Druggy Limbaugh turns himself in.

[johncoby]

Rush turned himself in today with a not guilty plea concerning his drug shopping for Oxycon(sp?).

A couple of years ago I remember he had an operation on his ears and was oohing and aahing to his devoted listeners about the doctors and health care and medical miracles that fixed his loss of hearing problem.

Later he got busted for being addicted to Oxycon a pain killer. One of the side effects of this drug is , you guessed it, loss of hearing. Imagine that. Its like an alchoholic wasting our health care services on a liver transplant and still drinking.

Sort of reminds me of John Matthews here in Houston on KSEV, a right wing holier than thou hypocrites of hypocrites, and got busted for indecency with a child. Well, one thing led to another and Rush turned himself in today for chages of drug shopping.

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,18917,00.html?fdnews

The state of Florida has written Rush Limbaugh a prescription for staying out of jail. Now he just needs to fill it.

The conservative radio host, whose battle with an addiction to painkillers (as well as the accompanying legal foibles) went public a few years ago, was arrested Friday afternoon on a prescription drug fraud charge, according to Florida law enforcement officials.

Limbaugh turned himself in after an arrest warrant was issued by the state attorney's office. Limbaugh, with lawyer Roy Black in tow, had his mug shot taken, was booked and, an hour later, was on his way back to his seaside Palm Beach mansion after forking over $3,000 for bail.

If this was you or me, we would be in jail looking to score some KY.

[DJ V Lawrence]

If this was you or me, we would be in jail looking to score some KY.

Just 'cause he's not going to jail doesn't mean he's not into KY. How do you think he got the name "Rush" in the first place? >

[johncoby]

How true. It's he on his third wife now? Maybe they didnt like the KY. I know his listeners do.

[nmainguy]

Big deal. He's just another doctor shopping drug addict, hypocritical far right wing republican, ex-welfare abusing thrice divorced family values fake who is boinking that Kagan woman from CNN untill the next slut comes along.

I guess Tony Snow won't be able to sub for him this time-I understand he'll be schilling for the FOXNews White House.

[TheNiche]

Big deal. He's just another doctor shopping drug addict, hypocritical far right wing republican, ex-welfare abusing thrice divorced family values fake who is boinking that Kagan woman from CNN untill the next slut comes along.

I guess Tony Snow won't be able to sub for him this time-I understand he'll be schilling for the FOXNews White House.

I actually kind of like Rush. If you ever listen to him, he's at least a little bit more cerebral and hardcore than all of the competition. Hannity, for instance, makes me cringe with disgust, and at the very least, its more entertaining to catch Rush on his fallacies than it is to turn to the Top 40. Rush could stand to take some economics coursework as he can never really nail down the gasoline issue.

Seriously though, he makes no attempt at pushing family values (thankfully). In fact, I distinctly remember his having supported the sexual relationship of an attractive teacher and her underage male students.

[Parrothead]

It's so fun to read threads like this.

[bachanon]

If this was you or me, we would be in jail looking to score some KY.

if this were you or me we would've gone unnoticed like the millions of other prescription pill addicts the drug war is closing it's eyes to.

[nmainguy]

I actually kind of like Rush. If you ever listen to him, he's at least a little bit more cerebral and hardcore than all of the competition. Hannity, for instance, makes me cringe with disgust, and at the very least, its more entertaining to catch Rush on his fallacies than it is to turn to the Top 40. Rush could stand to take some economics coursework as he can never really nail down the gasoline issue.

Seriously though, he makes no attempt at pushing family values (thankfully). In fact, I distinctly remember his having supported the sexual relationship of an attractive teacher and her underage male students.

When Rush Limbaugh declared to his radio audience that he was

[bachanon]

when rush says things like "your epitome of moral virtue", he is intentionally attempting to "chap" the very people who decry that he is (and people like him are) "hypocrite(s)!". he has never attempted to set himself up as a moral compass. he believes that there should be a moral standard that people attempt to live up to; however, he does not think of himself as an example of this standard.

i've been listening to rush on and off for over ten years. after awhile, you begin to realize that on occasion he states, matter of factly, things that are indeed meant to be facetious. his intent is to point out that people who do not regularly listen to the program and, sometimes, have an agenda, tend to respond in knee jerk fashion without considering the context of the show or the context of his personal history, opinions and past shows.

he pokes fun at himself, at the listener and anyone else who takes political banter too seriously.

attacking rush only makes him more popular. why is this so? because listeners like me do not hold him up to a high standard. we enjoy "listening" to someone who has similar views and makes us laugh, not only at ourselves but at those who disagree with us.

does anyone remember the "soccer kills kids" shows? rush went on for days letting soccer mom's call in about how kids were getting injured, pointing out dire statistics concerning kids who play soccer. i don't remember if/when he finally fessed up that he was simply proving the point that any "issue" about injury to kids could take hold and turn people against a good thing. it was genius. people jump on the bandwagon and despise anything with an emotional tag. rush, basically, pointed out the natural inclination to pass judgement by people with good intentions who can't see the forest for the trees.

[nmainguy]

when rush says things like "your epitome of moral virtue", he is intentionally attempting to "chap" the very people who decry that he is (and people like him are) "hypocrite(s)!". he has never attempted to set himself up as a moral compass. he believes that there should be a moral standard that people attempt to live up to; however, he does not think of himself as an example of this standard.

i've been listening to rush on and off for over ten years. after awhile, you begin to realize that on occasion he states, matter of factly, things that are indeed meant to be facetious. his intent is to point out that people who do not regularly listen to the program and, sometimes, have an agenda, tend to respond in knee jerk fashion without considering the context of the show or the context of his personal history, opinions and past shows.

he pokes fun at himself, at the listener and anyone else who takes political banter too seriously.

attacking rush only makes him more popular. why is this so? because listeners like me do not hold him up to a high standard. we enjoy "listening" to someone who has similar views and makes us laugh, not only at ourselves but at those who disagree with us.

does anyone remember the "soccer kills kids" shows? rush went on for days letting soccer mom's call in about how kids were getting injured, pointing out dire statistics concerning kids who play soccer. i don't remember if/when he finally fessed up that he was simply proving the point that any "issue" about injury to kids could take hold and turn people against a good thing. it was genius. people jump on the bandwagon and despise anything with an emotional tag. rush, basically, pointed out the natural inclination to pass judgement by people with good intentions who can't see the forest for the trees.

When did he fess up to

[RedScare]

why is this so? because listeners like me do not hold him up to a high standard.

Priceless.

Do you also use this analogy with your elected leaders, as well?

[TheNiche]

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:3V2N5t...us&ct=clnk&cd=3

I can see how you could be so enamoured by Limbaugh-although in his defense, I have never heard him advocate leaving illegals to lay dying in their own blood as unapologetic as you have or commiting genocide as parrothead has-but what I can't see is how you can say this little drug addict has made no attempt to push family values in his own pathetic Ellsworth Toohey way.

Incidentally, I only developed a mild appreciation for Rush at all after having read Fountainhead because he goes to great effort to expose the Tooheys of the world (at least the liberal portions of it, and that's at least something). I'll give you that there are sometimes undertones of one-sided Tooheyism, but they're fairly well netted out by his slamming of opposing Tooheys.

I'll be the very first to admit that Rush is fully capable of fault, by the way. In fact, if nobody ever disagreed with him, he'd lose ratings. Conflict is what makes his show more interesting than the Top 40; in fact, a good portion of his listenership is liberal, as I understand.

Fountainhead, incidentally, is one of my favorite books of all time , and is by far the most influential upon my political position. You should try rereading it more carefully...you might learn something.

[bachanon]

Priceless.

Do you also use this analogy with your elected leaders, as well?

i'm not personally concerned with rush's life choices. he doesn't hold his finger on "the button", he doesn't have the say so with the military, foreign governments aren't banking on his decisions.

so, no. i do not use that analogy with my elected leaders. they are not radio hosts.

although our elected leaders provide fodder for entertainment, i do vote with the "hope" that they have some moral compass, or mean what they say.

unfortunately, i'm usually disappointed.

Incidentally, I only developed a mild appreciation for Rush at all after having read Fountainhead because he goes to great effort to expose the Tooheys of the world (at least the liberal portions of it, and that's at least something). I'll give you that there are sometimes undertones of one-sided Tooheyism, but they're fairly well netted out by his slamming of opposing Tooheys.

I'll be the very first to admit that Rush is fully capable of fault, by the way. In fact, if nobody ever disagreed with him, he'd lose ratings. Conflict is what makes his show more interesting than the Top 40; in fact, a good portion of his listenership is liberal, as I understand.

Fountainhead, incidentally, is one of my favorite books of all time , and is by far the most influential upon my political position. You should try rereading it more carefully...you might learn something.

i bought a copy of fountainhead years ago and have not opened it. i'm moving it to my bedside stack.

[nmainguy]

Incidentally, I only developed a mild appreciation for Rush at all after having read Fountainhead because he goes to great effort to expose the Tooheys of the world (at least the liberal portions of it, and that's at least something). I'll give you that there are sometimes undertones of one-sided Tooheyism, but they're fairly well netted out by his slamming of opposing Tooheys.

I'll be the very first to admit that Rush is fully capable of fault, by the way. In fact, if nobody ever disagreed with him, he'd lose ratings. Conflict is what makes his show more interesting than the Top 40; in fact, a good portion of his listenership is liberal, as I understand.

Fountainhead, incidentally, is one of my favorite books of all time , and is by far the most influential upon my political position. You should try rereading it more carefully...you might learn something.

Toohey v Toohey. Facinating...and you have really read The Fountainhead?

If you had, you would realise that a Limbaugh could never grasp the difference between a Liberal and Conservative as he is clearly neither. He is a brilliant opportunist. That is the magic of his success.

[TheNiche]

Toohey v Toohey. Facinating...and you have really read The Fountainhead?

If you had, you would realise that a Limbaugh could never grasp the difference between a Liberal and Conservative as he is clearly neither. He is a brilliant opportunist. That is the magic of his success.

Yes, and opportunists come in many competing flavors.

EDIT: Limbaugh, btw, knows what conservatism is and is far more consistently (albeit imperfectly) conservative than Hannity or any of his other competition. A lot of folks fail to seperate conservatism from Republicanism. The difference is that the Republican party is disproportionately comprised of Protestant Christians that don't necessarily see the need for a divide between church and state--that stance is not necessarily in agreement with pure conservatives, but is catered to by them in order to secure a lucrative voting block. In fact, a very large number are populists that would otherwise most likely vote Democrat if not for the perceived obligation to their God.

But Limbaugh fills the needs of a segment of the Republican party that is not served by his competitors, and he knows precisely what he's doing. He is an entertainer filling a niche and getting good ratings from surprisingly high-income demographics.

[bachanon]

a divide between church and state is not a conservative tenet. states rights is. conservatives believe that a democracy cannot stand without a moral people. conservatives believe that people of christian faith wrote the constitution and the bill of rights with the assumption that all persons were striving to be moral. the ideology of a wall between church and state is a misconception promoted to eliminate religion from political discussion and philosophy.

[nmainguy]

...he knows precisely what he's doing.

I agree. He knows precisely what he is doing and like Toohey, he will learn his efforts are ultimatly flawed and futile.

Back on topic, however, Toohey wasn't a doctor shopping drug addict like Limbaugh but their fates are the same.

[TJones]

I am waaaaayyy to tired to argue about this BS tonight, but tomorrow, I will be well rested and have guns a blazin' ! >

[nmainguy]

a divide between church and state is not a conservative tenet. states rights is. conservatives believe that a democracy cannot stand without a moral people. conservatives believe that people of christian faith wrote the constitution and the bill of rights with the assumption that all persons were striving to be moral. the ideology of a wall between church and state is a misconception promoted to eliminate religion from political discussion and philosophy.

For centurys we have gone to church for inspiration, school for math and the polling booth for politics. This country has been led by 43 consecutive anglo christian males. Is anyone really afraid that the sky is falling?

I'll repeat again: I don't go to church to learn math and I didn't go to public school to pray. Can't we all recognize that we have a good thing going on and that we don't need to force our beliefs on one another because when you get right down to it, we are all pretty much on the same page.

[jmancuso]

I'll repeat again: I don't go to church to learn math and I didn't go to public school to pray. Can't we all recognize that we have a good thing going on and that we don't need to force our beliefs on one another because when you get right down to it, we are all pretty much on the same page.

i'll drink to that.

[TheNiche]

we don't need to force our beliefs on one another

For once, you an I agree on something.

a divide between church and state is not a conservative tenet. states rights is. conservatives believe that a democracy cannot stand without a moral people. conservatives believe that people of christian faith wrote the constitution and the bill of rights with the assumption that all persons were striving to be moral. the ideology of a wall between church and state is a misconception promoted to eliminate religion from political discussion and philosophy.

If conservatives can be construed as the rough equivalent of anti-federalists, then it was they that pushed so hard for the Bill of Rights. True, states' rights were a key motivation, but the first amendment and Thomas Jefferson's outspokenness regarding the "seperation of church and state" were brought about by what amounts to pre-conservatives, and cannot be ignored.

[dbigtex56]

Toohey wasn't a doctor shopping drug addict like Limbaugh but their fates are the same.

But Ayn Rand was a amphetamine crazed nymphomaniac, so Limbaugh is at least holding up the pharmaceutial end of the deal with his Oxycotin abuse.

[TheNiche]

But Ayn Rand was a amphetamine crazed nymphomaniac, so Limbaugh is at least holding up the pharmaceutial end of the deal with his Oxycotin abuse.

True enough. So what's your point?

[bachanon]

If conservatives can be construed as the rough equivalent of anti-federalists, then it was they that pushed so hard for the Bill of Rights.

huh? conservatives are, in my experience, pro federalists.

separation of church and state (a misnomer) in context is a determination that the government not promote or legislate a catholic regime, or a baptist regime, or a fundamentalist regime; however, the intent (imho) was not to negate the spiritual/christian values inherent in the constitution. a nonreligious government was NOT the intent. why would the same people who valued a nonsectarian government put "in god we trust" or the freakin ten commandments on judicial buildings if they intended judeo-christian values to be absent from the original contruct?!!!

[RedScare]

a nonreligious government was NOT the intent. why would the same people who valued a nonsectarian government put "in god we trust" or the freakin ten commandments on judicial buildings if they intended judeo-christian values to be absent from the original contruct?!!!

Actually, a non-religious government WAS the intent, and was spelled out in several subsequent documents.

For instance:

U.S. treaty signed by President Adams. In 1797 the United States entered into a treaty with Tripoli, in which it was declared:

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity [sic] of Musselmen . . . it is declared . . . that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." This treaty was written under Washington's presidency, and it was ratified by Congress under John Adams, signed by Adams.

Those "same people who valued a non-sectarian government" did NOT put 'In God We Trust' or 'Under God' on anything. Both phrases were ordered by Congress in the mid-50s, at the height of Soviet Red Scare (there's that word again!) in an effort to symbolize the superiority of "Christian America" over the godless Soviet Union.

[editor]

I listened to Rush until about 1997. It was always on at work, so I got used to it.

I don't know if it's still true, but you really can't judge Rush until you've listened to his show for a couple of weeks. As was previously mentioned, a lot of what he says is said in partial jest, as a jab at whomever he perceives are his enemies that week, or those he knows are desperate for a quote to take out of context. I think a lot of people on this forum got snared by that last one.

Rush is drama, not substance. I think that's why I didn't continue listening to him when I changed jobs. His forumula is (or at least was) to make a short speech to get his audience riled up, then let the phone calls roll in and let the callers say the things he doesnt want to, or chooses not to. A lot of the venom I've heard attributed to Rush over the years is actually listener phone calls, not Rush.

He is a parody of himself, and he knows it. I think that gets lost when people start posting short quotations in text on the internet.

[bachanon]

Actually, a non-religious government WAS the intent, and was spelled out in several subsequent documents.

For instance:

U.S. treaty signed by President Adams. In 1797 the United States entered into a treaty with Tripoli, in which it was declared:

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity [sic] of Musselmen . . . it is declared . . . that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." This treaty was written under Washington's presidency, and it was ratified by Congress under John Adams, signed by Adams.

Those "same people who valued a non-sectarian government" did NOT put 'In God We Trust' or 'Under God' on anything. Both phrases were ordered by Congress in the mid-50s, at the height of Soviet Red Scare (there's that word again!) in an effort to symbolize the superiority of "Christian America" over the godless Soviet Union.

once again, redscare, you give food for thought and make me hesitant to reply to posts off the top of my head.

[RedScare]

once again, redscare, you give food for thought and make me hesitant to reply to posts off the top of my head.

Sorry, if it sounded like a slapdown. Clearly, there is a lot of interpretation and outright misinformation on this issue. However, many of the early settlers were persecuted for their religious beliefs prior to their arrival on these shores. The reason for such insistence on a non-religious government was not because they were against religion, but because they were FOR the free expression of religious beliefs, without interference from government. Now, with a majority Christian population, there are those who want to install the very same religious component in government that the early settlers abhorred. The current group often attempts to co-opt history, relying on the religious beliefs of the early founders as evidence of their intent to form a Christian government, when in fact, the opposite is true.

It is important to remember that there was a much smaller population, with many colonies of people of the different faiths. Few of them trusted the others when it came to religion. And, there really was not a concept of "Christian" as a broad common theme, linking the groups, as there is today. There were many splinter religions from Catholicism, with very distinct differences. Today, the sharp edges have been worn away. Only the central Christian theme remains. There are large groups or churches, such as Lakewood, that are not even an organized religion at all, but rather a vague manifestation of an organized religion, but without a heirarchy or history, allowing the leader (Joel Osteen) to move freely between many beliefs, all revolving around the central Christian theme.

Many think of the early US as a more rustic version of today's suburban churches. In reality, the fringe churches, such as the Branch Davidians, or some of the Mormon splinter groups, are more representative of the religious landscape. Groups with similar beliefs, very strongly held, would venture into the wilderness, in search of a place to call home, free to practice their religion without interference. The absolute LAST thing they wanted, just like today's splinter groups, was a government that had anything to do with religion. Today's organized churches actually are more representative of what the early Americans were escaping, not what they were creating.

[TJones]

Did any of you happen to read this article also ?

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/sou...mostemailedlink

Make sure you read towards the bottom where he says that he is NOT a role model.

[dbigtex56]

"I want you to know that I'm no role model" is the direct quote, and an irritating one at that.

Several years ago, a major sports figure declared in a shoe advertisement that "I am not a role model." To say such a thing does not make it true. One does not have a choice about being a role model - if someone apes your behavior (good or bad) you are, in fact a role model.

This is a humbling realization to those who are aware that their behavior isn't always what it should be.