute scenario, can we talk about slick Wille, his cuban cigars and the human humidor tricks???

The difference being the "Lewisnky humidor" is factual!

Go on, Bill, you sick, twisted stud!!

 

[DawnCt1]

Yes, the R party gets up in arms when (gosh!) Rush's "personal information was leaked." Yet, in the case of the CIA leak, mum's the word!

Tick, tock, tick, tock...their time in power is soon to be up.

Oh puleeze, Valerie Plame the desk jockey who catapulted her anonimity into fame and fortune? You could only be so lucky. The "leak" you should be concerned about is the one that the NYT published.

 

[DawnCt1]

Since you bring up the ridiculous goat/prositute scenario, can we talk about slick Wille, his cuban cigars and the human humidor tricks???

The difference being the "Lewisnky humidor" is factual!

Go on, Bill, you sick, twisted stud!!

Or how about the Clinton quote; "Would you like some ice for that lip?" Actually that wasn't funny.

 

[transparant]

Oh puleeze, Valerie Plame the desk jockey who catapulted her anonimity into fame and fortune? You could only be so lucky. The "leak" you should be concerned about is the one that the NYT published.

Sadly they aren't concerned Dawn.

 

[Ub_Iwerks]

I see, the liberal left is all for privacy when it applies to them or they can hide behind it to promote abortion.

And it appears that the ONLY time you're for privacy is when it is you or one of your idols.

 

[georgia4now]

Sadly they aren't concerned Dawn.

I agree. He was detained, but not arrested. His drugs were legal, and issued in a legal way, but nobody here cares about that. Libs NEVER care about the facts. It's all about emotions, and amassing an army of the blissfully uninformed. You (we) cannot win this argument. It's impossible. They finally have something to laugh about, so let them have their day. As I said before, Rush won't be so funny in 2008. All of a sudden he'll magically morph back in to the most dangerous man in America.

They could start a thread attacking him purely on his politics, but noooo. They'd have to start a factually-based argument and prove their point. It's far easier to use a story with a smidgen of truth and a TON of specualtion to hide behind.

Rush is a grown man, and he can handle himself. He makes a great living running his mouth (IMHO he's 60% correct, and 100% entertaining) and when this blows over, he'll be more popular than ever. See, even I can't stop myself!

Dawn, I support you, and I agree with your posts, but you really should not engage in a battle of wits with unarmed people...it's just not fair!

 

[NewJersey]

Since you bring up the ridiculous goat/prositute scenario, can we talk about slick Wille, his cuban cigars and the human humidor tricks???

The difference being the "Lewisnky humidor" is factual!

Go on, Bill, you sick, twisted stud!!

Talk about holding onto the past. Dude, move on. That was about 10 years ago.

 

[crcormier]

Oh puleeze, Valerie Plame the desk jockey who catapulted her anonimity into fame and fortune? You could only be so lucky. The "leak" you should be concerned about is the one that the NYT published.

Why do you keep singling out the NYT? The Wall Street Journal published the same story, but I don't see you lambasting them.

 

[georgia4now]

Why do you keep singling out the NYT? The Wall Street Journal published the same story, but I don't see you lambasting them.

Actually the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times all published sensitive info about the program.

Folks single out the New York Times because they have established a pattern of anti-American, irresponsible, unethical printing practices. (This leak, Jason Blair's plagiarized reports, and the following admission: In reviewing its Iraq coverage, the New York Times said, "we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged —- or failed to emerge.")

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/agitation/iraq/nytimesfess.html

 

[sodaseller]

Or how about the Clinton quote; "Would you like some ice for that lip?" Actually that wasn't funny.

Actually it wasn't true either, but you never care about matters of integrity

 

[sodaseller]

I agree. He was detained, but not arrested. His drugs were legal, and issued in a legal way, but nobody here cares about that. Libs NEVER care about the facts. It's all about emotions, and amassing an army of the blissfully uninformed. You (we) cannot win this argument. It's impossible. They finally have something to laugh about, so let them have their day. As I said before, Rush won't be so funny in 2008. All of a sudden he'll magically morph back in to the most dangerous man in America.

Dawn, I support you, and I agree with your posts, but you really should not engage in a battle of wits with unarmed people...it's just not fair!

It's so funny you say that, because I see it the exact opposite. I see ya'll as generally stupid and dishonest. Look at this thread and this post as an example

 

[eclectics]

Actually the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times all published sensitive info about the program.

Folks single out the New York Times because they have established a pattern of anti-American, irresponsible, unethical printing practices. (This leak, Jason Blair's plagiarized reports, and the following admission: In reviewing its Iraq coverage, the New York Times said, "we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged —- or failed to emerge.")

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/agitation/iraq/nytimesfess.html

The only reason the NYT was singled out was because it fires up the conservative base to light up their torches. The WSJ just doesn't evoke the same battle cry. Even the Republican pundits couldn't keep a straight face trying to deny this one. Just add it to the Flag Burning, Gay Marriage, and all the other "pressing" issues the congress has decided needs immediate attention before election day.

 

[Charade]

Boy, I really used to think you were different than the likes of Dawn and Charade. Guess not.

The likes????

I've never made a comment like that.