Replies

We're all dancing around the elephant in the room, trying to ignore it AGAIN! Welcome to the war on drugs. That's where the $10,000 limit and the structuring nonsense come from. And once again we have the shocked voices of people crying foul because the rules of the drug war can be selectively applied...DUH! This is the point in the thread where the ass-clowns come in and start with the 'Loserdopian' BS...when someone points to the damned big-ass elephant in the room and says "hey, there's your problem...quit ignoring it!" It's not about the drugs...never has been, never will be. It's about power and control. Rush was probably not doing anything illegal with the money he was taking out of the bank. Just like I wasn't either with the cash that I bought a used car with last year. It was none of the government's damn business until they cooked up this BS war on drugs as an excuse to violate the privacy of as many people as humanly possible.

Well, if you like the drug war, you have nothing to complain about when it snares someone you like, and yes, that includes Rush. The laws were written to be selectively enforced. But no one around here has a real problem with that as long as the people on the receiving end of these laws has a (D) next to their name.

No you are wrong because any one of us would make the same consideration regarding how we withdraw money. Perhaps not 35 million a year, but the same consideration nonetheless.

The reaction of the "its about drugs/you are in denial posts" only proves the intent of the hit piece. There is going to be NO criminal case (drug treatment court). This story is a weak effort of DNC/clintonista dirty tricks to muddy rush before 2004.