Posted on 10/03/2003 11:47:50 AM PDT by snooker
A lot of this drugs and Rush stuff isn't adding up for me. So let me try out a theory here.
Read this on http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.html
If true it gives insight to the behind the scenes goings on.
Note that the two were running a Palm Beach-area pharmacy.
Now, what if Rush were a legitimate customer of the pharmacy these two owned. Just happened this way. With me so far?
So the maid may have been picking up Rush's legitimate prescriptions all along. So if anyone asked, she just says these are for Rush. Cool cover story for the maid/pusher who might get caught with the drugs eh?
OK lets say these two pharmacy owners were doing what is alleged on the smoking gun site, selling these pills on the black market. Well how do they cover their tracks at audit time? Simple. Rush is a customer. So they simply credit the excess purchases to his account. Why Rush's account? They assume that if anyone wants Rush's medical records he will resist with legal means. Might be why Rush is accused of buying enough of these pills to kill a horse ... hmmmm.
Neat scam we have here. All is fine until the cops start moving in. Then trouble. The maid might have been a pusher who was taking the excess "Rush pills" and selling them, not to Rush but anyone who wanted them. So Rush was part of the cover story for the dealers/pushers.
Now add this tidbit ... I remember Rush on-air several times saying he does not bill his insurance company for drug expenses, he just pays cash for them. He admitted to not keeping records of his drug purchases nor did he total it up for taxes at year end. So Rush was an accidental sitting duck for the scam.
So now Rush goes on the air. Says he doesn't know what is going on. Assume what Rush says is true for the moment and all else begins to make sense.
Curious don't you think.
comments???
Because he has not been accused of such a thing.
What evidence do you have that he is not getting illegal drugs.
No one can prove a negative. Don't you know that?
If this was a Democrat you and I would be on the same side if the Sherrifs department and major news outlets were reporting the same info.
No. Not true. As an electrical engineer, I am a slave to reason and proof. I don't jump to conclusions.
Never, ever, ever deny something you have not been accused of.
Watch--let's you and me play a silly game so I can show you how the smear game works:
"I have it on good authority that you are associated with shagging a sheep."
(Now respond to me)
I never had sex with that sheep. Did you while you were blacked out on pain meds?
Today, Rush said exactly NOTHING about his alleged illegal drug use.
Draw what conclusions you may.
I would think he would give the same advice if Rush was INNOCENT.
Evidently you can't deductively draw a conclusion either.
That is an accusation. That I can deny, but I have to deny it in full and without doubt:
"I did not have sexual relations with that ewe, you!"
(Not a good denial, I'll try again)
"I have never shagged a sheep while on pain pills or otherwise. I would not shag a goat on a boat. I would not shag a ewe in a queue. I would not shag a ram on a dam. Sam I am."
Oh, didn't have sex with 'that' sheep! Then there must have been many, many others.
Headline in tomorrow's paper: "Nov3 Issues Tepid Denial in Sheep-Shagging Incident"
You've just been smeared. I never accused you of shagging a sheep. I simply said you were 'associated' with it.
Never, ever, ever deny something you are not accused of...
Just one and I was a minor! (I was however not stoned on 2 pain pills and two beers so I can remember)
don't give a darn about users, assuming Rush is one, but the Enquirer definitely does, assuming the user's name starts with Rush and ends with Limbaugh.
That's why the magazine article precedes the charges.
Lots of assssoooooooomin goin' on out dere, as Rush would no doubt say.
These guys are acting like some teenage girl when bad news comes out about a rock star or south central when OJ kills someone.
As far as 'deductive reasoning'. I'm very good at that, thats how I am unable to reach the conclusion that 'Rush is a pill popper' from the scant evidence we've seen.
If anything, the evidence points away from that fact.
Yeah right (wink wink nod nod). And you don't like narcotics! Yeah right.
Ha! Try this one on--I have never believed that the crappy LA prosecutors presented a case beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ was guilty.
I suspect based on the facts, that OJ did it, but I would have been unable to convict if I were on that jury.
Having that investigator Anderson break procedure by carrying around blood samples in his pants pocket to every crime scene instead of taking them to the lab was too much for me.
Let's have it arbiter, let's have it!!!!!!!
Eight, skate, rotate and donate NOW, Sir...
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.