posted
Whether or not you like a person or the values they promote, an individual's own actions doesn't invalidate the rightness of what they preach.
Posts: 291 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if this is true, or if the Kerrys could sell one of their homes and feed a city full of homeless people for who knows how long, does that invalidate John Kerry's assertion that the rich should help the less fortunate?
posted
One's actions do not invalidate the points they're trying to make. What they do is remove all credibility of said person. So just don't vote for (Edit: or support in any other way) him/her if he/she can't seem to keep true to what he/she is saying...
posted
Speed, your point brings me to one of My Thor policies...
I DO BELIEVE that people should have escalated taxes PER house.
Example, if you have 2 houses, you pay a large chunk, if you have 3 houses you pay a larger chunk tax, if you have 4 houses you pay a mega chunk tax and if you have 5 taxes you're paying out the wazoo tax.
Kerry doesn't have much ground to stand on with his "love the poor, help the poor" mantras.
The difference between Kerry and Rush?
Kerry got to live like a Billionaire because his wife inherited the Katschup fortune of Heinz, where Rush Limbaugh made his millions preaching about "don't do drugs, keep marriage holy".
See the difference?
Also, it is no suprise or SHOCK that the RICHEST PEOPLE on earth pay less tax percentages than those people under them.
Why do you think the tax code is 60,000 pages?
Forbes did a story in their "500 richest Americans" issue detailing how the 500 richest Americans paid about 8% in taxes when it was all said and done.
When I rail against tax cuts for billionaires, I'm not railing against tax cuts for republican billionaires, I'm railing against ALL the mega uber rich.
We should judge a tree by its fruits, not it's public relations firm.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just can't take people seriously when they do not practice what they preach. It's called hypocracy and I hate it.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This seems like an echo of this thread, which wound up turning into an argument over personal issues and never went anywhere.
I say it has merit as an accusation against those who wish to disallow gay marriage, but mostly on a keeping-score basis due to the number of dissolutions in current hetero marriage, not to disparage heterosexual marriage itself. The problem is that forcing people to stay in marriages is risky, because there are a number of marriages that are dangerous to one or both of the people in the marriage to begin with. This could be due to abuse or infidelity, because with infidelity someone runs the chance of contracting an STD which could fall into the risk of contracting AIDS. Homosexual marriage would not be exempt from this.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speed, the article about Kerry not paying his taxes is bogus. Look at their math.
quote: In addition to finding loopholes and write-offs to decrease his taxes, John Kerry has declined to pay a small, voluntary tax in his home state. The Massachusetts state income tax code contains a provision allowing payers to contribute an extra .6% of their income to benefit the commonwealth. Kerry has consistently failed to pay the extra money, which would have amounted to $687 dollars last year.
So according to them, $687 is equal to .6% of their income. Which means, if we devide 687 by 0.006 we should get their income. Well I did that. According to the article they make around $114,500 a year. When my parents who are middle of the pack university profs make close to that, each on their own. Thats an upper middle class income. The article asserted that they were one of the richest families in the country. They also asserted that the Bushes have a substantially lower income than the Kerry's. If I recall correctly, the presidential salary is about $200,000 a year. Not including any money Laura Bush brings in, or money gotten from Bush's extremely rich father. So the article is completely bogus.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about their income, but as a couple, Kerry and Heinz are worth somewhere close to a billion. Much of that is in trusts, which could go a long way to explaining the tax numbers you found.
posted
The articles says nothing about what kind of property taxes they pay. But it is entirely likely that their income taxes simply ARE that low, becuase their INCOME is that low. That doesn't say that they don't have money, but its probably stored away in other ways. Saved in the bank, invested, in trusts, in property. That may or may not be taxed as well, but it wouldn't be shown in the income tax. I hate articles like this, becuase they just don't show the entire story.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, thanks I thought something like that had happened but I couldn't remember if it had been raised to 400,000 or 200,000 and went with the lower number. So using the actual salary of Bush, then according to that article's numbers, Bush makes 4x Kerry instead of 2x.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
This is false. Rush became addicted to prescription painkillers. There is a big difference between this and illegal drugs.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Using prescription drugs acquired from someone else illegally is using illegal drugs, smartass. The illegal part was in the acquisition, not the type of drug it was. Besides, any misuse of prescription drugs is illegal as well, which also adds to the "illegal" label. You may want to defend what Rush did out of some sick loyalty to someone who wouldn't even give a crap about you had you been caught in the same situation, but ignoring reality to do so is pure stupidity.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's still a qualitative difference between becoming hooked on a substance while using it legally (as Rush did) and becoming hooked on a substance that wasn't legal at any time it was taken.
Actually, we had a huge debate in our own family on this particular point just this week...
My son was vigorously voicing disapproval of something that I pointed out is a weakness in himself. And he said "just because I do it doesn't take away from whether it is right or wrong"
I pointed out, though, that his father is always telling the kids how bad cigarettes are, and how they should never try them -- while all the while puffing away on his Marlboro as he speaks.
Yes, his smoking doesn't make the message of "smoking is bad" any less true. But it does make him a hypocrit, to an extent, and makes it so the LISTENER is less likely to put much faith in his words.
So it just dilutes the message to the listener, without changing what is right or wrong.
quote: There's still a qualitative difference between becoming hooked on a substance while using it legally (as Rush did) and becoming hooked on a substance that wasn't legal at any time it was taken.
I know there is a stupid remark comparing this to his 4 marriage/saced marriage hypocrasy, but I'm not up to finding it today.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is it different? A man with the kind of money Rush has doesn't have to do some things that other addicts have to do to get a fix, thus his situation is so much different? Other than social status/wealth what is the significant difference in Rush's addiction and some poor slob in the inner city who steals for his fix? Both need to get the fix and do what they have to to get it. Rush could have easily paid for help. He could pay to have someone follow him around with a bat to wack him upside the head whenever he had the urge to use an illegal substance. He could have paid a private physician a healthy annual salary to follow him around with a needle filled with something legal that would help him get off the drugs. But he didn't. He chose the criminal route and yet his is qualitatively different? I agree...it is different...he had more choices and still made bad ones.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rush hasn’t been found guilty of anything. Even thought they rummaged through Rush’s private medical records looking for anything they might pin on him. I thought we were innocent until proven guilty? Why do other entertainers get a free pass on illegal drugs and are praised for getting treatment, but when Rush become addicted to a legal prescription drug, admits this publicly and gets treatment for it there is no sympathy. Everything Rush has said about illegal drugs is still true.
I might not like Rush getting divorces, but again. This is quite a bit different then defining marriage between one man and one woman.
And implying that I’m stupid doesn’t strengthen the argument any.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's still a qualitative difference between becoming hooked on a substance while using it legally (as Rush did) and becoming hooked on a substance that wasn't legal at any time it was taken.
That sounds like an alcoholic's excuse, for sure. You're trying to make what he did sounds not as bad as someone who buys a nickel bag of weed. You're trying to turn Rush's willful and conscious buying of drugs in an illicit manner from someone other than a licensed pharmacy with a legal prescription into some sort of tragedy for Rush. Not gonna happen, because it took the same conscious decision to break the law as the kid who goes to buy weed. This is the reason misuse of prescription drugs is illegal in the first place.
quote:My son was vigorously voicing disapproval of something that I pointed out is a weakness in himself. And he said "just because I do it doesn't take away from whether it is right or wrong"
No, it makes the speaker a blatant hypocrite. I'll point out that what you are doing is trying to divert attention from the hypocrisy of the person by pointing to the supposedly irrefutable fact that the activity is bad to begin with. Sure, drug abuse is a bad thing and don't do it. I don't see how pointing out what Rush did was used in any way to dispute that or claim it was not bad. If you could explain how pointing out Rush's utter hypocrisy in this case was not utter hypocrisy at all because what he said was not any more wrong, I would love to read the train of logic (using the term loosely) there.
If a murderer kills a man and then says that killing is wrong, should that man still not go to jail for murder?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humm… murder was wrong when he did it and when he said it.
Rush got a prescription for chronic pain. He became addicted to this drug and got treatment for it. This is all you have on him. The rest is idle speculation that can not be proven in the least.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You're trying to turn Rush's willful and conscious buying of drugs in an illicit manner from someone other than a licensed pharmacy with a legal prescription into some sort of tragedy for Rush.
No, I'm not. Please refrain from telling me what I'm trying to do. You're very bad at it.
Try to stay with me here.
1.) Rush is on a legal prescription of pain killer.
2.) Rush becomes an addict while taking a legal prescription of pain killers.
3.) Rush begins to acquire pain killers illegaly to feed his addiction.
Compare to the following:
1.) Hypothetical Person A buys heroin illegally. (Let's use a drug that's actually similar to the one Rush used, OK?)
2.) HPA becomes an addict while taking heroin he acquired illegally.
3.) HPA continues to acquire heroin illegally to feed his addiction.
There's a qualitative difference in step 1, for sure, since nothing illegal happened in Rush's step 1. Since step 1 was the immediate (not only) cause for step 2, there is a qualitative difference in step 2. There is no qualitative difference in step 3.
I honsetly didn't think I needed to spell that out for you. My apologies.
quote:I might not like Rush getting divorces, but again. This is quite a bit different then defining marriage between one man and one woman.
Read the other thread I linked and said this thread was an echo of. There are numbers pointed out that show how the alleged sanctity of marriage is broken by nearly fifty percent of the heterosexual population in the United States. Rush also destroyed the sanctity of his marriage on more than one occasion, but conveniently engaged in it with someone else.
This is the hypocrisy being pointed out.
Saying that just because Rush was not found guilty of something does not absolve him. The person supplying him with ilicit drugs confessed. Unless there is another person out there named "Rush Limbaugh" who looks exactly like this one and pretends to live in the same home as your favorite Rush, he was using illegal substances.
quote:And implying that I’m stupid doesn’t strengthen the argument any.
I'm not implying anything. I think every argument you make is plain stupid, based on a complete lack of understanding of facts and issues. You form your opinions without any thought on them except which partisan line they fall on and how you can justify it through your faith. When you can someday support an argument with substantial and proveable factual data, then your argument will not be called stupid. Until then, it is.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I'm not. Please refrain from telling me what I'm trying to do. You're very bad at it.
Try to stay with me here.
1.) Rush is on a legal prescription of pain killer.
2.) Rush becomes an addict while taking a legal prescription of pain killers.
3.) Rush begins to acquire pain killers illegaly to feed his addiction.
Compare to the following:
1.) Hypothetical Person A buys heroin illegally. (Let's use a drug that's actually similar to the one Rush used, OK?)
2.) HPA becomes an addict while taking heroin he acquired illegally.
3.) HPA continues to acquire heroin illegally to feed his addiction.
"Please refrain from telling me what I'm trying to do. Now I'm going to di exactly what you just said I was trying to do."
You see, what you are presupposing is the point at which Rush became addicted and that Rush was not abusing the drug when he had a legal prescription. Your problem is that you do not accept that almost all prescription drug abuse starts from misuse of the drugs while under a legal prescription. Since you are the lawyer here, why don't you go find the legal nature of misusing a prescription and quantify that for the boys and girls here? I am not going to spell it out for you because you are simply trying to make an excuse for the illegal behavior by portraying the user as a victim of circumstance.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The person supplying him with ilicit drugs confessed
Oh so this makes it true. Oh sorry. Didn’t realize this was how the game is played. I guess aliens landed at Roswell, OJ is innocent, and the moon is made of cheese. There is no proof that Rush got his prescriptions illegally. But this doesn’t mater. He a conservative so he’s guilty.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your problem is that you do not accept that almost all prescription drug abuse starts from misuse of the drugs while under a legal prescription. Since you are the lawyer here, why don't you go find the legal nature of misusing a prescription and quantify that for the boys and girls here? I am not going to spell it out for you because you are simply trying to make an excuse for the illegal behavior by portraying the user as a victim of circumstance.
I'm not making an excuse. I'm saying there's a qualitative difference between someone whose introduction to drugs was through legal, legitimate use for post-operative pain and someone who never ever took the drug they are addicted to legally.
I don't think Rush's addiction is a "tragedy." Nor am I excusing his behavior to obtain drugs illegally. I'm saying "There's still a qualitative difference between becoming hooked on a substance while using it legally (as Rush did) and becoming hooked on a substance that wasn't legal at any time it was taken."
You would be about 1000 times more effective if you didn't misstate what your opponents said or insult them on a fairly regular basis. You've done the former to me twice in this thread.
In short, you need to take what I'm saying at face value. When Rush started taking pain killers, it was legitimate use on a legal prescription. When he became hooked, he was obtaining them legally (if you want to appeal to the law, then the prescription pretty much means his obtaining them was legal).
Hop off the high horse for a minute and respond to what I've actually said, not your mythical restatement of it.
posted
I don't know anyone who thinks that divorce is fine but gay marriage is bad. Limbaugh actually talks very little about homosexual marriage and drug addiction by comparison to the great many other things he talks about.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, you start HPA's story a step later than Limbaugh's. Why is that? HPA seems to just blossom into an illegal drug user without the legal groundwork of a pain medication or use of other legal addicting substances like nicotine-laced cigarettes or alcohol. I think it is a very telling revelation. I think if we know someone's whole story it really does change the interpretation of a story. To bring this home to the OSC board, this is why I LOVE "Speaker for the Dead" more than just about any other book. The idea of "Speaking" someone's life seriously changes ones view of it.
And Jay, Rush is merely being hoisted up on his own petard. Rush never waits for evidence or proof of anything. To him, people are guilty until proven otherwise and even my scant listening on the show supports this. The ones who trumpet the loudest about how others should live are always the quickest to get the hook when they fail to live up to their own rigorous standards of others. Look at the televangelists who beg for forgiveness of their fans when they are found to be having affairs, stealing money or whatever.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fil, I'm saying there's a difference between Rush and the HPA as I described him. I didn't include Rush's use of nicotine or alcohol, either. I started specifically with the point where the ultimate substance of addiction was first taken.
The story doesn't apply to people it doesn't apply to.
quote: I don't know anyone who thinks that divorce is fine but gay marriage is bad
Well, you could start with everyone who is divorced who voted for Gay Marriage bans. You could look at Congressmen and women who support an amendment to ban gay marriage yet are divorced themselves. They would think divorce is fine but gay marriage is bad. Just sayin'.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I started specifically with the point where the ultimate substance of addiction was first taken.
I am not trying to be stupid (it comes naturally!) but I guess I feel badly for HPA who gets no benefit of the doubt (not just here but on the Limbaugh show, for example). The assumption you are making is that Rush started with what was a legally obtained substance that became illegal as he became addicted and then went about aquiring it illegally but that HPA didn't...he just jumped on to he illegal bandwagon first thing and hitched a ride!
My point is that HPA most likely started the same way. I am not completely conversant with drug addiction but my job has me working directly with people with addiction (though I am there regarding the disability part of their lives, not entirely the addiction). In just about every case these folks started with legal drugs, namely cigarettes and alcohol. It is rare that folks just make the jump to hard drugs from a standstill. Soon the booze isn't enough of a buzz so on to marijuana...and when that isn't enough crack, heroin, acid, whatever. Rush gets the pass but HPA doesn't. That's all I am saying.
Rush gets the benefit of the doubt, that his addiction is somehow more out of his control than HPA's. What is different is the history but otherwise, both are addicts, plain and simple. Their similarities are huge: Once addicted, they found illegal means to get their substances to meet their fix.
I have great sympathy for drug addicts, Rush included. I have no sympathy for hypocrits whose magic Glass o' Scruitiny only looks out, not in.
posted
fil, are you saying that if you experience something and come out the other side saying, "Yeah, that's a really bad idea, people shouldn't do that" you're a hypocrit? C'mon. Get real. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another, NOT saying one thing after having done another. BIG difference.
I'm on my second marriage. From past experience, I know that divorce is not what you think it is before you have one. And I will do pretty much anything to keep from having another one, ever. I do not consider myself a hypocrit when I encourage my friends with struggling marriages to do whatever it takes to stay together. Perhaps you do -- but you'd be *wrong*.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's always convenient for the person who has already done it to urge others not to.
I'm not saying that there aren't divorces that are necessary. In fact, since I don't make statements about the sanctity of marriage or any such rubbish I have no need to. However, since the sanctity is such a huge deal to those who oppose homosexual marriage, for whatever their reasons are, it would seem that the incredibly high divorce rate that is real and present would trump a theoretcal perceived threat that has no real-world example to draw from. Yet it does not.
quote:The story doesn't apply to people it doesn't apply to.
So it doesn't apply to someone who knowingly bought illegal drugs for eight years? Interesting how the scope is not in the argument, only the presupposed and assumed series of events.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:C'mon. Get real. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another, NOT saying one thing after having done another. BIG difference.
Come on. Get real. Are you seriously saying that in the many years Rush was abusing the drug he wasn't being a hypocrite?
Rush is a druggie and O'Reilly is a pervert, yet people still defend them as bastions of moral superiority just as they present themselves to be as much. It's truly baffling that we don't expect our icons to live up to the ideals they espouse.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jen, not at all. I am just saying that what is fine for the republican gooses isn't okay for the gay gander.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Wrong wrong wrong. He admitted he was addicted to painkillers and needed treatment. http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=1552637 I searched for some kind of confusion like the one you stated and can not find it. I can find accusations against him. But the only thing you’ll find from him is that he was addicted to them. And I’d also like to point out that despite an overzealous prosecutor there have been no charges filled. So…. Your honor, unless you have more substantial proof I ask these false charges be dismissed.
And a women after $$$ makes O'Reilly a pervert? Whatever…..
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not trying to be stupid (it comes naturally!) but I guess I feel badly for HPA who gets no benefit of the doubt (not just here but on the Limbaugh show, for example). The assumption you are making is that Rush started with what was a legally obtained substance that became illegal as he became addicted and then went about acquiring it illegally but that HPA didn't...he just jumped on to he illegal bandwagon first thing and hitched a ride!
I'm actually giving anyone who's addicted to something the benefit of the doubt. Even so, there's still a difference. I think for some reason people think that acknowledging that difference for some reason excuses Rush. It doesn't. I've said it doesn't. But there is still a difference.
quote:So it doesn't apply to someone who knowingly bought illegal drugs for eight years? Interesting how the scope is not in the argument, only the presupposed and assumed series of events.
Did you see the part where I stated there was no difference between the behaviors of those illegally obtaining the drugs. In case you missed it, here it is again: "There is no qualitative difference in step 3."
You've had every opportunity to prove me wrong about the presupposed events with respect to Rush. But you can't, because the facts are that his initial exposure to the drug he eventually abused was through legitimate post-operative use.
HPA was introduced into the argument to account for your inability to understand a single English sentence and your desire to read way too much into that sentence. It's an example solely to illustrate the difference I proposed in my initial statement, not a commentary on the continuum of addiction and illegal drug abuse.
posted
Justa, I wasn't defending Rush or O'Reilly. I operate on the belief that we're all hypocrits to some degree. I do find it admirable that Rush went to rehab voluntarily and as far as I know is and has been clean since he got out. He speaks highly of rehab, which IMO is a good thing and may help de-stigmatize seeking help when it's clear you need it. Interestingly, I have not yet heard Thor admit seeking help for his addiction to pot (which, btw, is illegal). But I might just have missed it.
fil, I guess I don't understand your point.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jen, I am saying it is okay for republicans to break the sanctity of marriage when it is convenient (through infidelity or divorce) yet they still feel their interpretation of marriage is better than those that believe everyone, gay or straight, should be able to marry. More directly, it was a response to your post where you said you didn't know someone who was fine with divorce but opposed to gay marriage...and that is ridiculous as plenty of divorced people support a ban on gay marriage.
quote:I'm actually giving anyone who's addicted to something the benefit of the doubt. Even so, there's still a difference.
So what is it, then? If you give the benefit of the doubt to any addict, what is the difference? I guess I am trying to find the place where we can agree on this. Maybe break it down this way. Give me where HPA (any drug addict) is similar to Rush and where they differ. Would you say Rush is the same as someone strictly suffering from alcholism?
Maybe it would help me to see of what importance the difference is, if it isn't to give Rush a break (and I honestly didn't think you were...Jay is doing that fine on his own). I guess why I ask is perceptions have a lot to do with treatment of addictions, mental illness, and other societal concerns. When it comes from the Right's biggest spin doctor, then it is doubly important (Rush, not you!).
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've had every opportunity to prove me wrong about the presupposed events with respect to Rush. But you can't, because the facts are that his initial exposure to the drug he eventually abused was through legitimate post-operative use.
Ahh, the ever-convenient "you can't prove exactly what this one person did" defense. No, neither of us can exactly prove what this one individual did, but the reams of evidence surrouding prescription drug abuse supports my statements far more than your "exception to the rule" argument.
Jay, it's rather stupid that you rely solely on conviction for your talk show host heroes, yet will use accusations and conjecture against others. The girl was paid off to shut up and not get the pervert in trouble. A huge sum of money and a few "never work in the business" threats can go a long way in shutting up a witness.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fil, I think you don't understand what anti-gay marriage advocates mean when they say the "sanctity" of marriage. They're not referring to divorce or infedility, they're referring to the definition of marriage, as in what "marriage" is.
Why is Rush Limbaugh labeled a "Conservative leader" anyways? Last I checked he wasn't a senator, a representative, or even a city councilman. Michael Moore on the other hand was an honored guest at the DNC if I recall correctly.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:aybe it would help me to see of what importance the difference is, if it isn't to give Rush a break (and I honestly didn't think you were...Jay is doing that fine on his own). I guess why I ask is perceptions have a lot to do with treatment of addictions, mental illness, and other societal concerns. When it comes from the Right's biggest spin doctor, then it is doubly important (Rush, not you!).
It's important for a lot of reasons, not the least in developing medical practices that allow for adequate pain management, prevent addiction as best as possible, and, perhaps most importantly, monitor for and treat addiciton when it develops. There's a third party (the doctor) with a duty of care involved at the outset that is not present in the HPA case, even expanded to the notions you introduced (which are perfectly valid in a larger discussion of the nature of addiction).
Note, none of this lessens culpability for illegal drug seeking behavior subsequent to the onset of abuse.
posted
nfl, uh, Rush opens his show with statements about the "Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies." What part of that doesn't speak to his love of being a Conservative. And 22 million listeners, many big wigs in the Republican Party who call in as guests, cite the power and influence of his show and thank him repeatedly for his work. He is a leader in that he leads a willing flock who jokingly call themselves "Dittoheads" (which, even if they get the joke doesn't mean it isn't true! ). Like it or not, he is a leader and he is conservative. Are "leaders" only elected officials? This isn't going to be the "Charles Barkley" defense, is it?
posted
Dag, that is awesome. That makes perfect sense in all ways. Thanks for taking the time to point it out!
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ahh, the ever-convenient "you can't prove exactly what this one person did" defense. No, neither of us can exactly prove what this one individual did, but the reams of evidence surrouding prescription drug abuse supports my statements far more than your "exception to the rule" argument.
Ahh, the ever-convenient ignore the issue and deal in irrelevant minutia. The "reams of evidence surrouding prescription drug abuse" supporting your statements don't refute my initial point at all. Considering you haven't dealt with my initial point, this isn't surprising.
The fact he had the operation is proven. The operation is the type which leads to pain. Prescription drugs are often prescribed for pain. The vast amount of evidence supports the proposition that Rush's first introduction to the substance he became addicted to was within the context of a legal prescription, legitimately given for post-operative pain. For at least some drug users (the ones I was speaking of), their first introduction to the substance they became addicted to was an illegal act.
All your blathering has obscured the fact that this was my initial claim and is supported by copious evidence.
posted
I never said he wasn't conservative, and he call himself "God" if he wants, that doesn't make him Him. I suppose he might have got some influential callers although I've never heard one, having a lot of listeners does not make you a leader. Howard Stern is not a "leader" and neither is "Desperate Housewives." Bush is a leader, Rush is not.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
). Like it or not, he is a leader and he is conservative. Are "leaders" only elected officials? This isn't going to be the "Charles Barkley" defense, is it?
