Limbaugh episode a reminder to condemn sin, not sinner (Mega-barf)

Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 12/05/03 | ANDREW BARD SCHMOOKLER

[concerned about politics]

What will you say if/when he is found guilty? I should imagine you will start a campaign to free him!

No. I'd expect him to serve what ever punishment the court put upon him. Once he's paid his debt, I'll welcome him home.
That's IF he's ever charged with a crime. That hasn't happened yet. As it stands, he's an innocent man, but the witch hunters are tasting blood anyway, aren't they?

[jjbrouwer]

Can you point me to the post which earmarks me as a "lefty dingbat"?

Thanks in advance.

[jjbrouwer]

As it stands, he's an innocent man

Only in the eyes of the law. Just because he hasn't been found guilty yet, it doesn't mean he is innocent.

[concerned about politics]

Only in the eyes of the law. Just because he hasn't been found guilty yet, it doesn't mean he is innocent.

Tell me about Rush's life. All you know as fact, from the beginning, and where you got the information you're basing your outrage on. What crime has he committed that requires your rabid outrage?
Remember, according to a FOX report, 2,000,000 other people were givin the same pain killer by their doctors, and are suffering right along with Rush. They're buying it off the street even more. You'll be speaking about them and their addiction, too.

[concerned about politics]

Depends on how you define "crusader". Rush is certainly on record as being in favor of draconian drug policies, and I've had to turn him off before when he starts making sweeping generalizations about drug addicts.

Rush now understands what could happen to others if drugs were legalized - even more now than he did before. I suppose he'll be one of the greatest anti-drug crusaders this country has ever seen. There's no better teacher than a person who's been there, done that.

[Jeff Chandler]

Depends on how you define "crusader".

Someone for whom it is in the top 50 of concerns.

[Jeff Chandler]

The ironic thing is that getting caught, and the spector of possible prosecution just may have saved his life.

[razorbak]

As you may be aware, a withdrawal of just under 10k skirts the federal law requiring banks to notify the US Treasury Department of withdrawals over the 10k mark. Rush is said to have made between 30 and 40 such transactions.

If I had that kind of money to withdraw, I would always withdraw it in chunks under $10,000. Nobody's business but my own. It's not illegal either. It doesn't "skirt the law," it follows the letter of the law. As in:

"Limbaugh stopped short of robbing banks to skirt the federal laws against bank robbery." LOL!

Why don't you post your bank statements for the last five years on FR, and let's see if you have been "skirting" any laws.

[concerned about politics]

The ironic thing is that getting caught, and the spector of possible prosecution just may have saved his life.

They say the Lord works in strange ways.
My guess is he'll have to do a lot community service.

[ican'tbelieveit]

You cannot compare supporting Rush to supporting Clinton for several reasons:

1. Rush is not a public employee.
2. Rush did not assault another citizen.
3. Rush did not have illicit sex with a young woman in MY WHITE HOUSE on my time, then have people lie about it under oath to obstruct the pursuit of justice.

And the situation with Rush is where I have a problem with the War on Drugs. Even if he did buy the painkillers illicitly, who exactly did he harm but himself? As long as he did not hurt soemone else, try to sell them to my kids, etc., I just don't understand why we are imprisoning people for using drugs? Especially while one of the most aggressive drugs is legal: alcohol. If he is charged and convicted of committing a crime, I will expect him to serve his punishment.

And lastly, if my son were to commit a crime, I would expect him to serve his punishment. But it doesn't mean I will love him any less or stop supporting him in the most suitable way possible.

[ican'tbelieveit]

Or tax returns. Or how many times did a cashier give him the wrong change back and he didn't return it. Or accidentally get something out of the store he didn't pay for, but didn't return. Just the "letter" of the law there.

[Jeff Chandler]

I just don't understand why we are imprisoning people for using drugs?

That's the tough part of the WOD: Making the laws rational without conveying implicit approval, thereby opening the floodgates and destroying society.

[Jeff Chandler]

I wonder if he ever drove 45 in a 45MPH zone, thereby skirting the speed limit?

[ican'tbelieveit]

That part of the WOD is difficult. How can a person, legally purchase alcohol, take it home and get "high" off of it and yet be a criminal for getting a similar "high" off of marijuana. I think therein lies the failure of the system.

[SAJ]

Point you to a particular post? Nope.

As regards ''lefty'', your disregard, even disdain (and don't bother denying it; you shriek it in all your posts on this thread) for the regular due process of law, per both the Constitution and 200+ years of American tradition, not to mention our heritage of English common law, marks you clearly as such. You hold no empirical facts in hand, merely assorted (alleged) news reports, and are ready -- hell, EAGER -- to convict someone on this basis. You hold the attitude, and have smugly and smarmily broadcast it throughout this thread, that law is what YOU think it is, no more and no less. In short, on this subject, you differ not one whit from the standard totalitarian.

And, although perhaps I'm deprived as to experience, I've yet in 50+ years to meet a lefty who was NOT a dingbat.

I do apologise for the redundancy therein implied by conjoining the two terms. Ta-ta.

[Jeff Chandler]

Pot to booze is not a good comparison, because the effects of pot linger for days. Pills might be a better comparison.

We need to ask ourselves: do we want more addiction, which legalization would lead to? Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should treat addicts as criminals. I just think we should be very circumspect before we give tacit approval to life-destroying substances. I've been debating the WOD for decades. I see the injustice of the current laws, but I've seen loved ones destroy their lives with booze, and with pot. Total legalization would increase the destruction. There has to be a more humane legal approach to drugs, though.

It's one of the few subjects I'm truly ambivalent on.

[Fledermaus]

The writer of this article has never listened to Limbaugh. And anyone that calls Limbaugh a hypocrite is a full blown moron. They are the same people that attacked Bill Bennett for gambling when they've never read anything the man has written.

No, what feeds their limp brains is their own misconceptions and stupidity. They assume, based on stereotypes, that all conservatives and/or Republicans preach morals and condemn those that don't adhere to their ideals. Total crap.

But my favorite "FACT" the left uses is that Rush "got his pills on the black market". How do they know this? There is no evidence out there that in anyway proves this. No, they are, as usual, transferring their own lives onto Rush. They probably get all kinds of drugs themselves on the black market and think everyone else does the same.

Elvis never did. And as new evidence has come out, Rush had many doctors and was probably getting more than one prescription like most Hollywood stars.

More typical hatred without facts from the left. The same ones that throw rocks in their own glass houses. So who's the true hypocrite?

[ican'tbelieveit]

Hey... projection... like that article from a French magazine today that said 1700 US soldiers were not returning for duty because it was too dangerous in Iraq........

[Jeff Chandler]

And anyone that calls Limbaugh a hypocrite is a full blown moron.

Sound like anyone we know?