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?
"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.
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.
Great Post!!!