Posted on 12/04/2003 9:51:01 AM PST by longtermmemmory
more to follow
Don't. He'll swallow a revolver barrel.
They always do.
Once they get in a nursing home, they cease to care about the Bill of Rights.
I'm just surprised he's not championing the Prescription Drug Plan.
A radio talkshow host is no diffrent than a WWF wrestler, its all an act to lure suckers into watching (or listening) to them.
Limbaugh can piss off, he has no credibility left, and he is gonna continue to pull the wool over everyone's eyes as long as there are legions of blinders-on dittoheads that belong to his cult.
If you want medical privacy, then either don't use illegal drugs or change the drug laws.
My confidence of medical treatment and privacy has not been shattered.
Leaving aside that I disagree with you for just a moment -- you would expect perfection from the man and throw him under the bus as soon as he shows a fallibility? Look, sorry to burst your bubble, but I expect there are NO people on this planet without a vice or who does not occasionally commit a crime. The laws have slowly constricted around us that now, we are ALL criminals -- albiet undiscovered ones, usually.
Drug abuse and addiction should absolutely not be a criminal matter, it should be a medical one only. I speak from experience here.
Now, onto the other place from which we differ -- your contention that Rush is akin to a WWF wrestler is, to my mind, absurd. WWF wrestlers do not cause elections to be shifted (with the sole exception of Jesse Ventura). WWF wrestlers do not cause ideological shifts to occur in the populace.
Rush has galvanized the conservative movement, and even today is very critical of the Bushes, who are anything but conservative. He is an ally, and I will not toss him under the bus for a human frailty.
All radio talkshow hosts are like WWF wrestlers? That's your level of objectivity?
Limbaugh can piss off, he has no credibility left, and he is gonna continue to pull the wool over everyone's eyes as long as there are legions of blinders-on dittoheads that belong to his cult.
Limbaugh's credibility arises from the substance of what he says -- not the substances he takes.
Of course it doesn't say how much more than the 2,100 but probably not much more.
March 24 to Sept 26 = 6 months
6 months = 184 days
2,100 divided by 184 = 11.41 pills per day.
That is not very many pills if it includes all of the above mentioned. My husband takes that many.
About a prescription for Niacin for cholesterol lowering, my doctor just told me I could go buy them across the counter.
I beg to differ. Conservative values demand that we do not pass judgement on anyone who has been accused of illegal activity without any facts to back up those allegations. The only facts we have are these:
1. Rush has admitted he was addicted to prescribed medications.
2. He told us about the bank suggesting to him (and others) not to make transactions larger than 10k and that the bank would deliver the money. He had this done 4-5 times and when authorities looking into the banks operations talked with Rush (and others) about this, he stopped. Only the bank was charged and fined.
Those are the only facts in this case. Everything else is pure speculation.
The problem I have with some is their posting allegations as if they were facts. Some examples:
1. Rush has admitted he was using illegal drugs. Truth: He has not. He has admitted his addiction to prescription drugs. Whether they were illegal has not yet been proven or admitted to.
2. Rush has admitted to taking "massive" amounts of pain killers. Truth: No he has not.
3. The National Enquirer would not lie about facts. If anyone believes that, I have some property for them.
4. Because Rush is abiding by his attorney's instructions and is limiting his comments on the case, some suggest that proves he is guilty because he will not come completely clean. That is naive and immature thinking.
Most clear thinking conservatives I know will wait until all facts come out. Once we have the facts, then things will become clearer. I will not take allegations as truth until proof is given. We can discuss allegations without presenting them as truths.
I believe if the DA has something concrete on Rush, he would have brought charges by now. After all, the investigation started back in 2002??
I am by no means an apologist for Rush, and I do not get emotional over things, unless it has to do with children. But, he deserves the benefit of the doubt, as any other American would, until proof of illegal activity is shown.
What "conservative value" would you like to fortify?
The chances are extremely slim that "conservatives" like Rush and the Bush family will re-think their socialistic premises just because they are targetted by their own nanny state cops.
They believe so deeply in the premise that we need the nanny state to spy on us and protect us from ourselves, that rethinking these premises is completely out of the question. So they will continue to alternately to 2 things: (1) thank Big Brother for sending cops after them to protect themselves from themselves and (2) hypocritcally complain that their "privacy" is being violated and that they are being targeted by witch hunts. Privacy? Ha! Don't these sissies know there's a war on?
It's nice to dream about somebody like Rush with his back against the wall having a libertarian epiphany and responding to a scandal like this by going on the air and explaining to his dittoheads that Florida's bill of rights nullifies 100% of the busy body nannyism of the Palm Beach County Sheriff and D.A. If he did this, of course, they would immediately steal all of his property and probably send him to Gitmo. So, even if he was jolted into a libertarian epiphany, he would have to courageously value the principle of freedom higher than his own wealth and safety to go on the air an speak out about it for the few minutes preceding the storming of his broadcast studio and his being kidnapped never to be seen again.
Yes I remember that the maid said she was supplying him with drugs.
We will just have to wait and see if that pans out as truth or not.
You are correct. No one has disputed this.
Taking more drugs than your doctor has prescribed is illegal. Doing so regularly is also illegal.
Excuse me? Where is the law stating that if you take more than the recommended dosage, you are breaking the law? I am not familiar with this law but if true, than those people taking more prescription ampicillin than suggested would be breaking the law. Does not sound right to me.
Buying them from someone via a third party is illegal.
Where is the proof that this was done? It is an allegation only. You say it here as if it is fact.
Obtaining them without a prescription AFTER your prescription has run out is illegal.
This is true but again I ask, where has this been proven, that Rush did this? Where? Pure speculation being presented as fact.
Is he guilty? YOu can bet the farm on it.
So, you evidently have some evidence that no one else has seen? Could you please post it here?
*Sigh*...You don't get illegal drugs with a prescription.
You get legal drugs with a prescription.
Want to hide an addiction to legal drugs? Visit many doctors.
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.