Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Guest, Nov 12, 2004.
Is the Limbaugh Institute now promoting a liberal agenda?
"Talent on loan from God," as he likes to describe himself, is anything but liberal.
Is this institute accredited?
No, but it comes out strongly for punishing drug addicts. Oh, wait, that might not be true anymore...
Since Rush claims to be "Talent on loan from God," perhaps he, like Freelandia Institute under President Moore (can't remember his first name), is "accredited by God."
Like or dislike Rush, he has been RIGHT on the outcome of almost every political contest and issue since I started listening to him during the first Gulf War. Those who don't like Rush usually haven't listened to him for more than a week or so. When I first started listening to him I thought he was the most arrogant man in the universe even though I agreed with him on most issues. I soon learned that the "arrogance" is a part of Rush's sense of humor and you actually learn to enjoy it after awhile.
I like Rush and agree with most of what he says. I think he should be in prison, however.
As far as conservatives go, I like those (like Monica Crowley) who can get their points across without arrogance, sarcasm, and vitriol.
This is why I like Alan Colmes so well. I don't agree with about 85% of what he says, but he is pleasant, respectful of others' views, and isn't condescending like so many on the so-called "left."
He should be in prison because he broke the law, furthermore a "moral law" that you conservatives are so proud of inflicting on others. Rush used illegal drugs, had lots and lots of them around, and was consistently "doctor shopping". While he drags out his case endlessly with appeals, the local papers have stories all the time about some poor desparate soul who gets caught with one or two pills of which Rush had hundreds, and are sentenced to many years in prison as a result. Why should Rush be treated differently?
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? As far as I know, nothing has been proven at all about any illegal activity.
I agree with you on the "innocent until proven guilty" statement. However, Rush is in the public eye and has an additional burden to bear. The problem is, he is trying to avoid even a public trial where his innocence can be established, or his guilt determined. Other, less fortunate people do not have this option. That was my only point.
Carl answered your question to me for me although a little less "kinder and gentler" than I would have, ha!
Rush admitted wrongdoing.
Carl, conservatives aren't the only ones who advocate morality and decency, at least I hope not.
True enough brother. We may differ on the interpretation of morality and decency, however. For example, I do not think victimless crimes should be prosecuted. Therefore, I would tend to agree with those who think Rush should "go free", so long as all the others (poor and disenfranchised) arrested for similar victimless crimes also are given the same treatment.
Tough call, this "victimless crimes" argument.
I am not sure there is really such a thing.
If one gets high on crack, drives and kills a child, is the child not a victim?
If one is addicted to drugs and kills to obtain money for them is the killed not a victim?
If one wanted to use drugs and had no contact with others humans, then I guess that's a different story.
Funny thing: Many who speak of "victimless crimes" don't support legalized prostitution.
But if Rush didn't do anything to justify having a trial, why shouldn't he fight it. I would too.
Rush admitted being addicted to painkillers. He didn't admit to committing a crime. You said he should be in prison. Why?
Anyone who is addicted to painkillers obtains those drugs illegally. Prescription med addiction is not sustained by taking prescription medication as prescribed.
I have worked with the addicted population long enough to know this.
I don't want to argue, but there are plenty of people addicted to painkillers that obtained them legally. I am not saying whether Rush did or not, as I don't know, but I certainly don't think he should be in jail unless he is convicted of a crime. I really don't think I would put someone in jail for this particular issue anyway...
That is simply wrong. I have no idea of your qualifications nor area of medical expertise but to suggest that anyone who is addicted to opiates is obtaining them illegally is absurd. If you are licensed you should turn it in to the state post haste.
I had a patient with metastatic osteosarcoma who was taking 50-100 mg MSo4 q 3 hrs. Tell me that someone who requires pain control like that is not opiate dependant.
Better yet why don't you go down to the Methadone clinic and tell those people they are all addicts obtaining their fix illegally.
Thanks for demonstrating that degreeinfo is filled with people who write before they think. I was just beginning to believe rational discourse was creeping over the board.
I too must disagree with the above assertion.
As far as Rush's addiction to painkillers, was it Excedrin Migraine or Tylenol Extra Strength?
We'll agree to disagree. For me the whole issue is hypocrisy. Rush has lambasted drug users for years and advocated personal responsibility and punishment.
I just never cared for three groups of people, racists, bigots, and hypocrites. Rush is one and borders on at least one other.
Separate names with a comma.