Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America owes talk host Rush Limbaugh a debt of gratitude, Libertarians say
LP Press Release ^ | October 16, 2003 | Libertarian Party Press

Posted on 10/16/2003 10:48:07 AM PDT by noprob

The entire nation owes radio broadcaster Rush Limbaugh a debt of gratitude, Libertarians say, because his ordeal has exposed every drug warrior in America as a rank hypocrite.

"One thing we don't hear from American politicians very often is silence," said Joe Seehusen, Libertarian Party executive director. "By refusing to criticize Rush Limbaugh, every drug warrior has just been exposed as a shameless, despicable hypocrite.

"And that's good news, because the next time they do speak up, there'll be no reason for anyone to listen."

The revelation that Limbaugh had become addicted to painkillers -- drugs he is accused of procuring illegally from his Palm Beach housekeeper -- has caused a media sensation ever since the megastar's shocking, on-air confession last week.

As the Limbaugh saga continues, here's an important question for Americans to ask, Libertarians say: Why are all the drug warriors suddenly so silent?

"Republican and Democratic politicians have written laws that have condemned more than 400,000 Americans to prison for committing the same 'crime' as Rush Limbaugh," Seehusen pointed out. "If this pill-popping pontificator deserves a get-out-of-jail-free card, these drug warriors had better explain why."

Given their longstanding support for the Drug War, it's fair to ask:

Why haven't President George Bush or his tough-on-crime attorney general, John Ashcroft, uttered a word criticizing Limbaugh's law-breaking?

Why aren't drug czar John P. Walters or his predecessor, Barry McCaffrey, lambasting Limbaugh as a menace to society and a threat to "our children?"

Why aren't federal DEA agents storming Limbaugh's $30 million Florida mansion in a frantic search for criminal evidence?

Why haven't federal, state, and local police agencies seized the celebrity's homes and luxury cars under asset-forfeiture laws?

Finally, why aren't bloviating blabbermouths like William Bennett publicly explaining how America would be better off if Limbaugh were prosecuted, locked in a steel cage and forced to abandon his wife, his friends, and his career?

The answer is obvious, Seehusen said: "America's drug warriors are shameless hypocrites who believe in one standard of justice for ordinary Americans and another for themselves, their families and their political allies.

"That alone should completely discredit them."

But there's an even more disturbing possibility, Seehusen said: that the people who are prosecuting the Drug War don't even believe in its central premise -- which is that public safety requires that drug users be jailed.

"The Bushes and Ashcrofts and McCaffreys of the world may believe, correctly, that individuals fighting a drug addiction deserve medical, not criminal treatment," he said. "That would explain why they're not demanding that Limbaugh be jailed.

"But if that's the case, these politicians have spent decades tearing apart American families for their own political gain. And that's an unforgivable crime."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: abnorml; allaboutdope; bigllosers; dontbogartdope; doobydoobydoo; doperpressrelease; dopertarians; doublestandard; drugwar; drugwarriorfascists; drugwarriorreligion; drugworshippers; fanatics; fatfreddiescat; fatfreddy; franklin; freedope; gimmemyweed; giveusdope; gottahavemytoke; harryanslingersghost; hypocracy; hypocrites; ideologues; ididntinhale; imtoostonedtoread; imtoostonedtowrite; ineedmydope; itsallaboutdrugs; itsareligion; jackbootedthugs; jokerpapers; junkies; jusblowingsmoke; libertarian; libertarianreligion; libertarians; limbaugh; losertarians; lovablefuzzball; lpassclowns; maryjaneisabitch; mrnatural; mycauseisdope; needalife; ondcpsocialists; onenotejohnnies; onestringbanjo; onetrackminds; ourladyofthebuzz; ownsdoritosstock; passdeganjamon; passitoverdude; phineas; potheads; prisonrape; puritanhypocrites; rush; singleissueparty; socialengineering; theirrelevantparty; toohighforlogic; twofaced; victimlesscrime; wewantourdope; willneverwinanything; wodlist; yawwwwwwwn; zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 681-688 next last
To: ellery
Yeah, it seems kind of like the gun laws. The more laws, the more enforcement, the bigger the problem gets. Where will it end?
441 posted on 10/16/2003 8:57:34 PM PDT by Ches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson; Luis Gonzalez
"Ah, but the LP'ers believe Limbaugh should go to jail because he confessed to being addicted, and by logical extension (yes, I know, logical and LP don't go well together) he obviously broke the law getting his drugs...AND the National Enquirer says he broke the law."

No, that's where you're confused. In your rush to come to Limbaugh's defense, you falsely accuse those of us who agree with the LP's take on the wod of wanting Rush jailed on a National Enquirer article, while using the same article as proof he didn't break the law by acquiring controlled substances in an unlawful matter.

When the truth is, those of us against the WOD believe a man like Rush; a successful, wealthy, upstanding member of society. A man who spent much of his time in the public eye and always seemed sober as a church mouse, should have the right to buy as much medicine through his doctor as they deem neccessary, and on his own time, get as numb as he wants, untill his actions affect others.

Wih no dea restrictions on prescriptions, Rush wouldn't have been forced to obtain medicine from someone other than his doctor, who might have noticed Rush's addiction and convinced him to seek treatment.

On the other hand, the drug laws you pro-wod types champion is what's demanding Limbaugh do time if it's proven he commmited a federal offense by acquiring a schedule 2 controlled substance without a prescription. Regardless of whether he obtained them for pain or a buzz, a law is a law, right?

And in the five years Rush did those pain pills, I wonder how many times Rush drove while having that oxy in his system, breaking the dui drugs laws you pro-wod types champion. The law is for everybody, right?

If you were intellectually honest, you pro-wod types would admit to yourselves that you are the ones to blame for giving the leftist media all this ammo to bash Rush while us anti-wod types think it's nobody's business but Rush's and his doctor.

But no, like you do with the failed presidential campaigns of Bush1 and Dole, you blame the libertarians. You lash out by answering logical posts like mine and others by slinging the doper slur, while refusing to take the responsibilty of your posistions.

Just for fun, I'll post what I think the intellectually honest posistions should be side by side:

Anti-wod : Rush would be in no danger whatsoever of going to jail.

Pro-wod : If Rush was proven to be purchasing schedule two prescription narcotics from someone other than a lawful source, then he broke the laws I champion and should be prosecuted.

Do you agree with that?

442 posted on 10/16/2003 9:03:07 PM PDT by Vigilantcitizen (Habent amicae vestrae magnas clunes? (certe habent!) Hortamini igitur ut eas quatiant (ut quatiant!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
"The best way to repeal a bad law is to enforce it ruthlessly."

This is a famous quote. I have no idea if it's true. Do you know of any specific instances in recent times? It may be the most effective way but there are many sitting out mandatory minimum sentences who may argue it's not the best. The idea of enforcing it ruthlessly, including the powerful, is certainly a means of bringing the conversation to a meaningful level.

443 posted on 10/16/2003 9:05:50 PM PDT by Ches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Rush will come back more powerful than ever, because drugs don't affect you're actual "self". And he's an adult who knows right from wrong. He actually admitted wrong to 20 mil people in the last 5 minutes of his program, after spending 3 hours doing it. There is a strong sense of reality there that I would love to see in some people I knew in the past.
444 posted on 10/16/2003 9:06:06 PM PDT by BobS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
"Pray for Rush."

Agreed. Prayers for Rush.

445 posted on 10/16/2003 9:09:09 PM PDT by Vigilantcitizen (Habent amicae vestrae magnas clunes? (certe habent!) Hortamini igitur ut eas quatiant (ut quatiant!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: Vigilantcitizen
"Anti-wod : Rush would be in no danger whatsoever of going to jail.

"Pro-wod : If Rush was proven to be purchasing schedule two prescription narcotics from someone other than a lawful source, then he broke the laws I champion and should be prosecuted.

Interesting. But the evidence is long gone. And the subject has put himself into rehab for an acquired abuse due to failed surgery.

446 posted on 10/16/2003 9:11:20 PM PDT by BobS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The LP has done a lot of dumb things since 9/11.
447 posted on 10/16/2003 9:28:39 PM PDT by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: BobS
"Interesting. But the evidence is long gone."

Interesting. We don't know either way what the evidence is. That's how y'all defend his innocence.

"And the subject has put himself into rehab for an acquired abuse due to failed surgery."

After a national enquirer story everyone claimed was false, until Rush admitted being addicted.

Notice my pro wod argument started out with the word "if".

448 posted on 10/16/2003 9:32:14 PM PDT by Vigilantcitizen (Habent amicae vestrae magnas clunes? (certe habent!) Hortamini igitur ut eas quatiant (ut quatiant!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: nsmart
Equal protection...yet another Constitutional casualty. Sigh.
449 posted on 10/16/2003 9:35:05 PM PDT by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I see where he's made a somewhat similar assertion, in terms of what could happen. I don't find any explicit assertions of historical fact.
450 posted on 10/17/2003 4:36:22 AM PDT by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
He confessed to being addicted after being outted as having illegally purchased drugs. One can't admit to using illegal drugs and be "not guilty" of at least possession.

No, he didn't, and he was accused of being involved in an illegal act.

First off, if he had a perscription, the drugs WERE NOT ILLEGAL. We simply don't know what his involvement was with this woman. Remember who she's being represented by...

The simple fact is that he admitted to being addicted to perscription drugs, not that he has done anything illegal or wrong! Try to remember that an addiction to perscription pain killers happens easily, while controling chronic pain.

Mark

451 posted on 10/17/2003 4:51:59 AM PDT by MarkL (KC Chiefs: 6 - 0 !!! It's Raider-Haters week in KC!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
According to your logic, I'm no different than crack-addicts on the street. Or maybe, since it's related to steroids, then I'm as bad as body builders who "dope up."

My point is this: We cannot pretend to know what is best for an individual. It should be up to the individual to make the right decisions in their life, not the government to make those decisions for you.

We don't lock people up because they might do something bad, we lock them up WHEN they do something bad.

Crack addicts on the street, so long as they don't do any real harm to anyone but themselves, are no burdan to me. Same with steroids... Who cares if some dude wants to juice up, unless he throws that steroid rage on someone and punches them out, then lock them up.

People have lots of reasons why they should or should not take drugs. Were not children, we can make decisions on our own.

Actually I'm WAY more hostile towards Social Security, Medicade, and forced income tax. They could have the WOD if I got that control of my money back.

452 posted on 10/17/2003 5:05:52 AM PDT by noprob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
"First off, if he had a perscription, the drugs WERE NOT ILLEGAL."

Had he had prescription, he wou;d have already said so, he didn't.

You can politicize and hope all you want, but facing the truth will be Rush's only chance of getting through this.

not everything in the world is a conspiracy.

You need to try remembering that ANY addiction happens easily.

453 posted on 10/17/2003 5:06:07 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
Yes, they talk lofting ideals but when it comes down to it they turn into a one trick pony.
454 posted on 10/17/2003 5:08:47 AM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
I'm not denying anything.

Whats really sad is that you've become the owner of a boner over the fact the Rush is in trouble. You'll believe anything - even the National Inquirer - as long as it has a negative spin on Rush.

Post 414 provides better information that your new favorite news source. Its not much, but it suggests a pattern in that region close to Rush's Florida residence.
455 posted on 10/17/2003 5:10:39 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Vigilantcitizen
"Just for fun, I'll post what I think the intellectually honest posistions should be side by side..."

But you presume there is an actual intellectually honest side to the LP. As with your other presumptions, that is where the LP comes up seriously lacking.

456 posted on 10/17/2003 5:10:49 AM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: noprob
"Burn a fatty not the flag"-funniest T-shirt I have ever seen.
457 posted on 10/17/2003 5:12:41 AM PDT by mrmargaritaville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
It is economically wrong, socially wrong and morally wrong.

And I believe the exact opposite. Making drugs legal does grave damage to all three areas you mentioned.

People want and need boundaries.

458 posted on 10/17/2003 5:25:07 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
LOL!
459 posted on 10/17/2003 5:25:13 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Lx
Think this is an isolated incident? Not hardly, meth destroys lives and entire families and I have no problems forcing my values on someone by making it illegal.

Your right meth is a hard drug. I have to ask though, what would have throwing this mother or dad in jail have helped?

BTW, I have also seen first hand what damage it can do.. The person I saw, did lose his "normal" life, and eventually did get sent to jail, only county jail.

As soon as he was released, he spent a few weeks apologizing and trying to come clean, but then lost it again.

It's tragic, but treatment is the only thing that could help these people, jail doesn't. The WOD doesn't..

460 posted on 10/17/2003 5:26:55 AM PDT by noprob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 681-688 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson