Investigation against Rush ends

[jillian]

Diuretic Wrote:


I agree with you on most of this...however I see the whole Rush-Drug topic more interesting from the standpoint of how people are reacting to it.

If the left had come out to say - now would be an excellent time to point out why the "Drug War" is an abyssmal failure I would be right with them.

Instead, they used their time to make coke-snorting jokes about a person with - as you put it - a health issue. This doesn't make them look like anything put petty, spoiled children...which is something they are going to have to overcome.

I agree that the "drug war" is stupidity. Decriminalize drugs, get rid of the incentive for gangs to use weapons to protect drug turf. No more illegal gun problem, so everyone can stop fussing about the issue.

But I always wonder why people on the right expect people on the left to be magnanimous to those who've abused them. Might not be nice, but to be expected. And Rush is one of the worst offenders. So yeah...might be a bit of schadenfreud in seeing him squirm. (Though like I said, he got a walk for all intents and purposes).

 

[dilloduck]

I agree that the "drug war" is stupidity. Decriminalize drugs, get rid of the incentive for gangs to use weapons to protect drug turf. No more illegal gun problem, so everyone can stop fussing about the issue.

But I always wonder why people on the right expect people on the left to be magnanimous to those who've abused them. Might not be nice, but to be expected. And Rush is one of the worst offenders. So yeah...might be a bit of schadenfreud in seeing him squirm. (Though like I said, he got a walk for all intents and purposes).

Shadendfreud !!! Ach du Lieber !!!

 

[jillian]

Shadendfreud !!! Ach du Lieber !!!

yah, liebchen.... one of my favorite words. Heh!

 

[dilloduck]

yah, liebchen.... one of my favorite words. Heh!

you damm non-english speaker

 

[jillian]

you damm non-english speaker

lol...I think I almost exhausted my knowledge of German words. :teeth:

 

[dilloduck]

lol...I think I almost exhausted my knowledge of German words. :teeth:

ohhhhh and I was just getting to love you using Kraut on me !

 

[MissileMan]

Sorry Jillian, but it just sounds like you don't like what Rush has to say and cant actually deal with it with any sort of intelligent resposne. So you have to take previous statements out of context and attack Rush for critisizing illegal drug use, when he has never had a problem with illegal drugs hasn't even done anything inconsistant with his legal drug addiction.

There's nothing legal about obtaining prescription meds under false pretenses and abusing them. If it were legal, they couldn't have charged him with anything and he wouldn't have had to enter into a plea agreement.

Rush didn't just bash those addicted to illegal drugs either, notice he was also knocking alcoholics. I happen to think that his statement was closer to the truth than HE will NOW admit.

If Rush is a hypocrite. find me statements where he has said that he couldn't help it? Where has he used his genetic disposition as an excuse for his drug problem? if you can't then your argument is inconsistant.

As for him not accepting a deal if he wasn't guilty, that is utterly ridiculous. He has a number of reasons for why he wants to end the investigation that has nothing to do with the whether he is guilty or not. The DA has been targeting him for two years. If someone was harassing you for two years trying to malign your name and you could get rid of it for a paltry fine or have to deal with another year or two of investigation, youd probably pick the fine too. You get to the point where you just dont want to deal with this crap anymore.

The DA on the other has no reason to make the deal unless he has no case. Just the fact that its a high profile case would make the DA pursue it if there was any legitimate reason to. I know I sure as heck wouldnt have made a deal on such a high profile case if i had evidence to support it.

Looking from the perspective of both sides just on a standpoint of human nature, the DA has no self interest served in making a deal if he has the evidence to puruse. Rush has tons of self interest reasons to make a deal even if he is completely innocent.

Its called legal extortion. and its riduclous that anyone cant see whats obvious.

If you think that someone with his resources would take a plea if he were really innocent, you're more naive than I took you for.

 

[Emmett]

Charges against Limbaugh dismissed

You know, its good to see that that stupid investigation is dropped, but it's a travesty to know that he now has to pay thousands of dollars because a prosecutor trumped up charges to begin with.

I Gotta tell you Avatar, on this one I think you got it wrong. Imagine how many young conservatives listen to Rush in this country. Many I'm sure. Rush has his pants down here. When he came back from Rehab he assured the public he had whipped the problem.

Rush has gotton addicted to pain killers, no doubt. He has made some pretty striking statements about drug dependency in the past. Rush is an embarrasment right now.

Lets say that the subject was a well known libby instead of Rush. You and I know he would be on em like blue on sky. Rush, my friend, is an addict. There is no way to spin it!

 

[Avatar4321]

There's nothing legal about obtaining prescription meds under false pretenses and abusing them. If it were legal, they couldn't have charged him with anything and he wouldn't have had to enter into a plea agreement.

Rush didn't just bash those addicted to illegal drugs either, notice he was also knocking alcoholics. I happen to think that his statement was closer to the truth than HE will NOW admit.

false pretenses? If you get addicted to pain killers you do so because you continue to feel the pain when you aren't taking them. Those are legitimate reason to obtain them.

And innocent people get charged all the time and have to enter pleas when they don't violate the law. Your argument is just ridiculous. If you only had to enter a plea if you violated the law, there would be no point to a trial because by entering a plea you would have proven your guilt.

If you think that someone with his resources would take a plea if he were really innocent, you're more naive than I took you for.

Can't counter the argument so you have to insult me? Mature man. There are a number of reasons for Rush to accept a plea that don't involve guilt.

1)Convenience. He pleads not guilty and the charges are getting dropped and he only has to pay $30,000. v. dragging the issue out for the next few years at considerable cost to get the same result.

2)He could be simply tired of being harassed by the DA and willing to make a deal just to make it end.

3)He gets to deny the DA of further showboating off his name.

4)He wants to move on with his life.

Heck there are number of reasons Rush would be willing to take a deal other than he is afraid he will be convicted.

But can you name me a single solitary reason the DA would drop a high profile case if he had the evidence to convict?

If you are going to disagree. Then atleast do so for a valid reason. Dont insult my intelligence. Because quite honestly, you have provided little analysis at all to the situation.

 

[Avatar4321]

I Gotta tell you Avatar, on this one I think you got it wrong. Imagine how many young conservatives listen to Rush in this country. Many I'm sure. Rush has his pants down here. When he came back from Rehab he assured the public he had whipped the problem.

Rush has gotton addicted to pain killers, no doubt. He has made some pretty striking statements about drug dependency in the past. Rush is an embarrasment right now.

Lets say that the subject was a well known libby instead of Rush. You and I know he would be on em like blue on sky. Rush, my friend, is an addict. There is no way to spin it!

Then provide the striking statements Rush made about drug dependency. Because the only statements that have been provided state:

1)Drug dealers should be prosecuted. Rush hasnt been accused of selling drugs. Nor is he wrong.

2)Saying you "cant help yourself" and "its genetic" are not valid excuses. Rush used neither as an excuse. In fact, he never made any excuse for his drug problem. He said he had a problem, and got help. And you know what? He is right. Saying you can't help yourself isn't a valid excuse. Because we are human beings. We have the power to determine what we can or cannot do. Even with addictions. We can choose not to. It might be hard as heck to beat it, but you can still make the choice.

BTW, no one is saying he wasn't addicted. All I am saying is

1)The prosecution had no case against him for Doctor shopping, which is what he was investigated for. Or they wouldn't have considered a deal.

2)Rush's statements are not inconsistant, and even if they were, they wouldnt be invalid because his statements are correct.

 

[Gem]

jillian wrote:

But I always wonder why people on the right expect people on the left to be magnanimous to those who've abused them. Might not be nice, but to be expected. And Rush is one of the worst offenders. So yeah...might be a bit of schadenfreud in seeing him squirm. (Though like I said, he got a walk for all intents and purposes).

I'm not looking for people on the left to be magnanimous, jillian, they never have been able to manage that.

But if you can't see that the DNC chairman, a doctor, making cocaine sniffing jokes about a man's addiction to oxycontin at a national conference is inappropriate and digusting....then I think we need to drop the conversation, you're beyond all hope.

It's natural to get a chuckle when someone you dislike reveals what you feel is hypocrisy. Its another matter all together to reach the level of orgasmic glee some on the left felt when this man admitted he had a problem.

 

[MissileMan]

false pretenses? If you get addicted to pain killers you do so because you continue to feel the pain when you aren't taking them. Those are legitimate reason to obtain them.

Going to 4 or 5 different doctors to obtain 4 or 5 prescriptions for the same medicine for the same time period is illegal. There have been studies that show the risk for addiction of people who are genuinely in pain is very low, even when taking very strong medications.

And innocent people get charged all the time and have to enter pleas when they don't violate the law. Your argument is just ridiculous. If you only had to enter a plea if you violated the law, there would be no point to a trial because by entering a plea you would have proven your guilt.

I'm talking about plea agreements, not pleas. In this case, Rush has entered a plea of not guilty to a single remaining charge of doctor shopping. The DA is giving him a huge break by not pursuing it any further and dropping the charges if Rush stays clean. This arrangement was greased with the $30K that Rush has agreed to reimburse the state for the investigation.

Can't counter the argument so you have to insult me? Mature man. There are a number of reasons for Rush to accept a plea that don't involve guilt.

1)Convenience. He pleads not guilty and the charges are getting dropped and he only has to pay $30,000. v. dragging the issue out for the next few years at considerable cost to get the same result.

2)He could be simply tired of being harassed by the DA and willing to make a deal just to make it end.

3)He gets to deny the DA of further showboating off his name.

4)He wants to move on with his life.

Heck there are number of reasons Rush would be willing to take a deal other than he is afraid he will be convicted.

But can you name me a single solitary reason the DA would drop a high profile case if he had the evidence to convict?

If you are going to disagree. Then atleast do so for a valid reason. Dont insult my intelligence. Because quite honestly, you have provided little analysis at all to the situation.

BULLSHIT! Innocent people don't make deals...especially if they have the means to fight, and Rush has plenty of means.

 

[jillian]

I'm not looking for people on the left to be magnanimous, jillian, they never have been able to manage that.

*They* haven't? You keep saying things like that when the Rush Limbaugh School of Debate has set the tone for the last two decades. Gee...let's talk about magnanimity.

But if you can't see that the DNC chairman, a doctor, making cocaine sniffing jokes about a man's addiction to oxycontin at a national conference is inappropriate and digusting....then I think we need to drop the conversation, you're beyond all hope.

Don't much like the DNC chair either....But what I find way more disgusting is Rush's hypocrisy.

It's natural to get a chuckle when someone you dislike reveals what you feel is hypocrisy. Its another matter all together to reach the level of orgasmic glee some on the left felt when this man admitted he had a problem.

Admitted he had a problem??? Admitted? Yeah...after he became the subject of a police probe.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/

As for orgasmic glee? Why? Because one thinks he's fair game? What do you think Rush's rants would have sounded like if it were Dean or Hillary or Nancy Pelosi who got busted for hillbilly heroin?

 

[Gem]

jillian wrote:
Quote:

*They* haven't? You keep saying things like that when the Rush Limbaugh School of Debate has set the tone for the last two decades. Gee...let's talk about magnanimity.

Yes, "they," Jillian...people who seem to think it is ok to lower the tone of political debate for their own means and when someone calls them on it they immediately fall back on "well, HE did it, so I can." A DNC chairperson is not a talkshow host. Neither is a senator, a president, etc. The fact that you equate them is interesting to me, however. So in your mind the fact that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Al Franken, or Michael Moore says something inflammatory that the people in charge of making policy decisions or representing the constituents who elected them should sink to their level in response? Gee...perhaps I'm idealistic, but I had a bit more hope for our elected and representitive officials.

Don't much like the DNC chair either....But what I find way more disgusting is Rush's hypocrisy.

The DNC chair represents millions of Democrats and is the key face/voice in convincing Independents and Republicans that the Democrats message is the one they should be supporting...yet he can't get over his, YES, orgasmic glee at the idiocy of one radio host that most Americans have never listened to? Give me a break...if you aren't more upset and disgusted by the fact that our politicians can't behave more maturely than an overweight child with a microphone then we really are beyond all hope...

Admitted he had a problem??? Admitted? Yeah...after he became the subject of a police probe.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/

I have never stated that Limbaugh was a saint. Of course he hid his problem. My god, he wasn't Ozzy Ozbourne or one of his children who talked a damn good game on their tv show about how drugs were bad and they wouldnt use them - only to all get hooked on oxycontin, which they were taking for recreational purposes, not to treat pain. He wasn't Robert Downey, Jr. who has been arrested so many times and given so many breaks it isn't even a punchline anymore, but still manages to get out of jail in order to shoot a tv show, he isn't a left-wing celebrity who will receive the understanding and forgiveness of the left...he's a right-wing pundit who (GASP) stated that people should not do drugs and when they do shouldn't blame their addiction on a bad childhood. Wow...I can't imagine for a second why he was hiding that problem...I mean, afterall...he was treated so well by the police who tried to violate his civil rights so egregiously that the ACLU had to come in on his defense...

Come on, Jillian...no one here, no one, is arguing in defense of Limbaugh's addiction or the way he handled it. What we are saying for the most part is a) it is different from someone getting addicted to crystal meth because they wanted to get high (apparently the left understands grey areas and nuance only when it applies to one of their own?) and b) the absolute giddiness of people on the left looks a bit sleezy and hypocritical in its own right

As for orgasmic glee? Why? Because one thinks he's fair game? What do you think Rush's rants would have sounded like if it were Dean or Hillary or Nancy Pelosi who got busted for hillbilly heroin?

This goes back to my original point. I find it absolutely terrifying that you compare Rush Limbaugh to Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, or Howard Dean. Those people are/were elected politicians who have a duty to serve this country and their constituents. They are representive officials - Limbaugh is a radio talk show host.

Now, you have given him a whole lot more power than most people on the right do...but that isn't surprising. You also take Coulter far more seriously than people on the right do...they just read her for a chuckle...the same people who couldn't go ten seconds without a Limbaugh joke are the ones who need to throw pies at Coulter because they disagree with her opinions.

If Clinton, Pelosi, or Dean came out and admitted a drug problem...I'd be thrilled that they had to step out of their positions. I think they are all dangerous and I would welcome better people into their positions. Would I be gleeful about their problem? Nah....I've got better things to do with my time.

 

[Gunny]

Avatar4321

You know, its good to see that that stupid investigation is dropped, but it's a travesty to know that he now has to pay thousands of dollars because a prosecutor trumped up charges to begin with.

When someone uses the term "trumped up charges", it make me believe they lean towards somebody being innocent....

Wow. I didn't see Avatar's opinion printed in the article. Guess I need to go back and look again.

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

...We are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks, especially of crime, in too many parts of the country.... This country certainly appears to be tolerant, forgive and forget. I mean, you know as well as I do, you go out and commit the worst murder in the world and you just say you're sorry, people go, "Oh, OK. A little contrition."... People say, "I feel better. He said he's sorry for it." We're becoming too tolerant, folks.

--Rush Limbaugh TV show (10/5/95)

These tough sentencing laws were instituted for a reason. The American people, including liberals, demanded them. Don't you remember the crack cocaine epidemic? Crack babies and out-of-control murder rates? Liberal judges giving the bad guys slaps on the wrist? Finally we got tough, and the crime rate has been falling ever since, so what's wrong?

--RushLimbaugh.com (8/18/03)

In the audio link below, I go into detail about these non-thinking talking points that "you can't tell people what to do with their bodies" and "you can't legislate morality." First of all, we tell people what they can do to their bodies all the time--no cocaine, no prostitution, no throwing yourself off a building. Second, laws are nothing but defining morality!

--RushLimbaugh.com (6/27/03)

All right. Joe Fernandez came to New York from Miami, ladies and gentlemen, to be schools chancellor.... Now he is embattled--he's got a book that just came out, an autobiography that's soon to come out, I think, in which he admits that he was a mainliner as a teen-ager. This guy [pretends to stick needle in arm]--pfsst--shot up heroin. And people are praising him. He overcame the scourge. He triumphed over that profound obstacle in his life and has gone on to become this great schools chancellor.... [Plays a clip of Fernandez saying that the message of his teenage drug use is "to not give up on our kids."]

Reach out and try to help them, not give up on the kids, give them condoms and teach them about a bunch of stuff that is worthless in terms of preparing them for their future as adults in the greatest country on Earth, teaching them all this social gobbledygook. "Let's not forget about the kids."...

Whoa. The guy wants to be education secretary, folks. Watch out. Now why does he want to go to Washington? Probably because he's studied the case of Marion Barry. Here's a guy who got involved in drugs. You want to see my Marion Barry impersonation? Do you want to see that? All right. I'll do the Marion Barry impersonation.

You put some stuff out here on the table and you go [pretends to snort cocaine]. "You tell Jesse to stay out of my town. This is my town, and Jesse--you tell him to stay out. [More snorting.] And I said no, no, no, no, I don't smoke it no more. Tired of ending up on the floor." [More snorting.]

So what is he? He gets involved in drugs and ends up, ladies and gentlemen, as a newly elected official in Washington, D.C.... So I'm sure Joe Fernandez is looking down there saying, "Hey, there's a future for, you know, drug users in Washington, D.C."

--Rush Limbaugh TV show (12/8/92)

When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia destroyed his life on drugs. And yet he's being honored, like some godlike figure. Our priorities are out of whack, folks.

--Rush Limbaugh radio show (quoted in the L.A. Times, 8/20/95)

I want to let you read along with me a quote from Jerry Colangelo about substance abuse, and I think you'll find that he's very much right…"I know every expert in the world will disagree with me, but I don't buy into the disease part of it. The first time you reach for a substance you are making a choice. Every time you go back, you are making a personal choice. I feel very strongly about that."...

What he's saying is that if there's a line of cocaine here, I have to make the choice to go down and sniff it….And his point is that we are rationalizing all this irresponsibility and all the choices people are making and we're blaming not them, but society for it. All these Hollywood celebrities say the reason they're weird and bizarre is because they were abused by their parents. So we're going to pay for that kind of rehab, too, and we shouldn't. It's not our responsibility. It's up to the people who are doing it. And Colangelo is right.

--Rush Limbaugh TV show (9/23/93)

I have a solution for Mrs. [Jocelyn] Elders. I mean, if she wants to legalize drugs, send the people who want to do drugs to London and Zurich and let's be rid of them. Now...The problem with legalizing drugs is, it's just another abhorrent example of human behavior that we've suddenly decided, "Hey, we can't handle it. We've given up and we're going to sanction the destruction of lives. We're going to let you destroy your life. We're going to make it easy, on drugs--we'll pay for whatever messes you get into."...

I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say, "Hey, you know, we can't control it anymore. People are going to do drugs anyway. Let's legalize it." It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea, and those who are for it are purely, 100 percent selfish.

--Rush Limbaugh TV show (12/9/93)

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1159

btw, fair enough re politicians vs. commentators. wonder how compassionate Rush and the rest of you would have been if it had been Al Franken

 

[Gunny]

It "ended" because Rush entered into a plea deal, not because they didn't find anything. He wouldn't have entered into a plea deal if they didn't have him dead to rights on prescription fraud.

The point and key word here is "ended."

You know what? I DO take Rush seriously because he has so many listeners who take what he says seriously. And I think he's lowered the level of debate in this country to where many people are incapable of having civil discussion any longer.

Liberal BS. WHO exactly are these "listeners" that take Rush seriously. I keep hearing about them, but have yet to meet one. More than likely, they are the same people who think professional wrestling is real.

I WILL say this however .... I don't necessarily disagree with his opinion, just the extremist way he puts it across. At the same time, no one has made him Chairman of the Republican Party. Apparently extremism is only a disqualifier for Republicans/conservatives.

I call it the Rush Limbaugh School of Debate. You've seen it. It's where some people on the right snarl the word "liberal" and tell everyone who disagrees with them that they are morons.

One-sided. Liberals do the EXACT same thing.

And I have to agree with a comment I saw -- just don't recall who made it -- if Rush was a Democrap he'd be doing the talk show circuit beign held up as a courageous individual addicted to painkillers because they were prescribed to him, and being unjustly singled out for his celebrity and politics.

 

[dilloduck]

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1159

btw, fair enough re politicians vs. commentators. wonder how compassionate Rush and the rest of you would have been if it had been Al Franken

PSSSSSSSSSST, Jillian. There is no civil discussion going on anywhere!

 

[Gunny]

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1159

btw, fair enough re politicians vs. commentators. wonder how compassionate Rush and the rest of you would have been if it had been Al Franken

In regard to the topic at hand, I would view Franken in exactly the same manner.

The fact that he is a liberal hack, liar and idiot is a completely separate topic.

 

[Dr Grump]

Wow. I didn't see Avatar's opinion printed in the article. Guess I need to go back and look again.

Where in my original post that you are referring to was I referring to the article?