And the smear campaign against Rush Limbaugh begins.

Hkmp5sd

October 2, 2003, 05:33 PM

IMO, if it were not for Rush Limbaugh, there would be no FOX News Channel, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity & Idiot or any other conservative information centers. Back in the 80s when he started, there were NO conservative radio programs, TV shows, TV News or newspaper/magazines with national circulation.

Dan idRatherbewatchingsomeoneelse and his cohorts would be spouting of their dribble with no counter voice. Al Bore would be president. Bin Laden would be a member of the UN Security Council.

If the drug charges are true, it proves he is human and makes mistakes. The question is whether or not he follows the Bill Clinton Avoiding Responsibility for Everything and Best Methods for Removing Spots from Dresses technique or he admits guilt, pays the price, learns from his mistake and moves on.

Of course, the liberal media has already determined he is guilty and is doing everything possible to convince the public.

What gets me is how anyone thinks a fairly intelligent multi-millionaire would resort to buying pills from his maid. In the unlikely event he could not find one single doctor in the world willing to give him a prescription for anything he wants, it's a simple matter of himself or a buddy flying to Mexico or some other country that sells the pills over-the-counter and bring them to NY.

He may be guilty. But it's remarkably stupid for someone with his high profile to buy pills from a maid knowing he is giving her all kinds of power over him and his career. If she really has him on tape telling her to get him more drugs, she could make millions either blackmailing him or selling the tape to a news outlet.

geegee

October 2, 2003, 06:05 PM

When I heard he would be going on TV as a football commentator I told my wife that that had "trouble" written all over it. If you're the single most dominant voice in talk radio, what do you possibly have to gain with that gig? :confused: Never made any sense to me.
IMO, if it were not for Rush Limbaugh, there would be no FOX News Channel, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity & Idiot or any other conservative information centers. Back in the 80s when he started, there were NO conservative radio programs, TV shows, TV News or newspaper/magazines with national circulation
Undeniably true and that's why it's so funny now to hear so many media/news elitists whine about the right wing leanings of American radio. Just think about the first few times you heard him. I certainly remember, and the single thought that occurred to me (and many others) was "I guess there really are others who share my conservative world view." What gets me is how anyone thinks a fairly intelligent multi-millionaire would resort to buying pills from his maid.
No kidding! What the heck gets in someones' head to ponder that? Especially if you must surely believe that your scalp is the most prized trophy out there for every Democrat in the country.If she really has him on tape telling her to get him more drugs, she could make millions either blackmailing him or selling the tape to a news outlet.
She apparently received a six figure payment for her story. Again, what the heck was he thinking? :uhoh: geegee

PeteyPete

October 2, 2003, 06:10 PM

W/ as much money and connections as Rush has..i don't know why he didn't just pay off or convince a doctor to prescribe him some drugs (if the allegations are true). Maybe he was concerned about a paper trail coming from the pharmacy..but he's clever enough to know that buying 80 grand worth of pain killers is going to leave just a long a paper trail, and leave yourself open to blackmail and extortion...especially dealing w/ such sordid individuals as sources.

Something smells strange about this story to me.

mec

October 2, 2003, 06:33 PM

1. Football is not important
2. African Americans are just as smart as Anglo-Americans. Faint Praise.
3. Pain Killers are good- they reduce or eliminate pain.
4. we didn't have a drug culture before 1915 when the Federal Narcotics act went into effect. We did have morphine addicts and opium eaters but not even a small percentage as after the drugs became illegal.

Quartus

October 2, 2003, 06:45 PM

I'm thinking an embroidered satin sheet with custom fitted eyeholes?

If you are calling him a racist please have the courage to come right out and say so.

Then back it up with something that makes sense.

mec

October 2, 2003, 07:24 PM

Justice Clarence Thomas officiated at his wedding. Walter Williams and the Black Avenger have hosted his radio show while he was on vacation. He regularly receives calls from independent minded blacks and together they make fun of Jessie Jackson, Chuckie Schumer, Teddy Kennedy and Patricia Ireland and other lefty-dum-dums.

If he is infact, caught up in an illegal drug thing, I only regret that ol'Rush has had so much pain that he needs the soporifics and that he can't get an adequate supply through legal channels

gburner

October 2, 2003, 11:02 PM

1. The man is a buffoon and always has been. He gears his show to a select audience of sycophants and rarely give air time to those who would intellegently challenge his views.

2. He pontificates from the security of a radio studio and has little, if anything, in common with average Americans. His tone is condescending, his manner elitist.

3. I had (and voiced) my opinion prior to Rush and will continue to do so even as he is exposed for the fraud that he is. He isn't interested in your opinion. He's interested in pummeling, demeaning, and mocking you until you become a good little ditto head (read sheep) and acquiesce to his creed.

4. His ascent to prominence says more about the influence of Ronald Reagan on American consevatism than about Rush himself. If it hadn't been him riding the incoming tide, it would have been someone else. He IS NOT the second coming of Ed Murrow.

5. IF he is responsible for illegally purchasing and using Rx drugs and making his maid supply them under duress, then you need not ask why...you need to understand that this is the behavior of an addict.

Taisho

October 2, 2003, 11:18 PM

Rush finally got a huge audience, not just the ditto heads that tuned into his show.
So what does he do? He shows them just how foolish he truly is, with a comment that made no sense and will not stand up to the light of day.

Steve McNair is the best in the NFL right now, he's da man.

Orthonym

October 2, 2003, 11:24 PM

1. Of course, football is not important at best and evil at worst. (reality):neener:

2. I sympathize with the poor (rich) guy. Either he had a terrible pain in his head which the doctor drugs wouldn't help, so he desperately sought more of them, or the drugs fixed the pain while habituating him to them.

3. It's more or less made up.

Edit: Football is evil AT BEST!:fire:

garrettwc

October 2, 2003, 11:35 PM

There was a follow up report on the news a few minutes ago.

Fox News did confirm that Limbaugh is part of an ongoing investigation, but he is NOT the focus of the investigation.

His former maid and other individuals were part of a large investigation. The maid and another individual lawyered up immediately and offered Limbaugh up to the Palm Beach PD through this lawyer. The police are still investigating the details.

I offer no opinion of the man himself, since I have not met him, I cannot make a fair statement to his personality or character.

However, I do believe that we should not be quick to judge. We don't know all the facts and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Even people we may not like.

Monkeyleg

October 2, 2003, 11:50 PM

"he's da man."

As one who loathes professional sports, I'll leave it to others to interpret what that butchered phrase means.

As for Rush, we still have--or I hope we still have--the presumption of innocence in this country. Rush, though, is different because of his celebrity. Anyone on the conservative side who does something wrong, or has even a whiff of having done something wrong, is tried and convicted in the media before trial begins.

Teddy Kennedy killed Mary Jo Kopechne; that's pretty much settled history. Yet he continues to serve in the US Senate, and is revered by the liberals.

There is little or no doubt that WJ Clinton assaulted--or even raped--women who worked for him. The feminists have yet to object.

Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger, a gangster and a murderer, and used his gangster ties to help get two of his sons into the highest positions in the US government.

Other entertainers of Limbaugh's stature get a pass when it comes to personal troubles. Kelsey Grammer of "Frasier" sexually assaulted a teenage girl. He's still doing TV shows. So did Roman Polanski, and they've given him Academy awards.

This forum is dominated by Liberatians. Would anyone care to draw an equivalency between Limbaugh's purported use of drugs and the actions of those others described above?

Taisho

October 3, 2003, 12:03 AM

As one who loathes professional sports, I'll leave it to others to interpret what that butchered phrase means.

Sorry I did not write in the Kings English Sire. :rolleyes:
I have been smited by Captain Grammar. :neener:

I couldn't care less about his alleged drug use. I think his statement was foolish, but hardly worthy of mentioning repeatedly.
You would think he was "Jimmy the Greek" ;) , with the way people are reacting.

Delmar

October 3, 2003, 12:16 AM

It seems that Rush, having supported the war on drugs, is finding himself in a bit of hot water, at least by innuendo at the moment. Whether or not he has violated the law remains to be seen.

One thing I have noticed is when a liberal screws up, their buddies back them up with whatever it takes.
When a popular conservative screws up, its usually the fellow conservatives who go after them. I'm all for self cleaning ovens!

Never thought much about his radio program, which I consider nothing more than an act and a forum for liberal bashing. What has impressed me about Rush is his clarity of thought when he has interviewed on TV, in nearly the same way as William F. Buckley used to impress me. Certainly a shame WB is gone-we need more people of character like him. Mr. Buckley's only problem, IMO, is that he spoke way over the heads of a lot of his listeners, but certainly a man who could make a good arguement.

What upsets me about Shawn Hannity and some of the other shows, both radio and TV is they act like its some kind of circus.

geegee

October 3, 2003, 12:24 AM

He gears his show to a select audience of sycophants and rarely give air time to those who would intellegently challenge his views.
Somehow I think a daily audience of 10mm listeners probably includes a pretty diverse group. If you think he doesn't give air time to anyone who challenges his views, you don't listen very often.
He pontificates from the security of a radio studio and has little, if anything, in common with average Americans. His tone is condescending, his manner elitist.
Where is a radio show supposed to emanate from, the local zoo? His wealth and success have now put him in a position where I would agree, he may not have much in common with me, but his past was filled with very average jobs and plenty of failures that he overcame to become ultra successful. Anyway you slice it, the guy has paid his dues.
He's interested in pummeling, demeaning, and mocking you until you become a good little ditto head (read sheep) and acquiesce to his creed.
I think that assessment is more than a little over the top, but I guess reveals more your disagreement with his views than accurately describes his approach to his listeners. Like most talk show host, he shares the one bad habit of all of them: he will sometimes not let someone finish before he jumps in, but that's not the same as hanging up on someone, which he is often accused of by his detractors (yet I've never once heard him do).
His ascent to prominence says more about the influence of Ronald Reagan on American consevatism than about Rush himself. If it hadn't been him riding the incoming tide, it would have been someone else. He IS NOT the second coming of Ed Murrow.
Your position on Reagan and Murrow pretty well explains how you've come to your dislike of Rush.

There would have been someone else? Who, and when? It's not like there weren't opportunities for other conservative voices, but none struck a chord with Americans like he has. Sure, he has his own "shtick", but who on radio doesn't? Does he sound arrogant and pompous sometimes? Yeah, he does.

I disagree with Rush sometimes, but on balance am probably a fan, and for the following reasons. Until he appeared on the scene, virtually no one, no one ever challenged the media elites of this country as vociferously and so consistently. The three networks had an incredible run of who knows how many years, all putting out the same standard message virtually scripted by the Democratic Party Headquarters. It was (and is) liberal, anti-military, blame America first, and condescending where "mid-America" values are concerned.

If nothing else, he kept Bill Clinton and his minions partially in check for eight years. He excelled at exposing the phoniness and hypocrisy of the liberal left during the Clinton presidency, and continues to do so today.

After signing an enormous multi-year deal that would guarantee his financial security for the rest of his life, he lost his hearing. I can't imagine too many men that would have the drive and commitment to come back to work (when money was not an issue), after gambling on the success of a high risk surgery. Did that eventually lead to his use of pain killers? Beats me. But if these accusations are true, he'll certainly pay a price. geegee

Quartus

October 3, 2003, 12:46 AM

Rush finally got a huge audience, not just the ditto heads that tuned into his show.

Hmmm. Sounds a bit like showing us "just how foolish [you] truly [are], with a comment that made no sense and will not stand up to the light of day."

His audience has been running above 10 million for many years now. It's been as high as 20 million, for a few years. That's huge by anybody's standards. There are a lot of people in the radio biz who would give their right arm for an audience HALF that big, for half this long.

October 3, 2003, 12:47 AM

He doesn't know "POOP" about football and should never have had that job at Fox to begin with--

He's gettin the railjob because he is a conservative--
And --let's be honest -- more than a bit ego-maniacal

Orthonym

October 3, 2003, 01:07 AM

What's all this about "presumption of innocence"? Guilt and innocence are not to be considered here. At the absolute worst, taking the anti-Rush statements at face value, I do not see that the man did anything wrong, or violated any Constitutional law. It looks to me like he had a surgical operation which caused him some continuous and ongoing pain; his doctors cut off his pain meds; it still hurt. The docs had given him enough to addict him, then cut him off; he sought relief where he could find it.

If he really is a Drug Warrior, I have much less sympathy for him. If we had rational drug laws (i.e., none) an iatrogenic drug habit would be just one of the many hazards of medical and surgical therapy; a bad thing, to be sure, but not near as bad as some medical misadventures I've heard of. At least, if it weren't criminal to have a drug habit, one wouldn't have to be sneaky about going off to "take the cure". (detox, which I read RL did twice)

Bill Hook

October 3, 2003, 01:20 AM

It's beginning to sound like the pusher got caught, then blamed a possible client for her actions.

Did I hear $80K worth of drugs? Sounds like a bit much for one man, at least one who must function at a job each day.

Orthonym

October 3, 2003, 01:49 AM

If it weren't for the silly, unjust, unconstitutional, INSANE drug laws, Mr. Limbaugh's supplier (if she were in fact such) would not have had an incentive to collude with badge-wearing drug criminals. Eighty kilobucks' worth? Yes, obviously cop-lies. Function? That's enough to kill you!

PATH

October 3, 2003, 01:57 AM

I have not listened in years but will start to do so again. Whenever the left wing types sharpen the knives I know they are up to no good. The right protects our gun rights, the left DOES NOT!!!

Go Rush!

PrudentGT

October 3, 2003, 04:07 AM

Used to be that you had to go the extra step of demanding equal rights regardless of race before they crucified you. Now you just have to say, 'hey, maybe there's some racism going on here,' to get into hot water. Sadly ironic that he's being convicted in the court of public opinion of the very wrong he's calling attention to (if he's right -- I couldn't care less about football).

feedthehogs

October 3, 2003, 08:48 AM

The paper down here is full of allegations, no proof other than a personal interview with the former maid who got immunity from prosecution in regards to her allegedly selling the pills to Rush.

Her testimony may not be credible, as her husband has been arrested numerous times for drug offenses, identity theft and false drivers license.

They claim to have made tens of thousands of dollars from this, including two 100,000.00 checks from a lawyer to silence them so to speak.

This investigation seems to stem from numerous "pill mills" down here that were busted not long ago that they seemed to be involved with.

I wouldn’t doubt that the IRS is going after these people for unreported income plus the failure to file income tax returns for a number of years.

They live on a couple acre plot of land with no indication of a means of support.

Selling their story to the rag the National Inquire netted them some needed funds.

hammer4nc

October 3, 2003, 08:58 AM

I think he quit the football gig because he knew the drug scandal was on the horizon, not for the racism issues that his comment raised. Absent the drug charges, Rush would have enjoyed sparring with the media on the topics of racism, media coverage, and the NFL. Potentially, this could have raised the level of discourse in sports reporting, in general. (And raised ratings to boot.) If there's one thing Limbaugh is expert in, its media ratings.

Got to agree with geegee about Limbaugh's response to his deafness episode. Not many would have handled it as well as he did, says a lot about the man's character, perseverance.

Like all humans, he has an ego that gets inflated by years of superstar treatment. This episode may take him down a notch or two, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

dandean316

October 3, 2003, 09:23 AM

I heard on the radio yesterday that the lawyer gave the money to the maid to get the drugs. Unless this lawyer is a complete idiot, why would he do this? Then he'd have committed a felony. He wouldn't be that stupid.

Something about this story deosn't smell right.

That said, even if true, who cares? I thought the Clinton pot smoking thing was stupid. It's just another way for the politicians to *NOT* talk about the issues.

matis

October 3, 2003, 09:32 AM

I heard Rush's remarks about the football player and heard nothing wrong in them. He voiced his opinion. If his judgement was inaccurate that is not a crime. Who among us doesn't see the racist bias in favor of minorities that pollutes most of our institutions today?

As for his alleged illegal drug purchases, perhaps the durg laws themselves are illegal. Certainly they are unconstitutional.

The man suffered through an incredible ordeal, losing his hearing and eventually going stone deaf. He must have suffered unremitting pain, yet his listeners heard no whining at all, not a peep from him.

He remained cheerful and only disclosed his condition when his speech deterioted due to his deafness. The man is an absolute inspiration!

Were I to suffer this way, why would I ask the permission of government before I could use available substances to alleviate it? The drug laws are grotesque if you stop to think about them. The fact that so many of us accept them simply shows the power of brain-washing and the gullibility of the "citizens".

I don't agree with Rush on some issues and ironically his support of the drug laws is one of them.

Hopefully Rush will now amend his views on the war on some drugs.

But l nevertheless support him through this trouble. Without Rush, we'd have Gore and not Bush as president.

The left hates Rush for his tremendous influence and his entertaining exposure of their destructiveness. We are entering the election cycle again and they are desperate to silence or to somehow reduce the effectiveness of conservative voices -- in any dirty way they can

As for his arrogance I think it's a put-on. His "...on loan from G-d ... half my brain tied behind my back ... I'll do the thinking and tell you what to think... shtick is just that. He's spoofing the seriousness and the hand-wringing of the leftist morons.

Don't confuse confidence with arrogance.

If you value the 2nd amendment, you owe Rush a lot.

matis

Joe Demko

October 3, 2003, 09:46 AM

The right protects our gun rights, the left DOES NOT!!!

You're half right.

matis

October 3, 2003, 10:56 AM

Golgo13 said:

Maslow, Maslow, Maslow! What about my needs?
____________________________________________________

Hey Golgo,

You're just too low on the hierarchy!:D

matis

ceetee

October 3, 2003, 02:27 PM

I've never liked Rush. I've always thought he was a cheap, small-minded liar, a bigot, and a hate-monger. When I heard him say, "I'll tell you how to think," my first thought was, "Thanks, but I already know how to think..." (I don't know how often he says that, I'm not a regular listener... once was enough.)

The wisest thing I heard said about this whole thing came from the talk-show host that follows him here in South Florida: (I'm paraphrasing, here) "Whether I agree with Rush on politics doesn't matter. If this story is false, then it's a terrible thing to put him through. And if it's true, then I have compassion fo rhim, because it (being addicted to painkillers) must be a horrible way to live..."

Let's all remember that being human means having compassion for your fellow man, no matter what a jerk he is...

Quartus

October 3, 2003, 02:59 PM

I'm not a regular listener... once was enough.)

Listening to him once is not enough. Not nearly enough. The blustering "I'll tell you how to think" is sarcasm. He's SAYING it the way liberals really do think - he's acting out their pateralistic attitudes to get people to see how ugly it really is. If you listen for a while, you catch that.

He was on the air for several years before one listener called him on some bogus numbers he kept putting out. He kept saying that his audience was doubling every day (or some nonsense like that). He kept it up RELENTLESSLY for YEARS.

Until one day a caller did the math on air, and pointed out that what Rush was saying was impossible. Rush thanked the caller (after playing with him a bit) then told the audience that he was glad someone FINALLY called him on it. He was making the point that most Americans blindly swallow whatever they hear on the air.

He never made that ridiculous claim again. He didn't have to - it had served its purpose.

If you only listened once, you have no idea who or what Rush Limbaugh is.

"small-minded liar, a bigot, and a hate-monger" he's not. He's at the other end of the scale.

Bill Hook

October 3, 2003, 05:34 PM

He was making the point that most Americans blindly swallow whatever they hear on the air.

This is an aside, but I find most of those at the left end of the spectrum tend to be literalists (which is often why they have no sense of humor and take offense at anything contrary to their beliefs/indoctrination) and that they only show doubt, usually in knee-jerk fashion, when the info comes from the opposite end of the spectrum. This is anecdotal, but seems a truism from my travels through academia and into a profession with heavy left influences.

Keith

October 3, 2003, 05:45 PM

Rush is too much of an egomaniac for my taste. I've never been able to listen to him for more than a minute before I was forced to switch stations. All he does is go on and on and on about how smart he is...

Isn't he a big time drug warrior? You gotta see the hypocrisy now that he's revealed as a closet junkie!

Keith

Bill Hook

October 3, 2003, 05:57 PM

You gotta see the hypocrisy now that he's revealed as a closet junkie!

Not yet. Not w/o a Grand Jury and a trial.

Waitone

October 3, 2003, 06:17 PM

Regarding his McNabb comments: he may be right but that is beside the point. His anti-big media schtik works in the world he controls. Surely he didn't think he would escape attack when he was a small player in a big media pool. I think he suffered a lapse of judgment with his comments.

Drugs? I'll wait for the story to develop. Could be true, could be false, could be a political hit, could be payback by someone really powerful. Rush is dangerous to a lot of people and there are those who would love to see him take a dive.

BTW, IIRC isn't the tabloid that broke the story run by a lawyer who is a friend of a former president?

DonP

October 3, 2003, 06:35 PM

Let me get this straight.

There are people (currently in custody in FLA) claiming that the guy was ingesting hundreds of little pills every day (that he bought at a local Denny's). Yet he still is able to do 3 hours of radio and all the charity golf outings and public appearances and he doesn't fall down or throw upon himself in public?

I don't know much about the effects of different controlled substances, but it would seem to me that anyone taking that much crap would either be dead or falling down much of the day like Courtney Love. It just doesn't make sense to me yet, but we'll see.

I want to see a little more hard evidence than an article in the Enquirer that the major networks (that already despise him) pick up and run with before I choose to pile on.

Don P.

Quartus

October 3, 2003, 06:39 PM

An accusation of guilt by people who regularly publish Elvis sightings.

Yup. That's credible.

Hkmp5sd

October 3, 2003, 06:55 PM

hundreds of little pills every day (that he bought at a local Denny's). Yet he still is able to do 3 hours of radio
You mean that you do not believe he could do "4,350 in one 47-day period" as reported and still function normally? :)

BTW, here are the drug dealers that supplied the drugs Rush bought.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/beshara1.jpg

Bill Hook

October 3, 2003, 07:11 PM

And they have such honest faces....

:rolleyes:

Personally, I'd have to be stoned out of my mind to buy anything from these folks to overcome my fear of "cooties."

DRC

October 3, 2003, 07:11 PM

I've seen the ESPN spot and have to say there was nothing racist in it. There was a lot of truth in it though and that's what I believe caused the problems. People don't like to hear the truth when it isn't a glowing representation of their abilities. I've seen McNabbs record as well. He isn't exceptional and there are other quaterbacks that have better records consistantly than McNabb but aren't touted as highly as he is. The sports media does focus most of their attention on him though.

I hope that all making the anti-Rush sentiments have actually done the same as I and actually know what they are talking about, but sadly I know this isn't the case here.

As to the drug charge, if he is found guilty he needs to pay as much for it as any other celebrity. To keep things fair and balanced, remember that liberal celebrities are always touted as "Survivors" or "courageous" when their drug additions are outed. They usually go on to speak out against drug abuse, that is up until they OD on the drugs they're "not using" because they've been "sober" since the incedent ;)

Amazingly it just wouldn't affect my thinking with regard to Rush's point of view. Some I agree with some I don't but he can usually back up his assertion with good information and not information he made up himself either. Bruce Williams was once addicted to painkillers too but he is still a brilliant man.

Have fun everyone and I'll see you all on Monday.

DRC

gburner

October 3, 2003, 09:35 PM

I am neither a humorless literalist nor a left winger, far from it. I do believe that people should say what they really mean about serious issues. If I have to read between the lines to get to the heart of what he's saying then what he's saying isn't worth listening to. I listened to Rush for several years until recently when I began listening to G. Gordon Liddy. It saddens but does not surprise me that those of you that think that Rush walks on water would attempt to paint those of us who see thru his BS as liberals, leftists, etc. I caught some of his show today and was not surprised that he was playing the victim role...I guess on orders from Roy Black.

Monkeyleg

October 3, 2003, 10:34 PM

gburner, I for one don't think Rush "walks on water." I've listened to his program from time to time since the early 90's, and have come to recognize when he's playing with his audience. For example, the claims that he has one part of his brain tied behind his back, or that he's the only source of truth, etc. If Jay Leno were to say such things, the Chattering Class would view it in its proper context.

The man is an entertainer first, a political commentator second, and a policital leader somewhere as a distant third, fifth or perhaps even ninth position. That's not to say that his program doesn't provide a voice. It does, for those whose voices are drowned out by the likes of Dan Rather.

I was around and politically aware when Richard Nixon screwed up his political career forever. I wanted to be the one who turned the key on his jail cell door. But the level of potitical hatred and vitriol we're witnessing now is far beyond what was considered acceptable thirty years ago, and far beyond what's necessary for honest political debate.

The only logical extension of what we're witnessing now is the various political players putting out contracts on their enemies.

jimpeel

October 3, 2003, 10:42 PM

The most disappointing aspect of Rush's resignation is that he is constantly railing on the Republican refusal to stand and fight. He then fails to stand and fight himself.

As to the drug question, his statement at the beginning of the show, and the manner in which he gave it, lends some credence to the charges on some level. What that level is is unknown. He says he will tell all at some time in the future. Hopefully it is not a tearful "I have sinned against you" replay.

He has said on his show, and in interviews, that he was taking Prednisone during his hearing battle and how the stuff caused him to pack on the pounds. Prednisone, however, is not a restricted drug outside of its being a steroid. I bought 100 10mg tablets for $12.69 today for my arthritis. Not exactly the high buck drug.

Monkeyleg

October 3, 2003, 10:51 PM

jimpeel: "I bought 100 10mg tablets for $12.69 today for my arthritis."

Email me with the name of your doctor. I'm paying far more than that for Prednisone for my dog's thyroid problems. ;)

ceetee

October 3, 2003, 11:17 PM

Let me clarify myself. In my travels, I've had occasion to listen to Rush's show on several occasions. An hour here, a half hour there... All totaled, I think I've listened long enough to qualify as having heard an entire show.

I've heard him tell lies. I've heard him espouse hatred, and bigotry. I've heard him belittle people who are not as accomplished at debating as he is, and who don't have the power to hang up on him. This in the name of entertainment.

I personally know a couple of guys who tried for years to call in to his show, but as they are articulate, and well-informed, and hold contrary opinions, they were never allowed on. (One guy got on by lying about his agenda, pretending to be a 'ditto-head'. As soon as his real topic came out, they hung up on him.)

I don't consider myself a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' either... ask me about an issue, and I'll tell you how I feel on that issue. I think Rush could be just as entertaining, and could push conservative issues without all of the name-calling. Without inviting his followers to hate. But, it's easier to get people to hate than to get people to love. All tyrants throughout history have known this.

I don't have anything in common with Rush, and if most Republicans hold the same values he brags about over the airwaves, I don't have a lot in common with them, either. I just feel sorry for him, and them, too. It must be really crappy to have to hate all the time.

geegee

October 3, 2003, 11:20 PM

I don't anymore about this than any of you, but I wonder where Rush's wife stands in all of this? I would think it logical to at least think that there may be some involvement by her somewhere. AFAIK, there's only the two of them right? Kids are grown and all?

Not to be an apologist for the guy, but that is a motherlode of pills for a guy who has to be extremely alert for at least three hours in the middle of every day. And that's not counting the rest of his schedule, which I would think is rather busy. geegee

ed dixon

October 3, 2003, 11:46 PM

Using Rush Limbaugh's political acumen as a barometer of the real world is akin to following Hulk Hogan in sports, Houdini in physics, and Snoop Dog in women's lib. It's a joke. Did he really have to be an addict to earn this derision? Shill for the Repuplican Party (right or wrong) is not an honorable aspiration. Did his shtick become old? Uh, did Lenny Bruce seem like a paranoid nut at the end? Yeah.

tiberius

October 3, 2003, 11:51 PM

Hhmmm, I’m, no “ditto-head” but I listen to him now and again mostly for laughs. He is a funny guy. He has chosen a different style of humor though. Most good humorists are very self deprecating, he is the opposite, I guess self-aggrandizing may be the term. But whenever he says something outrageous like “I tell you how to think about this” I always hear little chuckle from him. I can see how someone who hears what Limbaugh is about from the mainstream (leftist) media would assume he is serious – especially if they are lacking in a sense of satire – but I cannot understand how anyone could call him a “racist”. If anything he is an anti-racist and consistently chooses the side of an issue that does NOT play one race against another.

Can anyone cite an example of anything racist that Limbaugh has promoted? Since I’m not a regular, there may be stuff out there that I don’t know about, but I’ll admit in advance that I’ll be SHOCKED if there is.

Quartus

October 4, 2003, 12:09 AM

Wow. You qualify as having heard one whole show! I stand in awe of your depth of experience! :what:

I've heard him tell lies. I've heard him espouse hatred, and bigotry.

Name it.

BTW, getting hung up on for getting on under false pretenses (uh, would that
be called, "lying"?) is pretty much SOP for EVERY talk show, whatever the political leaning of the host. As it should be.

Bill Hook

October 4, 2003, 12:14 AM

Personally, I never listen and wish that I could get G. Gordon instead. Neal Boortz constitutes the majority of my talk radio listening hours, which aren't much. Probably be better off spending what time I do to Bruce Williams or Bob Brinker.

That said, Rush is entertaining and I do see that he is goading his opposition, which can make for some incoherence that can be easily diffused. The thoughtful types seldom call in and Rush would have a more difficult time with them. He's made himself look like an idiot on National TV with some of his unscripted comments on the Tonight show, etc., so I know that he doesn't do well outside his own little world where he pushes all the buttons.

As you know, he pretty much got his start in KC and my relatives there can remember him making himself look foolish on many occasions. I can't remember why he got fired from one of his gigs there, but I think he did sports for KMBZ or KCMO and had something bad to say about the Royals or one of their players that lead to his termination.

ceetee

October 4, 2003, 12:41 AM

I stand in awe of your depth of experience!

I never claimed to have a lot of experience as a "Limbaugh listener"... I just said I don't like what he talks about. If it's real, then he's not a nice guy. If it's not real, if it's all "for entertainment" then that's all the more reason to not like it. Based on what I've heard.

Either way, I still feel sorry for him.

Name it.

No. Sorry. Not gonna play tonight.

SOP for EVERY talk show

Not the ones I prefer to listen to. When I can. Sorry, guy. You and I are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this'un...

Orthonym

October 4, 2003, 01:56 AM

Saw the mug shots. As the girls say, Eyeww! Gross! Not only would I not buy ANYTHING from people who looked like that, but I would cross the street (keeping to windward ) to avoid going anywhere near them!

Bunkster

October 4, 2003, 05:06 AM

Speaking of radio shows and mugshots, does everyone recall this gem?

http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/larry-king.jpg

Arrested in Miami on December 20, 1971 on charges of grand larceny, Larry King was in debt to sustain an extravagant lifestyle among other things.

Orthonym

October 4, 2003, 05:28 AM

OH yeah! I was an adolescent in Dade County when Mr. King was acquiring his first reputation. I believe he was later famous for hanging up on phone calls from that region when doing his talk shows, especially if the caller wanted to ask him about those alleged unpaid debts.

Aces

October 4, 2003, 01:47 PM

I've read your some of your posts, and have seen you espouse racism and hatred. Examples? No, not gonna play.:rolleyes:
Shill for the GOP? Sometimes, but only because the alternative is so dreadful. If you listen to him enough, you'll hear that it is about IDEAS not PEOPLE (politicians).
Rush is one of the biggest proponents of working hard and getting ahead that there is. The idea that you don't need the Government to take care of you, and that the Left only wants to enslave people through dependency, is constantly put forth by him. Hateful? He's probably one of the most cheerful and optimistic people I've ever listened to.
He puts his thoughts out in a humorous way that is evidently lost on some.

Aces

October 4, 2003, 02:05 PM

Are you saying Rush has had no impact on the real political world?
Without him, there probably woudn't have been the GOP takeover in '94 or GWB elected in '00. AM radio would have died long ago, instead there are now scads of right wing and libertarian jocks on the landscape.

Keith

October 4, 2003, 02:23 PM

I'm willing to overlook just about any personal failing in anyone as long as they aren't a hypocrite about it!
I agree with Rush on 90% of the issues, but he IS a drug warrior! And he favors all that goes along with that - heavier sentencing, militarization of police, etc.
Yet, apparently, none of that applies to HIM!

And let's face facts - if there wasn't something to the story, he'd have come out swinging and simply denied everything.
He didn't do that. He doesn't want to talk about it...

The football thing is nonsense. I saw the tapes and nothing he said struck me as racist. He should have known better, but the PC crowd was waiting on the edge of their seats for him say ANYTHING even remotely controversial.

Keith

Aces

October 4, 2003, 02:26 PM

I honestly don't know where he stands on the WOD.
I have a hunch though that he's all for due process, innocent until proven guilty etc.

Keith

October 4, 2003, 02:29 PM

I have a hunch though that he's all for due process, innocent until guilty etc.

If so, then he's not a drug warrior! The war on drugs does not require any evidence of guilt. They can seize your home, your car, your money; and even take your life without any due process at all.

Keith

Aces

October 4, 2003, 02:43 PM

"If so, then he's not a drug warrior!"

What are you saying? That he he's NOT a drug warrior, or that he's for the siezures you mention.
As I said I'm not aware of his stance on the WOD, but if you can show me proof that he's for the Gov. denying due process, I'll be shocked.

Keith

October 4, 2003, 02:51 PM

He supports the war on drugs, period. If you support the "war" you can't back down and claim you don't support the tactics employed in the "war".

No "war" = No need for such tactics.

Now he's caught up in the web of the drug warriors himself. He should turn himself in and take his ten year sentence like man - like he expects everyone else to do. Yet, somehow I suspect he won't. He'll hire a team of attorneys. He'll claim that in HIS case, it was just a DISEASE (unlike all the drug addicts) and he'll beg mercy and forgiveness - because he's "different". He's not really a junky, he was using prescription narcotics...

Keith

Aces

October 4, 2003, 03:01 PM

How do you know he's guilty?!? Because he hasn't denied it?
Are you saying he has no 5th am. rights??
He should turn himself in and take his ten year sentence like a man
Take a deep breath man. What if he's innocent?
Once again , proof PLEASE of his standing on drugs.

mcshot

October 4, 2003, 03:04 PM

Very revealing thread. There are knowledgeable well thought out posts and the typical, venim filled, emotion driven, attack dog style responses of the liberal left. Rush is very pro gun and a staunch supporter of the RKBA. He does his research and points out when folks flip-flop on their positions and change their stories in their quests for POWER.
He has many supporters on the football issue and he reportedly did not cave, ESPN did. There is already a growing backlash.
I withhold judgement on the drug issue until the facts are in.
best,
mc

Keith

October 4, 2003, 03:09 PM

If he's innocent I'll apologize.

Yet, if I was him, and innocent, I'd say so - I'd call my accusers liars and challenge them to provide some proof. I'd be in court with a 100 million dollar lawsuit against the National Enquirer. None of that is happening...

If I was guilty, I'd do what he is doing now - I'd shut my mouth and lawyer up.

I think he's guilty. And I think any impartial observer would think the same thing, given his actions.

Keith

Aces

October 4, 2003, 03:19 PM

I too would like to see him screaming innocence from the rooftops.But doing so doesn't guarentee innocence either.
" I did not have sex with that woman" :p

Hkmp5sd

October 4, 2003, 03:21 PM

"Yea, let's give him a fair trial and then hang him!"

Keith

October 4, 2003, 03:28 PM

He'll never get "hung". People like him don't go to jail. They hire an entourage of attorneys and tie up the courts in a big circus and then go home.

Hundreds of thousands of others guilty of the same offense do go to jail - and that's where Rush thinks they belong!

Keith

gburner

October 4, 2003, 03:39 PM

McShot,

Lemme get this straight... If I love Rush and agree with your POV then my reasoning is intellegent and well thought out. If not, I'm an emotion driven, liberal/leftist attack dog spewing venom. How enlightening.

Just because I don't kneel at the altar of this 50 pounds of feces in a 20 pound sack and savor his every word as if it were manna from heaven doesn't mean I'm any less conservative in my thinking/political philosophy as anyone who does. I simply don't like him, his schtick or his toxic mix or arrogance and hypocracy. It's easy to say the most vile, mean spirited and hateful things, then with a chuckle and a wink toss them off as satire. Many a serious thing are said in jest. Many people fall for it because they NEED this kind of person in their lives to reinforce what they already believe.
Propaganda and the toxic symbiosis of 'group think'.

It has been my experience that the great majority of those people who are enamored of Rush are caught up in a cult of personality, lack the critical skills necessary to think for themselves, parrot his words/ideas and demean those who see thru the hype by labeling them as leftist, loonies, liberals, etc. It is more reassuring for them to see those who think outside the norm as the enemy and hang signs on them reinforcing their pariah status.

These types are sheep and their shepard is in deep doo-doo. I can understand their distress as the ideological rug is being pulled out from under them.
dittodittoditto

Keith

October 4, 2003, 03:47 PM

Good points, gburner!

I'm conservative enough to elbow Rush to the left in any argument, but when I point out that this windbag is a hypocrite, I become a "leftist"...

If you value freedoms (like GUNS) then you better start opposing the drug warriors - and Rush is one of them.

Keith

Aces

October 4, 2003, 03:48 PM

Labeling people sheep is well thought out and reasoned? Not to mention 50 pound sack blah blah blah.
If someone would point out JUST ONE (1)
hateful, meanspirited, or bigoted thing he has said, maybe we could reply to it. We can't agree with most of what hesays and stick up for him without kneeling at his altar?

:rolleyes:
Your post was the venomous yet.

Aces

October 4, 2003, 03:52 PM

:banghead:
Keith you pointed out NOTHING.
You have no proof of his standing on drugs, and your labeling of him as a hypocrite is based on this.

Keith

October 4, 2003, 04:09 PM

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/columnists/nyc-henn1003,0,1697441,print.column?coll=ny-opinion-columnists

Rush quotes:

"And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

"What this says to me," he told his listeners that day, "is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others 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."

http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/le951112.html

He ignored what happened to the Weaver family (it had begun on a Republican watch). He poked cruel fun at the Davidians, whom the Clinton administration had viciously assaulted, referring to them as "wackos from Waco" even as they and their children suffered and died in a defense of their rights that was beyond his comprehension. Worse, he cravenly denied it later, demanding that a fan confronting him about it name the day and hour he had done it, knowing that nobody keeps records like that but his own staff.

Keith

Aces

October 4, 2003, 05:05 PM

Interesting you didn't cut and paste the last part of the article.
Interesting how the writer, much like you, presumes guilt.

Monkeyleg

October 4, 2003, 06:14 PM

What I glean from most of the posts here is that folks have decided either that Rush is guilty or innocent without knowing the facts. After all, the press is always right, yes? Just ask Richard Jewell.

Quartus

October 4, 2003, 06:27 PM

He supports the war on drugs, period. If you support the "war" you can't back down and claim you don't support the tactics employed in the "war".

Now there's one of the more infantile statements I've seen in a long time.

SOP for EVERY talk show

Not the ones I prefer to listen to.

So if someone lies to get on one of these shows that you like, they let him stay on?

Justin

October 4, 2003, 07:16 PM

I find it rather interesting that abuse of certain types of pain killers has been linked to permanent hearing damage.

http://www.hearingcenteronline.com/askmsearsd.shtml

QUESTION: Can medication affect hearing?

ANSWER: A recent medical study has indicated that commonly prescribed pain killer abuse can cause rapid, profound hearing loss. Many prescribed antibiotics can also affect hearing and cause permanent damage over time.

I seem to recall that a couple of years ago Limbaugh began suffering a rapid deterioration of his hearing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he have to undergo surgery to have cochlear implants installed to overcome the hearing loss?

So, Limbaugh had a massive loss of hearing. Abusing certain narcotics can cause hearing damage. And now he's under investigation for abusing pain killers.

Things that make you go HMMMMMMM...

RocketMan

October 4, 2003, 07:23 PM

Justin,

That is an interesting correlation you mentioned concerning hearing loss and certain drug use. I saw the same story.

However, the hearing loss RL suffered was said to be something that ran in his family. Some of his ancestors apparently had the same problem. I heard him mention that back when it he had the implant.

Makes one wonder a bit, though...

jimpeel

October 4, 2003, 08:01 PM

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100303/content/rush_opening_statement.guest.html

12:07 PM EST BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

... Now, here's the nub of it at the moment. The story in Florida is - it really is an emerging situation. I watch what's being reported on television and it changes from morning to morning, hour to hour, day to day. I don't know yet what I'm dealing with there, folks.

I really don't know the full scope of what I am dealing with. And when I get all the facts, when I get all the details of this, rest assured that I will discuss this with you and tell you how it is, tell you everything there is, maybe more than you want to know about this. You can believe me and trust me on that. I don't want to answer any questions about it now, as I say, until I know exactly what I'm dealing with, and at that point I will fill you all in. As I say, I can't tell you how much I appreciate the notes and all of the expressions of support. It means everything to me, as has your support over these many years, and nothing has changed in that regard.

I've often said throughout the 15 years that I've been here, that you people have made my life an adult Christmas every day. Every morning is an adult Christmas, and it's still the same. Still got up today, couldn't wait to get in here, couldn't wait to start the routine, couldn't wait to start the show prep. I'm a little frustrated that I haven't yet gotten to the bottom of what all this is about, and I'm very much desirous of telling you about this, but until I know exactly what this is - and I don't get - it just makes no sense to start delving into it.

I don't want to deal with hypotheticals, and I don't want to respond to what's in the press. I'm very tempted to. I'm not going to even go there. But I want to say, "Trust me," but I don't...look it, it makes no sense for me to go there. I'm not even going to tell you how you ought to look at that stuff that's in the press. I'm not going to even characterize it yet. Just trust me on this. When I find out all that this is - aside from those that are closest to me in my personal and business orb, and you all are very close on the personal orb - then you are going to be among the first to know, from me.

Joe Demko

October 4, 2003, 08:29 PM

Excellent points, gburner.

jimpeel

October 4, 2003, 09:26 PM

Rush was on ESPN for four weeks.

For those who are wondering about his accused racism, listen to the first week's commentary and his thoughts on Black coaches and tokenism. These are NOT the words of a racist. None of his co-workers seemed put out by these comments.

Although this was a scathing indictment of the leagues and league management, there are those, I'm sure, who would make this a racist commentary also even though he is clearly defending Blacks against an arbitrary and capricious rule that is, at best, ambiguous in its structure.

Listen to week 1 (http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wmv/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/Video/espn090703_56k.asx)

Here is the fourth week commentary where he made the comment on the MEDIA that was then taken to new heights, by the media hype, as a slam on McNabb's color. Note, also, that Rush is face to face with two Black men when he makes these comments and they have no reaction whatsoever.

Listen to week 4 (http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wmv/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/Video/espn092803.2.56k.asx)

Here is what Rush had to say on the Friday show on this aspect of his travails:12:07 PM EST BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

Ladies and gentlemen, let me start with something. I know that there's an issue and an item out there that you're extremely curious about. And let me just say something very quickly about this. As you know - and I've talked about this at great length, and I've over the more than 15 years that I have hosted the program, I've always been awed, I have been overawed, in fact, and very humbled by the incredibly deep bond of loyalty that all of you have had for me and this program. It's something that when I was young and imagining a career in this business I always dreamed of, but - and I'll be honest, I thought it would happen. I had no idea what it would be like.

I really - I had no idea what a lot of things would be like when I achieved what my dreams were. There's a real deep bond of loyalty that you and I have for each other, and I've described the relationship that we have here as familial. We are like a giant family. Over the 15 years of this program, that's what we've become. We have become like a giant family, and we all sometimes celebrate the identical things without having to talk to each other, we do with other instances. We know when the red flags go up without having to communicate each other. It really is a unique relationship that has evolved on this program.

Since Wednesday of this week, when the ESPN story first hit, the controversy - actually, the controversy such that there actually - it's amazing to me that this is a controversy at all. Had what I said been said by anybody else - Sean Hannity could have said it, and it would not have been, it wouldn't have even gotten noticed. It wouldn't have gotten scant attention. But it did. On Tuesday, the Philadelphia media, both print and broadcast, erupted with what had been said on Sunday on ESPN. It took two days for there to be any reaction. There wasn't any reaction to it even on the ESPN set. So Wednesday, things moved quite rapidly and had to go to Philadelphia after the program that day.

Late that night, in communication via e-mail with vice-presidents at ESPN, I resigned that position that I have. I'll tell you about that in detail in just a moment. And around the same time came a story involving drugs and me in Florida. Since both of these stories have erupted, I have received - it is unbelievable to me. I have received over - at ten o'clock this morning, it was over 25,000 e-mails. I'm sure it's a lot more than that. Well, there's been another 2,000 here just in the last 90 minutes and it's probably going to skyrocket here during the program. These e-mails have come without me being on the air, so over 30,000 e-mails.

There have been hundreds of telephone calls. All have been asking about e-mails and phone calls have been asking about me. All have been - the vast majority have been - just extremely supportive. It's very gratifying to see, and that's very humbling, too. And I hope you understand what I mean when I say humbling. When my first book came out and it rocketed to the top of the New York Times list, there was a book party that the publisher threw for me. There was some Time magazine executive who came up and asked me how I felt about it, and I said, "I'm very humbled by this," and he did not understand what I meant.

"Humbled? You were humbled?" I said, "Yeah. Maybe I'm using the wrong word, but I'm just very appreciative that this many people would go out and buy something I wrote." And I'm at the same time here very moved by the realization that there are so many thousands, millions of you who are likewise concerned for me and my family in this situation.

publius

October 4, 2003, 10:03 PM

Gee, I didn't know I was mentioned in any investigation. I'll cooperate fully if needed.

<steps offstage to hire Roy Black>

Hey, folks, I don't know what's going on here. I sure can't comment on something I don't know anything about. I just really want to tell you all the whole truth.

Is it just me, or is Rush doing an outstanding impersonation of Bill Clinton, performing one of his weekly non-denial denials?

jimpeel

October 4, 2003, 10:15 PM

There is also a notable item that has to be addressed on this issue. Read the article at http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-e/chapin/03/chapin100403.htm wherein the writer made reference to the comments of Sal Paolantonio which were made several hours prior to Rush's comments.

Sal Paolantonio's comments were actually racist in their narture. He stated that many Americans were desirous of Notre Dame's coach, who is Black, failing for no other reason than his skin color.

The major difference between these two comments was that Paolantonio did not condemn the press; whereas Rush did. When he did that, the press came after him with all of their claws out. The real news, the real racist comment, didn't just go on the back burner; it went out the window. The press, with the possible exception of this one reporter, chose to ignore Paolantonio because it was far more important to them to destroy someone who has always been critical of them; and this was their big chance -- and they took it.

jimpeel

October 4, 2003, 10:30 PM

Remember a certain Mr. Richard Jewell? I'll bet Rush does.

The fact that he gets a lawyer is not an indication of his guilt; it is an indication of his intelligence.

Look at the number of people who have cooperated with the police and found themselves indicted because they answered truthfully and those truths were twisted into something they were not. Richard Jewell does.

Remember this always -- THE POLICE ARE NOT YOUR FRIEND!

When you come under their scrutiny, they are there to take whatever you say and turn it into the worst thing imaginable.

The simplest flaw in your conversations with them will be taken as a lie.

The slightest deviation from your story -- which they will make you tell them over and over for hours on end -- will be taken as evidence of your guilt.

Remember that part about "Everything you say can, and will, be held against you."? Are you under any impression that they are kidding or don't really mean that?

Lawyering up is the smartest thing Rush can do. By your statement, are you in possession of any information that Rush hired Mr. Black prior to this bruhaha? It would be of interest to all of here at these boards if you could direct us to that information as it would be germane in our belief or disbelief in Rush.

jimpeel

October 4, 2003, 10:32 PM

http://slate.msn.com/id/2089193/

Is this guy a racist, too?

publius

October 5, 2003, 06:51 AM

Yes, I remember him. Can't remember the exact amount of the settlement he walked away with in the end, but I do remember him.

I don't even know for sure that he's hired Roy Black. My wife told me she read that, I don't know where. My understanding is that it happened about the time he released the initial non-denial denial on his website. Anyway, you're right that hiring a lawyer is smart and doesn't necessarily indicate guilt. It sure as heck doesn't indicate innocence either.

Suppose it's all made up. Not a grain of truth to it. Rush releases a statement on his website saying, "I have never illegally obtained or used any drug." If that statement were true, how could the police use it against him? I can't think of any way.

Even if everything the maid says about him is true, I don't think Rush has done anything that should be illegal. I enjoy listening to Rush. I'm not out to get him, though I do hope that this experience changes his views on prohibition.

All I was saying with that post was, he sure is doing a good Clinton impersonation, and I can't figure out why.

jimpeel

October 5, 2003, 01:35 PM

I don't even know for sure that he's hired Roy Black.Apparently, he has. I heard it on FoxNEWS last night. They even went into some detail on Black's pedigree.All I was saying with that post was, he sure is doing a good Clinton impersonation, and I can't figure out why.
This is why you keep tabs on the enemy and do as he does. When in Turkey, do as the turkeys do.

publius

October 6, 2003, 06:13 AM

I'm supposed to get oral from a chubby intern? Well, OK, but I'm telling the wife you put me up to it. ;)

Sergeant Bob

October 6, 2003, 06:37 AM

All I was saying with that post was, he sure is doing a good Clinton impersonation, and I can't figure out why.
Actually, if he was going to do a Clinton impersonation, he would have said "I have not taken any drugs, not ever, never!" even if he had indeed taken drugs. As it was, he neither confirmed or denied it. Maybe he did and he's smart enough not to say anything to incriminate himself, or maybe he didn't and he's smart enough not to say anything to incriminate himself. If you're under investigation, anything you say can and will be used against you.

ojibweindian

October 6, 2003, 09:36 AM

Someone said, and I paraphrase, "I find it interesting that the drugs he is accused of buying cause hearing loss".

News flash; you've probably bought "drugs" that cause hearing loss, too. Have you ever taken aspirin, tylenol, motrin, anaprox, or just about any other NSAID that's sold OTC? If so, and if you've been taking them regularly for an extended period of time, it's quite possible you may, at some point in your life, begin to suffer from tinitis. Why? because the above mentioned medicines are ototoxic!

So, hearing loss and a "story" about oxycontin does not equate to guilt.

jimpeel

October 6, 2003, 10:12 AM

I was messing around on WinAMP last night and came upon this guy Mike Malloy. http://www.mikemalloy.com/ Jeez!

According to Mr. Malloy, all of Rush's listeners are racists. All of Rush's listeners are stupid. His hate-filled diatribe on Rush's drug accusation could have been summed up in a single word:

GUILTY!

Went to his posting board and most of the posts there could have been summed up in a single word:

GUILTY!

This is why Liberals should never be allowed to run the country.

To see some of this spew, go to:

My Take On Limbaugh Today (http://www.mikemalloy.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=5189&sid=8e30e777a3df83edbd1bf49ce1f09b35):barf:

The Limbaugh Gay Arrest Story... (http://www.mikemalloy.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=5149&sid=8e30e777a3df83edbd1bf49ce1f09b35):barf:

Pigbaugh The Pill Popper Says: "Trust Me" (http://www.mikemalloy.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=5184&sid=8e30e777a3df83edbd1bf49ce1f09b35):barf:

Limbaugh the pill addict (http://www.mikemalloy.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=5150&sid=8e30e777a3df83edbd1bf49ce1f09b35):barf:

DaveB

October 6, 2003, 10:29 AM

Yeah, librals are all crazy, stupid, hate-filled... :cuss:

I'm trying to remember the last time a libral murdered a doctor or a talk show host...

No luck. Help me out, here.

db

Obiwan

October 6, 2003, 10:47 AM

I won't even comment on the football issue...nobody has a constitutional right not to be offended...everyone is guranteed a right to free speech.

On the drug issue

He has not been charged with anything, but he has already been found guilty in the court of public opinion.

I would say that he is smart to;

1. Lawyer up

2. Shut up

How many threads are on this board advising you to shut up/lawyer up after a shooting EVEN if you are sure you are in the right???

ojibweindian

October 6, 2003, 10:55 AM

I'm trying to remember the last time a libral murdered a doctor or a talk show host...

No luck. Help me out, here.

Oswald, misunderstood communist, or a presidential assasin? You decide.

jimpeel

October 6, 2003, 11:06 AM

Does Charles Manson sending minions out to murder coffee Heiresses, hair stylists, and actresses qualify or do they HAVE to be radio talk show hosts?

Leno LaBianca was a doctor. Does he count?

Just wondering.

DaveB

October 6, 2003, 11:51 AM

Oswald, Charlie M..., c'mon. Libral assassins? Garden variety loonies.

You'll need to do better.

db

ojibweindian

October 6, 2003, 12:01 PM

And so do you.

DaveB

October 6, 2003, 12:19 PM

Perhaps I do.

The comment was made that "those liberals are so filled with hate...". I have to assume that the author is being ironic.

I'm fifty-something, and I can't recall any so-called liberal cause pursued to the extent that the other side became concerned for their own personal safety. Liberals talk, mostly too much talk, but almost never make threats of violence against specific opponents (protests gone over the edge do not count for my purpose here).

The right, OTOH, has used physical intimidation and threats of violence on a regular basis, and has gone well beyond the threat stage on several occasions (Alan Berg, abortion doctors, etc).

I'm not saying that there no capacity for violence on the left. I am observing that anyone whining about how much the left "hates" Bush is not only pursuing an agenda designed to invalidate criticism of Bushy politics (by ascribing criticism to - irrational - hatred rather than political disagreement), but is also a particularly repellant hypocrit.

They spent HOW MUCH time and money trying to "get something... Anything" on Clinton? They came up with dick. I wonder what made the right so focused on BC...

Could it have been, GASP, hate?

Nah.

db

ojibweindian

October 6, 2003, 12:59 PM

The right, OTOH, has used physical intimidation and threats of violence on a regular basis, and has gone well beyond the threat stage on several occasions (Alan Berg, abortion doctors, etc).

I guess the Teamsters and the AFL/CIO are right -wing? Or have they never used force, and/or the threat of force?

DaveB

October 6, 2003, 01:02 PM

Yes, Unions have a long history of mob violence, but I don't see the parallel.

If you need to eqate unions with assassins, nothing I can write will make sense to you.

db

ojibweindian

October 6, 2003, 01:16 PM

Violence is violence, whether by an individual or group.

Republicans are no more, or less, violent than Democrats. Conservatives are no more, or less, violent than Liberals. For every wacko conservative incident, I am pretty sure I can name a liberal wacko incident.

Remember the SLA, the Black Panthers, ALF?

In all honesty, though, I can't see where any of what you and I are discussing relates to the topic.

Joe Demko

October 6, 2003, 01:32 PM

I guess the Teamsters and the AFL/CIO are right -wing? Or have they never used force, and/or the threat of force?

I guess that Carnegie, Frick, Jones, Laughlin, Iselin, et. al. didn't really use violence to enforce their will on the workers, then. I suggest you do a quick search on Pinkertons, Homestead Massacre, history of Pennsylvania State Police, Coal and Iron Cops. People who whine about the unions should keep in mind that the companies created the unions through the ways they mistreated and exploited their workers.
None of which has anything to do with the problems a certain radio buffoon and windbag is currently having.

ojibweindian

October 6, 2003, 02:04 PM

Okay Golgo

All Conservatives are evil. They should be boiled in steaming salt water and their children either burned at the stake or fed to ravenous dogs.

If you had bothered to read the whole discussion, you would have seen the citing of Teamsters et al was to illustrate that both are guilty.

Would you like to read my last post, just for curiousity's sake?

Violence is violence, whether by an individual or group.

Republicans are no more, or less, violent than Democrats. Conservatives are no more, or less, violent than Liberals. For every wacko conservative incident, I am pretty sure I can name a liberal wacko incident.

Remember the SLA, the Black Panthers, ALF?

In all honesty, though, I can't see where any of what you and I are discussing relates to the topic.

jimpeel

October 6, 2003, 02:13 PM

The "Right" will catch up to the "Left" when they slaughter 100 million people ala Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, et al.

Looks like we've got a ways to go so we'd better get crackin'. Even if we kill 2,740 per day it will take us 100 years just to break even; but only if the Left kills no more people for that entire time.

Joe Demko

October 6, 2003, 02:41 PM

The Shah of Iran and a whole pantload of other murderous dictators who filled plenty of mass graves were right wing. We (the US) supported a bunch of them.
Which brings us back, again, to the fact that this has nothing to do Limbaugh and his self-inflicted wounds.

ojibweindian

October 6, 2003, 02:46 PM

Do you KNOW Limbaugh is guilty? Did you see him buy the drugs? Have you personally heard the alleged tapes?

Until I see the evidence, I will reserve judgement.

jimpeel

October 6, 2003, 03:45 PM

Limbaugh lawyered up!

He's GUILTY!

Limbaugh has yet to deny the charges!

He's GUILTY!

Limbaugh is broadcasting from New York City today! That's interstate flight to avoid prosecution!

He's GUILTY!

His ex-employee says its all true!

He's GUILTY!

In the face of these incontrovertible truths ...

He's GUILTY!

Monkeyleg

October 6, 2003, 05:47 PM

"I'm fifty-something, and I can't recall any so-called liberal cause pursued to the extent that the other side became concerned for their own personal safety. Liberals talk, mostly too much talk, but almost never make threats of violence against specific opponents (protests gone over the edge do not count for my purpose here)."

Did Karlton Armstrong go "over the edge" when he bombed a building at the University of Wisconsin, killing four, in the name of peace? How about Bernadine Dhorn? Or the young liberal activist (forget her name) who was recently arrested for bombing police cars back in the 1970's?

Killings and bombings aren't conservative or liberal actions. They're the actions of psychopaths.

DaveB

October 6, 2003, 05:52 PM

ML, You have a valid point.

Murder done in the interest of a cause is still murder.

db

WonderNine

October 6, 2003, 06:21 PM

Who cares about Rush Limberger :rolleyes:

jimpeel

October 6, 2003, 06:48 PM

I can't recall any so-called liberal cause pursued to the extent that the other side became concerned for their own personal safety. SLA (numerous dead), Black Panthers, Isla Vista Bank Burning, UCSB Faculty Club bombing (1 dead), ELF, ALF, Earth First! (several dead), Chicago DNC riots.

Gee, I can't think of any either!

geegee

October 6, 2003, 09:11 PM

SLA (numerous dead), Black Panthers, Isla Vista Bank Burning, UCSB Faculty Club bombing (1 dead), ELF, ALF, Earth First! (several dead), Chicago DNC riots
Okay, I'll play. Let us not forget Theodore Kaczynski (The Unabomber), whose life was so empty and devoid of meaning that he was not only committed to blowing up people he perceived as opponents of his leftist views, but in his cabin was found a copy of Al Gore's book "Earth in the Balance." :barf: That little factoid gets scant attention when that looney bird is discussed. geegee

publius

October 6, 2003, 09:34 PM

Dave B,

Ever hear of the Unibomber? How about ALF and ELF? Being a capitalist around those people just isn't safe.

How many threads are on this board advising you to shut up/lawyer up after a shooting EVEN if you are sure you are in the right?

and

If you're under investigation, anything you say can and will be used against you.

To the first one,

If you've shot someone, you definitely should shut up, even if it's justified, but these allegations are different. To extend the analogy a bit...suppose a shooting occurs, but you were across town and had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Do you still need to shut up, lawyer up? Why?

To the second,

I'm hoping we have a prosecutor around here who can explain how he would use the following hypothetical statement against Rush:

"I have never illegally acquired or used any drug."

I mean, it's my understanding that he's not in much legal trouble to begin with (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/auto/epaper/editions/saturday/news_f3e7e3c206b150960079.html). What scary consequences might ensue if he issued the above statement, and it was truthful? Anyone?

Actually, if he was going to do a Clinton impersonation, he would have said "I have not taken any drugs, not ever, never!" even if he had indeed taken drugs. As it was, he neither confirmed or denied it.

That's only true of Clinton's most famous scandal. The more usual pattern seemed to be to promise full cooperation while stonewalling. Don't tell me that this thread is the first time you've heard the phrase non-denial denial. Where were you from 1992 to 2000? We used to get one of those a week!

Obiwan

October 6, 2003, 10:07 PM

Let me see...liberal tree huggers spike trees often maiming loggers

Earth first openly advocates "terrorist activity" to save the planet

Arson is popular...just lucky nobody has died when their SUV got torched.

Luckily, most conservatives don't have to live in their vehicle!

No...liberals are fairly relaxed....heavily medicated is more likely

Neither side has a monpoly on anger...but ....there is plenty to go around.

Sergeant Bob

October 7, 2003, 06:20 AM

That's only true of Clinton's most famous scandal. The more usual pattern seemed to be to promise full cooperation while stonewalling. Don't tell me that this thread is the first time you've heard the phrase non-denial denial. Where were you from 1992 to 2000? We used to get one of those a week!
OK, I'll buy that, if you can show me where Limbaugh made a non-denial denial.

publius

October 7, 2003, 06:58 AM

That's how it struck me when he started out by putting a brief statement on his website saying he had not been officially informed of any investigation in which he was involved, and would cooperate fully with authorities if they should call on him. Reminded me of Bill Clinton stepping into the lights to say, "Ahh don't know whah anyone would suspect me of any wrongdoing, but Ahh'll cooperate fully if this mythical investigation turns out to be real."

Next day, I checked his website, and all it had to say was, basically, that he didn't know what was going on here, so he couldn't comment on something he knew nothing about. It was like he was hearing about events in a caller's life, not his own. I mean, either he's completely innocent of any of the allegations, or else he knows something about what's cooking. I can't think of a 3rd alternative.

As I said, the lack of denial of any illegal activity leads me to believe that he does indeed know something about what's cooking. I still haven't heard a good explanation of the legal peril a denial would cause for him, at least if it were true, but it's obvious to all of us the good it would do for his career.

Basically, he claims to know nothing. The only way he could know nothing would be if the whole story is a crock of BS. Yet he doesn't actually come out and say it's all BS. I call that a non-denial denial. What do you call it?

0007

October 7, 2003, 07:14 AM

Let's see now. DEA busts a couple of dealers(who are apparently having difficulties paying the tax bill just presented to them by the irs regarding their undeclaired income from drug dealing). DEA says what/who can you give us? Dealers say I'll give you Rush Limbaugh as soon as I selll the story to the national enquirer. DEA checks its books to see what assets Limbaugh has for seazing. DEA rushes out door on way to Limbaugh house, bank, airport, etc... Only problem here is that the Palm Beach police have repeatedly said that Limbaugh is NOT the target of any investigation. Stay tuned.

Sergeant Bob

October 7, 2003, 07:49 AM

Basically, he claims to know nothing. The only way he could know nothing would be if the whole story is a crock of BS. Yet he doesn't actually come out and say it's all BS. I call that a non-denial denial. What do you call it?
Is this what you are referring to in stating that he said he knew nothing about it?
I really don't know the full scope of what I am dealing with. And when I get all the facts, when I get all the details of this, rest assured that I will discuss this with you and tell you how it is, tell you everything there is, maybe more than you want to know about this. You can believe me and trust me on that. I don't want to answer any questions about it now, as I say, until I know exactly what I'm dealing with, and at that point I will fill you all in.
Rush Limbaugh.com (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100603/content/rush_thanks_listeners_for_support_on_friday___statement.guest.html)

I still don't see a non-denial denial.
Perhaps you could enlighten us?

Orthonym

October 7, 2003, 09:52 AM

Some people take drugs to dull the pain so they may get on with their work; some people take drugs because it's the main thing they do. Into which categories do Mr. Limbaugh and his housekeeper fall, do you think?

DaveB

October 7, 2003, 10:07 AM

Obiwan & Publius, I'll make a final comment and bow out.

The difference I see is that the violent left did their actions in the dark - they are crimes, after all. Most 'mainstream' liberals disavow their crimes.

BTW, Ted is not a liberal - he's a luddite.

OTOH, we have radio 'commentators' now openly advocating right on left violence. I can't tell how mainstream conservatives feel about murdered doctors.

db

mtnbkr

October 7, 2003, 10:19 AM

OTOH, we have radio 'commentators' now openly advocating right on left violence. I can't tell how mainstream conservatives feel about murdered doctors.

Which ones? I've never heard that from Hannity, Limbaugh, or Hamblin (the only conservative hosts I've listened to).

Shortwave broadcasters don't count.

Chris

jimpeel

October 7, 2003, 01:18 PM

Didn't you read his post? He said "I'll make a final comment and bow out". That means he will do one more hit-n-run and then has no obligation to respond because he isn't coming back to this thread to respond.

I guess we'll have to find out for ourselves which "commentators" are advocating right on left violence.

In the meantuime DaveB, because I know you're still lurking here after "bowing out", go to http://www.mikemalloy.com/ and check out the message boards if you want to see raw, unbridled, seething hate. This is a Liberal site, with a Liberal host, with a Liberal following, and professes raw, unbridled, seething hatred against Conservatives.

Sorry you won't be back but you will eventually find that one can never change the status quo by removing oneself from the sphere of influence.

mtnbkr

October 7, 2003, 01:21 PM

Didn't you read his post? He said "I'll make a final comment and bow out".

I know, just thought he'd make an exception for little ol' me. :D

Chris

Khornet

October 7, 2003, 05:10 PM

Let's give it a death with dignity.

publius

October 7, 2003, 05:22 PM

I still don't see a non-denial denial.
Perhaps you could enlighten us?

Sarge,

Actually, I first called what Rush was doing a non-denial denial when the initial statement came out. It was only two or three sentences, and it said that he hadn't been officially informed of any investigation but would cooperate if called upon. Just as was so often the case with Clinton, both statements could be completely true, yet Rush could still be guilty of every allegation. Or, he could be completely innocent.

The quotation you posted was the one I was talking about when I said it was as if he were hearing about events in the life of a caller to his show, but he really didn't know anything about the situation. As with the previous statement, it could be completely true, yet Rush could still be guilty of every allegation. Or, he could be completely innocent.

If it were me, I'd be inclined to put a statement on my website that cleared the air, saying what I said before. "I have never illegally acquired or used any drug." At least, I'd do that if it were true. No one has stepped forward to explain to me the legal peril I might put myself in by doing that. Anyone can see the peril I would put myself in by making that statement if it were not true: it would later be used to damage my credibility in court.

So you don't like the description non-denial denial for what Rush has done? What would you call it? I guess an I'll tell ya later would be more accurate. Call it what you wish. Yes, it tends to make me think he's

GUILTY

(Guilty of acting like he, not the state, owns his own body, that is...)

Bill Hook

October 7, 2003, 05:26 PM

Moderator,

As the thread starter, I'd like to ask that you strongly consider closing this.

Thanks.

jimpeel

October 7, 2003, 05:27 PM

http://www.judybaca.com/dia/text/images/funeral%20procession

Sergeant Bob

October 7, 2003, 05:47 PM

So you don't like the description non-denial denial for what Rush has done? What would you call it? I guess an I'll tell ya later would be more accurate. Call it what you wish. Yes, it tends to make me think he's

GUILTY

(Guilty of acting like he, not the state, owns his own body, that is...)
Tell ya later sounds good to me. From his statements, I tend to think he is indeed guilty, as you said (Guilty of acting like he, not the state, owns his own body, that is...) and definitly involved a little CYA. I think we basically agree here. Thanks for staying on topic, which seemed awfully difficult for some.

DRC

October 7, 2003, 05:53 PM

I was reading some of the earlier posts and one asked why Rush did not come out and say "I have never illegally acquired or used any drug." Granted I'm not a lawyer but I can say this has less to do with legalities and more to do with politics.

The story of alleged drug use came out almost immediately after the ESPN uproar. He was an easy target at that point and people that want to see him gone have to fuel whatever fire they can to keep it going. This is how peoples lives are destroyed in the world political. Throw several stories true, false, coroborated or not to keep the attention on these people; the more attention they get the more guilty they become in the eyes of the public. If Rush came out and denied the charge he would be deemed guilty by denial and only denied it because he had something to hide (or so it would read in the press) Just like weekly news shows that do an expose on a company that refuses to allow an interview or "...could not be reached for comment." How many have seen those and thought "Well, if they won't come out and say it they must be guilty."? But what about those that do grant the interviews or send written denials of the allegations? Those that grant interviews tend to get editted into looking like they're trying to hide something (law suits have been filed against stations for this and public apologies have been issued by stations for this as well) and those that send written or verbal denials look like they're trying to hide something.

Basically once the allegation has been made you should keep your mouth shut and let the lawyers work it out. Do not deny or admit anything, period. It's safer that way. Do not grant interviews and avoid talking about the subject in any setting.

Is Rush guilty? Here's one for the masses. If it is a he said/ she said situation and can only be coroborated by drug dealers formerly employed by Rush and none of these drugs are still around he will be found guilty of nothing. This case and allegation will die a quick death and it already is. Listen to the news; all it talks about is the ESPN hooplah with an occasional side note for the drug allegation. The story will disappear withing the month I can and will assure you.

Do I think Rush did it? What difference does it make when the story will be gone shortly anyway? But to answer my own question with a question: Why would a man with as much money and clout as Rush Limbaugh need to go to a drug dealer to get pain killers when he could have gotten them legally (and better stuff I might add) from his own doctor? Doesn't make any sense to me. Most might say because he was an addict. Why sin't he an addict now and if he was why wouldn't anyone be looking for this information. He has plenty of enemies that want to ruin him now as well as back then.

Just some thoughts,

DRC

Waitone

October 7, 2003, 06:21 PM

Righto, this thread is beginning to stink.

Since I don't have a dawg in the fight, I include the following for consideration.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/10/7/133244.shtml

Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2003 1:15 p.m. EDT
Hannity Next Target of Democrat Smearmongers?Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2003 1:15 p.m. EDT
Hannity Next Target of Democrat Smearmongers?

Washed-up left-wing actor Ed Asner reportedly suggested over the weekend that a cabal of liberals is preparing to smear conservative media star Sean Hannity the way they smeared Rush Limbaugh with the publication of last week's National Enquirer painkiller expose.

Nationally syndicated radio host Mike Gallagher told his audience Monday that he and Asner were at a New York City cocktail party Friday night where he engaged the actor in conversation.

After Asner told him that he enjoyed jousting on the air with right-wingers, Gallagher said the Hollywood radical warned cryptically, "Well, Hannity's next, you know."

When asked what he meant, Asner allegedly explained, "We're going after your buddy Hannity just like we went after Limbaugh this week - and look what happened to Rush."

Apprised of the alleged threat, Hannity invited Asner on his show Monday to see if he'd confirm his comments.

When confronted with Gallagher's account, Asner at first denied making the threat. But in the next breath he told Hannity, "I think [Gallagher] probably was - ah - perhaps enlarging [what I said]."

Asked to clarify what he said to Gallagher, Asner said: "I can't remember. It wasn't that important."

When Hannity reminded Asner about a previous interview where he attacked Limbaugh off the air in a particularly offensive manner, the Hollywood has-been claimed, "I was kidding."

In the next breath, however, Asner hinted that the Limbaugh drug story was a planned act of retaliation, telling Hannity in sarcastic tones, "Rush said some very unfriendly things on the air and look what happened. My God."

Attention! Don tinfoil hats!!!

publius

October 9, 2003, 06:44 AM

one asked why Rush did not come out and say "I have never illegally acquired or used any drug."
<snip>
If Rush came out and denied the charge he would be deemed guilty by denial and only denied it because he had something to hide (or so it would read in the press)
<snip>
Basically once the allegation has been made you should keep your mouth shut and let the lawyers work it out.

DRC,
I asked that question. Personally, I think it looks worse from a public relations point of view if, at the end of the story about Rush's alleged addiction, the reporter says, "Mr. Limbaugh has refused to comment." I think it looks better if the reporter says, "Mr. Limbaugh has denied the allegation."

Also, as I pointed out by linking to an article (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/auto/epaper/editions/saturday/news_f3e7e3c206b150960079.html), it seems that there really isn't much for Roy Black to "work out" in this case.

Your analysis leaves me wondering exactly when Rush, who says he'll tell us later, will actually tell us. After the lawyers have done their work? What work? It looks like he won't face any legal charges, and if he's lucky, he won't even have any of his assets confiscated (http://www.fear.org/hadaway.html).

Later seems to me to be now.

DaveB

October 9, 2003, 11:11 AM

Washed-up left-wing actor Ed Asner reportedly suggested...

Is this where people get their 'news'? My Gawd.

db

ojibweindian

October 9, 2003, 12:01 PM

And the L.A. Times is better because?

Don't forget the reporters for the Boston Globe and the N.Y. Times canned for falsifying stories or for plaigerism.

In reality, Newsmax.com is just as trustworthy as any other news organization.

Molon Labe

October 9, 2003, 12:16 PM

Here's one story:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/122839p-110349c.html

DaveB

October 9, 2003, 12:30 PM

I did not suggest one source over another, but everybody knows that the NYDN is a tabloid.

I thought that newsmax was supposed to be (biased and) professional.

db

Bill Hook

October 9, 2003, 12:44 PM

Washed-up left-wing actor Ed Asner reportedly suggested

I don't see anything untrue in that statement. ;)

jimpeel

October 9, 2003, 12:53 PM

The slant of the writer became glaringly clear when I hit the phrase "moralizing motormouth".

"There were times when I worried," Cline told the National Enquirer, which broke the story in an edition being published today. "All these pills are enough to kill an elephant - never mind a man."Well, he is a Republican, after all.

bountyhunter

October 9, 2003, 01:53 PM

But, it was funny to see that Rush's views on drug use "evolved" from "throw 'em all in prison" to "we should legalize some drugs" over a period of several years. I saw a program where they charted that ransition of viewpoint over time... apparrently it ran in parallel with his addiction to Vicodin.

DRC

October 9, 2003, 06:35 PM

"DRC,
I asked that question. Personally, I think it looks worse from a public relations point of view if, at the end of the story about Rush's alleged addiction, the reporter says, "Mr. Limbaugh has refused to comment." I think it looks better if the reporter says, "Mr. Limbaugh has denied the allegation."

(Do not take any of this as an attack on you it is for point making only)

I actually addressed that very thing in the post you quoted me from. It's the "Seriousness of the charge, not the evidence and facts of the case that count." I took that from something I read in one of Ann Coulters books (who is a total babe I might add and if I wasn't married I'd want to have her children but that's a different story ;) Anyway, what it boils down to is how it plays out in the press and the press can't stand Rush so how do you suppose it would play out regardless of what he said. Think of it this way what if Rush did deny the allegations, would you hear anything about it? It is easier from the presses position to skew things a bit as they often do even with things unrelated to these allegations. Would you not agree? Or do you find the press to be fair and factual in their reporting and fact gathering?

"Also, as I pointed out by linking to an article, it seems that there really isn't much for Roy Black to "work out" in this case."

Another point that I've touched on as well. Regardless of true or false it is immaterial because nothing will come of it. It is a moot point. BUT when one is accused of something in a national rag one had better get a lawyer in a hurry, again regardless of guilt or innocence. The man that shows up unarmed loses. The same reason that a lawyer would advise you in legal circumstances to file suit against the other party first otherwise you look like the bad guy even if you aren't.

"Your analysis leaves me wondering exactly when Rush, who says he'll tell us later, will actually tell us. After the lawyers have done their work? What work? It looks like he won't face any legal charges, and if he's lucky, he won't even have any of his assets confiscated."

Again it will be a moot point. Think of it this way, if I did something or if I did nothing and an allegation was made against me, I hired a lawyer and the case was dropped, it's immaterial and I would drop it as well. You could specualte all you wanted but you'll never know if I was innocent or guilty but believing either would make one nothing more than a chump (not saying you're a chump but using that to make a point) If it's my private life and the case gets dropped it becomes no ones business but mine and should be kept as such. Remember these words if you should ever end up in one of these situations for whatever reason, keep your mouth shut and get as good a lawyer as you can afford.

"Later seems to me to be now."

Do you know Rush? Does he call you? Are you married to him? Well, then what you want is immaterial as well since you don't make those decisions Rush and his lawyer do. That's like me demanding that you show me your personal financial records right now. It's none of my business! (Again don't take any of this as any kind of attack it's simply done to make a point) We can all wish in one hand and sh** in the other and see which one fills up faster.

Just my thoughts,

DRC

PS. Bountyhunter<

"I saw a program where they charted that ransition of viewpoint over time... apparrently it ran in parallel with his addiction to Vicodin."

Strange. I thought it was oxycotin, not vicodin. But what do I know?

bountyhunter

October 9, 2003, 07:32 PM

Strange. I thought it was oxycotin, not vicodin. But what do I know?

My bad, Vicodin is Hydrocodone not oxycodone.

According to the web, oxycontin and Oxycodone are the same drug.

http://www.oxycontin-oxycodone.com/oxycodone.htm

Oxycodone is known on the street as "Hillbilly Heroin". They grind it up and inject it. It's a time release drug designed to release slowly. When crushed, it gives a massive high as it all hits at once. The problem is so bad the manufacturer is trying to come up with a way to make it so that the drug is "destroyed" if crushed, so people won't be able to crush it and shoot it.

As for what Rush says: the only thing I know is that he has been very quiet on his radio show about it. Knowing Rush, if this allegation was truly unfounded, he would have been breathing flames out of the speakers of radios across America.

DRC

October 10, 2003, 11:36 AM

"My bad, Vicodin is Hydrocodone not oxycodone."

No problem I just thought I had gotten confused on this. Intresting stuff about the drugs. It is amazing what people can find to do with prescription drugs as well as other seemingly harmless products. Paint huffing, Acetone, Freon all for a "high." Why can't they take up Sky Diving or Bungee Jumping? That way they aren't a menace to society and if they have a bad trip it will only happen once :)

"As for what Rush says: the only thing I know is that he has been very quiet on his radio show about it. Knowing Rush, if this allegation was truly unfounded, he would have been breathing flames out of the speakers of radios across America."

Yes, but that is my point. From a legal standpoint when highly visible in the public eye, if you want something to go away (regardless of guilt or not) let it die. Don't talk about it one way or another. If Rush doesn't do this then even if he was innocent the story would go the way of the Coelacanth, but the speculation would remain in the media anytime they needed to shed doubt on what he was doing.

As an example look at Newt Gingrich. The man got run out of congress for accepting a book deal and the ethics attached deemed it a conflict of intrest because of the publishing group making the offer. Anytime he comes out with hard lines on anything the media scoffs and talks about what he did. Sadly what he did was neither illegal or unethical but he was branded with it. Hillary Rodam Clinton accepted a book deal for four times what Newt was offered and with a more direct conflict of intrest and ethical question. Did you hear anything about that? No, she wasn't branded. Bill Clinton was offered a book deal for five times what Newt was offered andf the same ethical ond conflict of intrest questions could come up with regard to him. Hear anything about that? Nope.

That's the point I want to make. Say nothing, let it die and the media can't brand you with it. The media is good at "scenarios" and specualtion as we've seen all to often so the best defense against them is none at all. Let them talk and shrug it off. Leave them guessing and they ahve to let it lie or be faced with defamation suits (or at least the threat there of) This is why Miranda says "...anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." Don't give anyone any ammunition good, bad or otherwise.

Just my thoughts on it, but anyone reading this should take heed and remember this if you should end up in a situation where allegations or court could be in your future. Let the lawyers hash it out, saying your not guilty to the masses won't help you any. Remember too that everyone in prison is innocent, just ask them ;)

Take care,

DRC