Rush Limbaugh Arrested.

[TCPluto]

I think you have Bill Clinton confused with George W. Bush. George is the coke user and recovering alcoholic.

Does one drunk driving conviction equate to being an alcoholic, or are you just engaging in a bit of sensationalizing??

 

[cardaway]

I'm not sure why anyone has to be looked down on because they are addicts.

Me either. As I posted, that's Rush's game, not mine.

 

[MeanLaureen]

Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in there for what it's worth (Hell, I'll probably get change back )

As you all pretty much know, I live in severe chronic pain and I have taken all the big meds for some time now and all of them I have grown dependant on.

That is where I think the distinction is.

I see myself dependant on the narcotic pain killers. I depend on them to allow me to have a normal life. I don't get a rush (no pun intended) from taking things like Morphine or Oxy. I don't get a high. I don't act any different than any of you guys do without drugs. Narcotics to a person in severe pain do not create a "euphoric" condition like cocaine or illegal drugs do. If you take them without having pain, yes - you will get a high and a rush from them - thus causing an addiction to the feeling that you get.

So that to me is a difference - people addicted to these drugs are the ones that take them just to get that feeling of euphoria that you get when you are no longer using them for pain. People that take the meds in order to have some sort of a normal life by managing their pain become dependant on them.

In my opinion? Rush was an addict - not dependant. Not at the quantities he was taking the medicine.

 

[LukenDC]

Does one drunk driving conviction equate to being an alcoholic, or are you just engaging in a bit of sensationalizing??

I was not even referring to the drunk driving incident. President Bush has admitted that he has a drinking problem that he has been able to control since his 40th birthday.

 

[DawnCt1]

In my opinion? Rush was an addict - not dependant. Not at the quantities he was taking the medicine.

You elucidated how pain leads to dependency but the next step after dependency is addiction. I don't think Rush would dispute that he was addicted. I do, from what he has described feel it started out as depencency.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Dawn, I'd like some of what your taking

Can't back up your "Bush used coke" statement, I see.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Rush Limbaugh on air; 10/5/1995

"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/10/ana03004.html

And from Dictionary.com;

hypocrite

n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold [syn: dissembler, phony, phoney, pretender]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypocrite

I understand your point, but Rush makes no such distinction. Unfortunately, the first four words of your post are factually incorrect.

You forgot:

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.

"It's kind of like sentencing. A lot of people say that we have a heavy sentence for this crime and a light sentence for another crime, and what we ought to do is reduce the heavy sentence so it's more in line with the other. Wrong. In most cases we ought to increase the light sentence and make it compatible with the heavy sentence, and be serious about punishment because we are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks, especially of crime, in too many parts of the country."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

 

[Kendra17]

It's official.

He could murder a fans spouse in front of them and they would still find a way to defend him.

All shock jocks have their fans, but most shock jocks don't go off about illegal drug users in between popping illegal pills themselves.

By defending this guys actions and lies they are becoming hipocrits themselves.

I find this statement ludicrous. The fact is that I am not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh's. I think he's a bit pompous, despite the fact that I share his politics.

Most drug addicts, I would think, don't promote their drug use and don't rationally believe their drug use is a good thing. I don't remember hearing Robert Downey Jr. defending his drug use. . . as a matter of fact, between visits to treatment centers, he acknowledged drug use was not a good thing and still acknowledges it's bad effects. Did we call him a hypocrite because, despite the fact he knew it wasn't healthy or positive, he used? No, we realized he has a problem.

Same with Limbaugh. Many addicted people are ashamed of their addictions and their feelings of "powerlessness" over their addictions. What is he supposed to be espousing? The positive effects of drug use? It doesn't make him a hypocrite, it makes him an addicted person who believes that drug use is not a good thing.

Do we call fat people who overeat but know they shouldn't overeat hypocrites? All of you liberals pick at the weirdest things. You are all the most intolerant people I ever ever have seen/heard/read, etc.

Do we call people who don't do well in school but realize they should do well in school hypocrites? Can't people have goals they aim for and sometimes fall short? Liberals demand perfection from people who have a moral framework. Since their morality is so relative, they never "fall short"-- they just lower the standard. That's better?? ahahhahaha

Lastly, an attorney posted that Rush didn't steal or harm anyone to get the drugs because he didn't have to. That is absolutely correct. He only harmed himself and maybe his marriage, and they are paying the price for it. He didn't steal, he didn't rob, he didn't threaten or coerce. His crimes harmed himself and, maybe, his loved ones. THe attorney's client, the poorer person she spoke of, who became addicted and robbed a CVS pharmacy and held a gun to the pharmacist's head is obviously worse, since he's committing a violent crime. He SHOULD be punished for that crime. And, during his incarceration, maybe he'll get some help for his addiction.

 

[Kendra17]

You forgot:

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.

"It's kind of like sentencing. A lot of people say that we have a heavy sentence for this crime and a light sentence for another crime, and what we ought to do is reduce the heavy sentence so it's more in line with the other. Wrong. In most cases we ought to increase the light sentence and make it compatible with the heavy sentence, and be serious about punishment because we are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks, especially of crime, in too many parts of the country."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.

You know, I could understand this relevance if Limbaugh committed a violent crime. He became addicted to drugs. He bought drugs illegally. He paid the price for it. He's not a career criminal and he's not a dangerous man (except, of course, to liberals). He got help and he knows drug addiction is a bad thing and he believes that drug dealers should have heavier sentences. Does anyone else disagree with him on this?

Are all of you that disagree just so absolutely perfect you never fail to meet your own expectations of yourself? Do all of you exercise everyday even though you know you should? Do all of you pass on the chocolate cake even though you know you should? Have all of you quit smoking even though you know you should? If you do overeat or smoke, don't you tell your kids you know it's not a good thing, or do you defend your use?

Liberals=Hypocrites.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Do we call fat people who overeat but know they shouldn't overeat hypocrites? All of you liberals pick at the weirdest things. You are all the most intolerant people I ever ever have seen/heard/read, etc.

Do we call people who don't do well in school but realize they should do well in school hypocrites? Can't people have goals they aim for and sometimes fall short? Liberals demand perfection from people who have a moral framework. Since their morality is so relative, they never "fall short"-- they just lower the standard. That's better?? ahahhahaha

Lastly, an attorney posted that Rush didn't steal or harm anyone to get the drugs because he didn't have to. That is absolutely correct. He only harmed himself and maybe his marriage, and they are paying the price for it. He didn't steal, he didn't rob, he didn't threaten or coerce. His crimes harmed himself and, maybe, his loved ones. THe attorney's client, the poorer person she spoke of, who became addicted and robbed a CVS pharmacy and hold a gun to the pharmacist's head is obviously worse, since he's committing a violent crime. He SHOULD be punished for that crime. And, during his incarceration, maybe he'll get some help for his addiction.

Limbaugh was publicly intolerant and showed no empathy with the many people who suffer from the horrible results of drug addiction, and broadcast that intolerance on his radio show. Now, liberals shouldn't be allowed to point out that poor Rush is a hypocrite because it's "intolerent"...give that crap a rest already!!!

 

[chobie]

Limbaugh was publicly intolerant and showed no empathy with the many people who suffer from the horrible results of drug addiction, and broadcast that intolerance on his radio show. Now, liberals shouldn't be allowed to point out that poor Rush is a hypocrite because it's "intolerent"...give that crap a rest already!!!

Now, now..

Kendra said Liberals = hypocrits and that makes it so.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

You know, I could understand this relevance if Limbaugh committed a violent crime. He became addicted to drugs. He bought drugs illegally. He paid the price for it. He's not a career criminal and he's not a dangerous man (except, of course, to liberals). He got help and he knows drug addiction is a bad thing and he believes that drug dealers should have heavier sentences. Does anyone else disagree with him on this?

Are all of you that disagree just so absolutely perfect you never fail to meet your own expectations of yourself? Do all of you exercise everyday even though you know you should? Do all of you pass on the chocolate cake even though you know you should? Have all of you quit smoking even though you know you should? If you do overeat or smoke, don't you tell your kids you know it's not a good thing, or do you defend your use?

Liberals=Hypocrites.

You are basically telling liberals to give Rush the compassionate treatment that liberals have always prescribed for petty drug offenders. The problem with your point is that ol' Rush has for years called us fools and soft on crime and part of the problem, etc, and now that he has been caught...we are somehow supposed to say, "Hey brother, I feel your pain"...please...

Noone is saying that Rush should be locked up forever...Rush himself said that people like him should be punished harsher...we are simply pointing out that the blowhard is a fool who despite his bluster has been shown to be a hypocritical *******...that is all...so save your "No, you liberals are the hypocrites" arguement...it makes you look silly...

 

[Kendra17]

Limbaugh was publicly intolerant and showed no empathy with the many people who suffer from the horrible results of drug addiction, and broadcast that intolerance on his radio show. Now, liberals shouldn't be allowed to point out that poor Rush is a hypocrite because it's "intolerent"...give that crap a rest already!!!

He STILL believes in what he says. . . that's what you don't seem to understand. He thinks that drug addiction is a horrible thing and if he buys into "addiction as an illness" he still thinks it's a horrible thing. If he thinks "addiction is weakness", he STILL thinks it's a horrible thing. How DOES THIS MAKE him a hypocrite? It makes him a human being who fell short of his own standard/expectation. Just like you, just like everyone else. Unless we've reached perfection, we are all hypocrites according to you?

So, a smoker is supposed to espouse the good effects of smoking? Uh, that would make him an idiot. Every smoker I know says they know they should quit, they know smoking is bad for them, they know it's a dirty habit/addiction. I never once thought they should be called hypocrites.

I have an overweight neighbor who constantly talks about how she should start dieting and exercising. Uh, she's a hypocrite according to you?

It's not hypocrisy. It's a failure of self-control. If you fail at something but claimed that you haven't failed, THAT's hypocrisy. As far as I know, he has taken responsibility for his personal failings.

Why not trash Rush's conservative ideas rather than his personal failings? Bill Clinton, on the other hand, had both failed ideas AND failed character. He's easy to trash.

 

[Kendra17]

Now, now..

Kendra said Liberals = hypocrits and that makes it so.

I agree.

 

[chobie]

I agree.

You agree with to your statement. Good me too.

 

[TCPluto]

He STILL believes in what he says. . . that's what you don't seem to understand. He thinks that drug addiction is a horrible thing and if he buys into "addiction as an illness" he still thinks it's a horrible thing. If he thinks "addiction is weakness", he STILL thinks it's a horrible thing. How DOES THIS MAKE him a hypocrite? It makes him a human being who fell short of his own standard/expectation. Just like you, just like everyone else. Unless we've reached perfection, we are all hypocrites according to you?

So, a smoker is supposed to espouse the good effects of smoking? Uh, that would make him an idiot. Every smoker I know says they know they should quit, they know smoking is bad for them, they know it's a dirty habit/addiction. I never once thought they should be called hypocrites.

I have an overweight neighbor who constantly talks about how she should start dieting and exercising. Uh, she's a hypocrite according to you?

It's not hypocrisy. It's a failure of self-control. If you fail at something but claimed that you haven't failed, THAT's hypocrisy. As far as I know, he has taken responsibility for his personal failings.

Why not trash Rush's conservative ideas rather than his personal failings? Bill Clinton, on the other hand, had both failed ideas AND failed character. He's easy to trash.

Excellent post!

I don't suspect you'll get much intelligent response from the liberal detractors though.

 

[MouseWorshipin]

The problem is that some people are making an exception for Rush because he claims he took the drugs for physical pain and that some how that makes his illegal procuring of drugs ok. But, accoding to Rush and his sycophants, someone who who is addicted to a non-prescrition drug is bad and deserves to be put in jail. It not the illegality of your drug and actions that make you bad, its what type of drug and why you are claiming you took it in the first place.

Get it?

This is also know as : HYPOCRISY

The thing is that many people who take this drug for years and years end up addicted...through no choice or fault of their own. For many people, there is a distinction between those folks and the people who just take it because they like it. Personally, I feel very bad for anyone with any addiction, and wish them all the best in recovery attempts.

My Rush listenings are few and far between. So, I don't know what he says, and I don't much care about his outcome. I'll leave you all alone to say He's the greatest/He's the worst.

There is a lot of prejudice among doctors and nurses against those who become addicted to pain killers. They'd rather have them in pain than addicted to pain pills. And it bugs me a lot. There are attempts to change it, but they are falling on deaf ears. So, it is kind of an issue of mine that I can spout off about on the internet, where I don't in real life.

Thanks for listening.

 

[Kendra17]

You are basically telling liberals to give Rush the compassionate treatment that liberals have always prescribed for petty drug offenders. The problem with your point is that ol' Rush has for years called us fools and soft on crime and part of the problem, etc, and now that he has been caught...we are somehow supposed to say, "Hey brother, I feel your pain"...please...

Noone is saying that Rush should be locked up forever...Rush himself said that people like him should be punished harsher...we are simply pointing out that the blowhard is a fool who despite his bluster has been shown to be a hypocritical *******...that is all...so save your "No, you liberals are the hypocrites" arguement...it makes you look silly...

You have to put this in a context. A professional public person, known for his strong political views, getting addicted to painkillers as a response to intense physical pain is a very different situation from the heroin addict or alcoholic that kills someone on the highway, or the oxycontin street addict that kills the pharmacist. It's on a different scale, entirely.

It's clear that the left is totally unable to engage Limbaugh and people like him effectively on the issues alone. Rush's drug problem is like a gift from God to the left. Because they can't defeat his arguments intellectually, the left uses this drug issue as the ONLY tool with which they can attempt to successfully undermine Rush. He remains-- even after his drug problem-- the biggest (no pun intended) radio personality in the country. His influence on politics and culture is significant. And, THAT's why you folks are in such a snit. You don't give a dang about this individual's pain or struggles with addiction.

You claim to have the market sewn up and cornered on compassion, yet you have none for those who don't tow your line and don't agree with your political views. Folks who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[LukenDC]

His influence on politics and culture is significant. QUOTE]


His influence on politics and culture WAS significant. Rush could be a case study in over-marketing oneself. Martha Stewart, take heed.

 

[chobie]

The thing is that many people who take this drug for years and years end up addicted...through no choice or fault of their own. For many people, there is a distinction between those folks and the people who just take it because they like it. Personally, I feel very bad for anyone with any addiction, and wish them all the best in recovery attempts.

My Rush listenings are few and far between. So, I don't know what he says, and I don't much care about his outcome. So, I'll leave you all alone to say He's the greatest/He's the worst.

There is a lot of prejudice among doctors and nurses against those who become addicted to pain killers. They'd rather have them in pain than addicted to pain pills. And it bugs me a lot. There are attempts to change it, but they are falling on deaf ears. So, it is kind of an issue of mine that I can spout off about on the internet, where I don't in real life.

Thanks for listening.

How you become addicted may make one more or less likely to sympathize with your plight. Rush, however, made no distincition when he condemned all drug addicts and wished harsh prison sentences on them. And how one becomes addicted should not bear on the sentence one gets for illegally procuring drugs (or getting your housekeeper to illegally procure them).

Also this comparison between street drugs and prescription drugs is specious. As Cardaway pointed out, many people take street drugs for pain also. And whether a person first took a drug legally, does not change the fact that they later took it illegally. Rush could have sought treatment for his addiction rather than doctor shopping. He chose to break the law and by his own standards should get a stiff sentence.

I do agree with you that is is absurd that doctors would rather people suffer in pain then become addicted to drugs, and that would make a good subject for another thread. But this one is about Rush's hypocrisy, which is unrefuted.