Rush Limbaugh is against people using illegal drugs, he thinks they should be locked in the slammer.
Rush used illegal drugs for a long time, he didn't go to the slammer.
Rush is going to do everthing he can to protect the sanctity of marriage, Rush is now working on his 4th marriage.
yeah.
T
Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, but heterosexuals should be allowed to divorce as many times as they see fit.
Divorce is a wonderful family value.
Posted by Heffaji (Member # 3669) on :
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.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
So Michael Jackson's actions don't invalidate the message he preaches?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Heff, that doesn't mean that you can't call them on it once and a while, though.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
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?
[ February 13, 2005, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
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...
[ February 13, 2005, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I just can't take people seriously when they do not practice what they preach. It's called hypocracy and I hate it.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
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.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
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.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
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.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Rush used illegal drugs for a long time
This is false. Rush became addicted to prescription painkillers. There is a big difference between this and illegal drugs.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
What Heffaji said..
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.
Farmgirl
[ February 14, 2005, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Huh???
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
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.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
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.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
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?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
[ February 14, 2005, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
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.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
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.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonoee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Jay, Rush admitted obtaining painkillers illegally.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
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.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
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'.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
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.
[ February 14, 2005, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
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*.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
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.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
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.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Jen, not at all. I am just saying that what is fine for the republican gooses isn't okay for the gay gander.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
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…..
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
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.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
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.
[ February 14, 2005, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
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!).
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
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.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
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?
[ February 14, 2005, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Dag, that is awesome. That makes perfect sense in all ways. Thanks for taking the time to point it out!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
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.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Thor, why do you do this? Just argue your points. Pointing out the hypocrisy in others doesn't bolster your position... it detracts from it by making you look rabid.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, that is awesome. That makes perfect sense in all ways. Thanks for taking the time to point it out!
Thank you, fil.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Adam, because it is. Thor has gotten a bit better at making points and then backing them up, but he remain in my opinion little more than a glorified troll when it comes to politics. If a conservative did this, he/she would get bashed right out of Hatrack.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
BTW, i *do* find it extremely ironic that Limbaugh has divorced as many times as he has and that he became addicted to a drug. However, as concerns any arguments concerning positions he holds, those ironies are largely irrelevant, just as Clinton's infidelities were as concerned, say, his foreign policy proposals. They are interesting subjects for discussion in and of themselves, but as a way of evaluating positions, they are useless and fallacious.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
The nit-picking concerning exactly how Limbaugh became an addict is mostly irrelevant in the overall context of his moral character. The fact of the matter is that no amount of explanations can overcome most peoples perception that a drug addict preaching against drug addicts is a bit hypocritical.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I can't think of a single time that Limbaugh has railed against drug addiction in recent years, and especially not since news of his addiction came out. If you find otherwise, please let me know.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
nfl, Bush is an elected leader. Rush, Moore, etc. are leaders in their own way but lead by being at the head of a like-minded group. Rush has lots of big Republican names on. Rush had GWB on in August or October of last year. Dick Cheney was on twice. I think having the #1 and #2 guy on your show is a pretty big deal. He has all sorts of other high ranking folks on throughout the year. If Rush told his listeners to honk their car horns at the same moment, most would do so. And we would hear it. That is leadership.
[ February 14, 2005, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Under your theory Dan Rather or Peter Jennings are leaders, as long as they get high ranking people on their shows and people watch they must be leaders. In reality it just comes down to how many people tune in as far as guests are concerned, and how many people tune in is largely determined by how well you grab attention, not by your leadership abilities.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
David, I haven't looked for any recent artcles, but if he has indeed changed his tune, then good for him. I think he needed a little humility.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Target: I agree. He still could use more. You know what they say... superiority complexes are typically compensations for feelings of inferiority (in Limbaugh's case, I believe it might be academic or intellectual inferiority).
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
David...some of us use our superiority complexes to mask our true intentions, so that we can more casually pursue our plans for world domination or to play cards...
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
nfl, Jennings isn't really a leader. He isn't trying to sway people to a point. Rush clearly is doing just that. Howard Stern, to use your previous example, is out to only entertain. Rush posits an opinion and tries to compel people to believe that opinion. Jennings reads a teleprompter in an effort to share that day's news stories. Rush plays sound bites from things going on during the day and makes predictions on how Liberals will react to it. He is more akin to a preacher who leads a flock than a newscaster. You don't have to follow him to think he is a leader.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Howard Stern, to use your previous example, is out to only entertain
Not any more. He announced his intention to cost Bush the election. Of course, he failed. Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
He did? I didn't know that (oddly enough, I tune into Rush but never to Howard). Then Stern really does fit a sort of leader. I know he is leading the way to censor-free radio by making Satellite his new home in the near future (or has he moved already?). So yeah, I could see it if his mission changed...which is funny as it was only brought upon him not something he sought.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: 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.
After the 1994 Republican gains in Congress, Rush was feted by many top Republicans, including Congressmen, who thanked him for his part in their sucess.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dagonee
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I'm sure George Bush and a lot of Republicans thanked Karl Rove, Rove is not a leader, he's an advisor and an organizer. Being thanked by Republicans does not make one a leader. Endorsing a a candidate does not make one a leader. Having a large audience does not make one a leader.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
William Kristol is a pundit, Rush is a zealot. Kristol, who is pretty conservative, will generally admit to agreeing with many of the Bush policies and I generally don't see eye to eye with him. Yet, I find him very intelligent and he will call shenanigans on the Bush White House when he sees it. Rush is a zealot who will spin things to favor the conservative viewpoint regardless of evidence put in front of him. He is extremely loyal to the Republican Whitehouse, moreso since 9/11 when the "you are with me or against me" was the new White House mantra. Kristol has readers, Rush has "Dittoheads" who generally call to laud their leader, not challenge or discuss with him. Clearly a good portion of his 22 million listeners see him as a leader and a teacher, not an entertainer nor a pundit.
Also note, I am pretty sure in 1994, not only was he lauded he also spoke at a gathering of Freshman Republican Congressmen. This was more than an endorsement, this was him getting his first real whiff of the power he wields. He probably isn't doing as well as he did during the Clinton years as he still brings up Bill C. at least a couple times an hour. I tune in about 1 or 2 times a month and only for a short time and invariably I will still get a Clinton reference or two. Still, he leads with his voice and his ideals and people follow.
Why is it so hard to accept him as a leader, nfl? Is it a bad thing? Why? Or why not?
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Dag, that Stern article sounds right on to what friends of mine who listen regularly say. In fact, my Stern fans are starting to sound like Rush fans that I know...quoting him and becoming addicted to his anger and indignation.
The idea of a following creating a de facto leader sounds right to me. It makes me think of that scene in "The Life of Brian" when the followers corner Brian in his home. He tries to shoo them away from his balcony by saying something like "Go away. You are all individuals!"
They reply in monotone unison: "Yes, we are all individuals."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why is it so hard to accept him as a leader, nfl?
It's embarrassing. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Are there people who would call themselves "followers" "affiliates" or any other roughly synonymous term of Michael Moore? There are definitely people out there who agree with him, but people who "follow" him?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: 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.
No, but it does undermine their right to preach it.
A thief can say "stealing is wrong" and it is of course true, but coming from the thief, the worth of his words are minimal.
Same with me, or you or anyone. A parent can say "smoking is wrong," but if they smoke, chances are a child is not going to really, truly consider the message that comes from the parent, as valid.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
You know, a "dittohead" is just someone who considers themselves a big fan of Rush. Clearly there are big fans of OSC here who who don't view him as a leader, even those who do agree with his political views.
quote: Why is it so hard to accept him as a leader, nfl?
Because he represents me in no way, too often when Rush does something stupid its lumped as "conservative" stupdity. For example, in this thread Thor made an attack on conservatives for being anti-drug abuse because Rush abuses drugs. Since I don't abuse drugs I'm not sure why I should be considered hypocritical for stance on drugs. The only things I share in common with Rush are my political affiliation and my state residence.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Nfl, why redefine a definition you yourself supplied? You cited Michael Moore's being at the DNC convention to show he was a leader of liberals (presumably that was why you mentioned Moore), but when fil and I pointed out Rush has been treated similarily, indeed with even more fawning upon Rush by republican politicians, you dismiss that.
quote: Why is it so hard to accept him as a leader, nfl?
Because he represents me in no way, too often when Rush does something stupid its lumped as "conservative" stupdity.
I think what you mean is he's not your leader, and you are a conservative.
Many people consider him a leader, which makes him a leader.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I’m not sure I know of any of Rush listeners who consider him our leader. He is a source of information and entertainment. George W. Bush is our current leader. Rush even makes fun of the notion of his listeners being mind numb robots on his show. It takes a while to know and understand Rush. I’m curious how much of Rush you all have listened to and how much what you are saying is just hearsay?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I was using Moore, someone who has been actually been put in a position of honor, someone whose endorsement of a candidate (was it Dean or Clark?) is treated as real news by the media, as an example as how he's not a leader of liberals. Moore is a filmmaker and a public speaker, I don't think he leads anyone.
![[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?![[Smile]](smile.gif)