Rush Busted Again!

Maybe his increasing legal bills will force him to go on welfare. Again.

I love how he fulminates against drug users and welfare recipients, yet has been both a drug user and a welfare recipient himself.
 
Art Vandelay said:
To be fair, he broke the law after becoming addicted, as opposed to most drug users.
Click to expand...
Super-duper special pleading for Rush. Somehow I don't picture Rush looking for ways to be fair to addicts before his sins became public. Let's be fair to Jimmy Swaggart ... Afterall wasn't he already addicted to sex before he started banging ugly-ass hookers?
 
Yes, he was not busted again. He worked a deal to go to rehab and have the original charges dropped in a few months. That is not "busted again" that is the end of the current issue. I know this because I'm holding the story right here in my formerly oxycontin stained fingers.
 
hgc said:
Super-duper special pleading for Rush.
Click to expand...
How is that special pleading? He was prescribed pain medication. He trusted his doctors' judgment about what was an appropriate amount of medication, and he got addicted anyway. That's clearly different from most drug addicts. Are you seriously claiming that using morphine under a doctor's supervision is no different from smoking crack?

The "he wouldn't be fair to others, so we shouldn't be fair with him" argument doesn't wash with me. Just because they're being dishonest doesn't mean we should be.
 
Art Vandelay said:
How is that special pleading? He was prescribed pain medication. He trusted his doctors' judgment about what was an appropriate amount of medication, and he got addicted anyway. That's clearly different from most drug addicts. Are you seriously claiming that using morphine under a doctor's supervision is no different from smoking crack?

The "he wouldn't be fair to others, so we shouldn't be fair with him" argument doesn't wash with me. Just because they're being dishonest doesn't mean we should be.
Click to expand...
I want very much to be fair to Rush. I said you special-pleaded because I think you bent over backwards to find a way to distinguish between Rush and "most" drug addicts. I can't think of any reason that the law should distinguish between law-breakers in this way.

My complaint against Rush is not that he's a drug addict or that he obtained his drugs illegally (the only choice for most addicts). My complaint is that he's an unapologetic hypocrite.

As for what happened to Rush at the hands of the law, I think it's a gross case of prosecutorial overreaching. When they moved to sieze his medical records 2 years ago, I came out against it, and I even predicted in these forums that the ACLU would side with Rush too, which they did 2 days later.

Funny how the right-wing noise machine is busy dinging the ACLU anyway... See how Tucker Carlson asks
Where's all the -- I'm dead serious. Where is the ACLU? Where is all the -- the chorus of the anti-drug people, and I'm on their side, the anti-drug-law people, because I actually don't like drug laws that much....

But why aren't they standing up for Rush Limbaugh? They're not standing up for him because they think he's a right-wing creep. That's why.
Click to expand...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605020013
Is he forgetful or just lying?
 
manny said:
Reason number 10 million not to trust the first headline to cross the tape. It was part of the settlement of earlier charges.
Click to expand...

I was going to point this out, but you already got to it. I think the deal is pretty fair, too.

Even if Rush doesn't think others should be treated fairly, I would treat him fairly anyway. After all, my treatment of him isn't about *his* character, it's about *my* character.
 
hgc said:
I said you special-pleaded because I think you bent over backwards to find a way to distinguish between Rush and "most" drug addicts.
Click to expand...
You're simply restating your premise, rather than explaining it. Why do you think that I was bending over backwards?

I can't think of any reason that the law should distinguish between law-breakers in this way.
Click to expand...
There's a rather big difference between freely deciding to break the law, and breaking the law because you're in intense pain. Furthermore, this isn't about whether the law should distinguish, but whether we should.

When they moved to sieze his medical records 2 years ago,
Click to expand...
That's "seize".
:p

Is he forgetful or just lying?
Click to expand...
It's quite possible he didn't hear about it. I don't remember hearing about it.
 
Art Vandelay said:
You're simply restating your premise, rather than explaining it. Why do you think that I was bending over backwards?

There's a rather big difference between freely deciding to break the law, and breaking the law because you're in intense pain. Furthermore, this isn't about whether the law should distinguish, but whether we should.
Click to expand...
My point is that whether a person became addicted to legally prescribed drugs and then acquires them illegally or becomes addicted under other circumstances is and ought to be irrelevant to the treatment under law for the crimes of illegally seeking drugs. So, no meaningful distinction there. I also am of the opinion that there is no other meaningful distinction in the moral turpitude of an illegal drug user based on the circumstances of addiction acquisition. Many circumstances of how a person becomes addicted, legal or not, can rightly be solicitous of our understanding and sympathy. Rush gave no quarter to drug addicts before we all found out about him.

That's just my opinion, in counter to yours. Nothing to prove.

That's "seize".
:p
Click to expand...
I'm a bad speller. :o

It's quite possible he didn't hear about it. I don't remember hearing about it.
Click to expand...
Who knows. I just wanted to yell at him.
 
hgc said:
My point is that whether a person became addicted to legally prescribed drugs and then acquires them illegally or becomes addicted under other circumstances is and ought to be irrelevant to the treatment under law for the crimes of illegally seeking drugs.
Click to expand...

In any event, the probability that Rush Limbaugh accidentally got addicted to prescription painkillers when they were legitimately prescribed has a probability about the order of magnitude that Hillary Clinton is having an affair with George W. Bush.

Let's look at the evidence:

1) 2000 tablets in six months. That's a level at which even the acetominophen can be liver-toxic. Does not happen unless it's been going on for a long time.

2) His hearing loss, suggestive at least of really heavy use for a long time.

3) His bragging that he could play golf in the afternoons 365 days a year. Not something that any physician will say you can do with a lower back problem.

No, it's basically not possible to get addicted without abusing the drugs and knowing that you are abusing the drugs.

I have some experience with opiates. I had three bouts of acute pancreatitis and a cholycystectomy. When you go into the ER with pancreatitis, they run to get the morpheine. It's that bad. This is not a lower-back problem that doesn't even prevent you from playing golf. I think I had maybe 150 or 200 hydrocodones during that period, some of which, I'll admit, I bought online, because my physician was reluctant to give me more. Even that level might have been a bit excessive. But I had no problem whatsoever stopping.

No, you don't get addicted like that in the first place, unless you're doc-shopping for Dr. Feelgood, which is illegal in Florida. It does not happen.

It's a sop which worked, because he can afford good attorneys, and dittoheads will snarf it up for free, because that's what they do. And I'd rather have him in rehabilitation than costing the taxpayers money in jail. But the idea that poor widdwe Wimbaugh just accidentally got addicted and only then broke the law is such a steaming, stinking pile of dung that anyone who entertains the notion for 30 seconds automatically gives up the right to be taken seriously ever again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom