Posted on 10/03/2003 9:48:28 AM PDT by kattracks
Who said anything about supposed followers? THe question was whether or not what Rush supposedly represents will be discredited if it turns out this drug story is true. Let's get a Webster definition of "discredit":
1 : to refuse to accept as true or accurate : DISBELIEVESorry, AndrewC, but credit is indeed in the eye of the beholder. If the question is will the revelation, if true, that Rush Limbaugh is a pain killer junkie who gets drugs illegally from a housemaid discredit the ideas he espouses, the answer, IMO, is a resounding YES. To each and every living soul???? No. To AndrewC? No. To many many people? YEEEEESSSSSS.The ideas will be discredited.
2 : to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of
3 : to deprive of good repute : DISGRACE
To your point about Christianity, I submit to you that the actions of Jimmy Swaggart and the Bakers and some other telepreachers indeed did much to discredit Christianity, i.e., caused many people to scoff at Christianity and see it as something pushed by snake oil salesmen, something untrue. Is that fair? I guess it's not. Did it happen anyway? It most certainly did. Is that what is meant by the word "discredit"? It most certainly is.
So much for your WWF takedown. I rest my case.
I've done much worse than that. How is that relevant to this story?
He is accused of buying drugs illegally.
It's not his personal life. It's the front page of the Daily News.
Really?
By whom?
Ty-3 and Vicodin plus a few others are exactly the same stuff.
I am afraid I speak from a bit of experience on this subject, as I have used pain drugs for some 4-5 years. I currently use Oxy-Contin for chronic and intense joint pain. I would be totally bed ridden without it, and at least it has made my life tolerable and normal.
The spacey feeling goes away after a couple months, as I recall. The codeine stuff, (used to be over the counter legal in my younger days) is effective as a booster for the practically useless tylenol. Oxy-Contin(oxy-codone) is a related but totally different molecule. It is highly addictive, both physically and mentally.
I break the addiction at least once per year in order to keep my dose as small as possible so that I can drive a car and function normally. The process takes three days or so and is a bitch, but necessary. I came up with the idea on my own and the doctor said go for it, but he does not recommend it with all people.
This is why I responded to your post about addiction. The doctors really do not deal with it. The way they generally handle the problem is to NOT prescribe the drug. This makes it difficult to get sometimes. It is the patients responsibility, it seems, to manage the addiction.
Making words meaningless does not rescue your logic. Christianity like conservatism is not harmed by the mistakes of a single member despite your protestations. Takedown is still there.
Let's see....I am using Webster's definition. You are using......???
Common sense. As I said, you would define everything as discredited to save your logic. IOW make things meaningless. David Duke labeled himself a Republican. That did not discredit the Republican party despite your definition.
Yes it is you moron, but to agree with you in part, it is indeed on the front page of the Daily News....
Thus my answer to you that he doesnt owe you squat until it is over, and even then he doesnt owe you squat. Should he reveal all at that time then consider yourself lucky because a celebrity's personal life is only as private as you, the public ghoul, allows it to be.......
As a non-mainstream nobody, I certainly can't expect you to have any comprehension of what it is like to have your own personal life dissected and placed on display by the national media. I would wager that Mr. Limbaugh is handling this whole thing a hell of a lot better than you would even if your own circumstances were merely on a local level.....
Care to explain to us just exactly why Mr. Limbaugh's personal life should be open to your own personal scrutiny? And given your unfounded assumptions that Mr. Limbaugh is somehow guilty of whatever it is that he is somehow being accused of doing, can we expect to see your face around here apologizing profusely on thread after thread if and when Mr. Limbaugh is cleared of all the charges that you know-it-alls seem to think he is being charged with?
As of right now, the only info you know-it-alls have is what you are reading in the Inquirer. If I were you, I would contact either the Space Alien or Bat Boy and get the real facts of what is going on.......
Well, you certainly have no common sense to use discredit the way you have. A person discredits himself, not what you inflate the word to cover.
Even if all the "there" is there, does that diminish the information he presents?
Yes. Most definitely and most unfortunately,
'Cuz Rush has always said on his show--in beating the smear game: "Never, ever, ever deny anything you haven't been accused of."
He has not been accused in the media, or in the courts--only 'associated' or smeared...
Is it believable that her and her criminal husband have motive to lie?
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.