Posted on 10/07/2003 5:37:58 AM PDT by jimmccleod
Rush's symptoms did not place him near the "meat" of the bell curve for the population symptomatic of AIED, but instead, toward one of the tails, which we refer to as atypical.
Yet his doctors still found his symptoms to match those of others in the AIED curve, and not in other curves. Their decision, is a cornerstone that a D.A. would have to dislodge. (In my view, only plush, Palm Beach "limousine liberal" money could afford to make that case presentable --- I can't see the taxpayers wasting their money by trying to establish some opposing diagnosis well after the fact, just to continue to try and make his surgery to be evidence of some drug addiction.)
My impression of Rush, is that the cautionary path he has taken, regarding his revealing anything to the public, is not for reasons that many suspect: it is not about drugs.
I'd imagine him to want to know, given already that he knows the drug charges to be fiction, What is the motive?
He would want to know, Is this attack coming from "small fry" trying to get out from under some D.A.'s microscope, by casting about? Or is the attack coming from his political enemies?
If he denies some "drug charges," then the public eye would quickly focus on that, much more dramatically than it is now, in which case he would have more difficulty on what few facts he has now, making a case for "It's political."
If this is a political attack, and personally, I do suspect Hillary because it's her style, he has some digging to do, in order to nail her or her "diabolical agents."
Yet he would not want, without the facts, to sound like the more immediate culprits under investigation, who are casting about to find something with which to bargain with the D.A. --- that is, Rush, in this case, would not want to make charges that "It is political." without his having Hillary's smoking gun.
"Grow up! You and a lot of the other lockstep "conservatives" here."
So, what you're saying is that Clinton apologists are the ones that are defending Rush Limbaugh? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. Could you please explain your theory. I'm truly intrigued!
Cynical for not putting much stock in a "news" story that was broken by the National Enquirer? Good luck pressing that case!
As I posted earlier, the LA Slimes article on drugs allegedly causing hearing loss came out at the same time that Rush was visiting the House Ear Clinic, which "coincidentally", was the same time that the maid originally made her allegations to the Inquirer.
September/October, 2001. It is obvious to me that this was a coordinated attack, and personally, I believe that the LA times is at the center of it.
As evidence of their culpability, I offer the fact that the 2001 article is still accessible on the Slimes' website, long after they usually archive them and charge you $2.50 to read them. A public service, no doubt.
Wonder if the IPOTUS has a problem now that he has unlimited funds at his disposal?
LOL!
HOP: Do you mean the public sector stooges who are wasting the taxpayer's dollar pursuing Rush and others, or do you mean the evil SOB politicians who crafted the laws?
Maybe he was talking about the satanic voters who bear all responsibility for empowering the evil SOB politicians who in turn craft the laws that the public sector stooges enforce. The masses of demons that inhabit the liberal Soccer Moms and "conservative" Church Ladies that put these SOB's in power are legion.
Tough to backpedal on that one.
He's stonewalling. Otherwise, he has 2 choices: 1) turn himself in. 2) repent for his criminal support of the illegal WOD
Oh..considering today's technology, it wouldn't be hard to produce a "fake tape" of Rush saying whatever they want him too...word, by word, taken right from his program audio archives. (Tinfoil hat on..)
All things considered, it's really all about what is NOT being said, because the media sharks should be on a feeding frenzy and they just aren't. No one is holding press conferences, or giving news briefings or statements, etc. It's mighty quiet out there.
Conclusion? Rush is innocent.
sw
The bottom line is that if the Fairness Doctrine were re-instated, talk radio would be compelled to carry liberal shows even though their ratings are usually weak. As a result, AM talk stations would switch full time to the sort of shows they carry on weekends, discussing finances, cars, psychology, medicine, etc., where the Fairness Doctrine would not apply. As in the 1960s, the overwhelming liberal bias of the old three networks, PBS, and CNN would go unchallenged by the FCC, since they are delivering whatr they label as objective reporting.
Of course, Fox is well established now, and the Internet is still free from liberal domination. Thus, conservatives would not be as bad off as they were in the 1960s and 1970s, when they were confined to low circulation publications like "National Review." (Of course, in that era, "US News and World Report" and "Readers Digest" were moderate to conservative. They are not so now.)
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing this letter with regard to our fallen brother Rush. Over the years Rush seemed to be a loyal soldier in the cultural Wars that you now prosecute as Attorney General. For example, with regard to white people being disproportionately un-punished for their drug "crimes," Rush once said, "The answer...is not to start letting [black] people out of jail because we're not putting [white people] in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
Since 9/11, we have been reminded over and over again by you and our other fearless drug warriors that things are different now. You spared no expense during last year's Super Bowl buying up millions of dollars of commercial time to tell America's beer and football addicts that commiting cultural drug war crimes was tantamount to acting as an enemy combatant in the Terror Wars.
So after Rush turns himself in for his cultural and terror war crimes, I pray that, you will consider possibly letting him be tried, convicted, and serve his sentence in the American prison system and be afforded whatever passes these days for constitutional rights to due process, habeas corpus, etc., before just summarily sending Rush off to Gitmo like any other enemy combatant.
Here's an idea for a TV commercial for this year's Super Bowl that I know Rush would love to star in in exchange for not being sent to Gitmo:
Rush appears in an orange jump suit and chains, with a big world map on one side of him highlighting geo-political hotspots and opium producing regions and traderoutes, and with a white board on the other side of him with the chemical equations for heroin and Eli Lilly's synthetic opiates.
As he points at the chemical equations, he will instruct millions of football and beer loving ditto-heads:
"Do you see that Ditto-heads, how Eli Lilly's molecule is almost exactly the same as heroin? That means that very nearly the same thing was going on in my hillbilly head that is going on in a black heroin junkies head. Lesson #1 to all of you out there in football and beer land: You need to be as scared of your secretly pill popping white neighbors as you are scared of those crazed black heroin junkies and crackheads that you believe are "laying in the streets" in the ghetto.
"Lesson #2 (pointing at the opium traderoutes on the map): The Coalition of Church Ladies, Soccer Moms, Bootleggers, and Baptists need to keep control on these multi-billion dollar markets even more strictly than they do on Martha Stewart and the NYSE. So, if like me you deal in these products and get snared in one of the turf wars you need to have a backup plan. Mine, is doing this commercial and in return I hope our President will talk Ashcroft into not shipping me to Gitmo!
"Back to the game, Al"
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.