C-SPAN - Rhodes vs. Parshall

[IonRadio]

> Uh, it's not willpower, it's called reading the bottle,
> following the instructions, and realizing there are
> consequences for not doing so. Apparently in Rush world,
> the rules of prescription medications do not apply. If this
> guy has talent on loan from God, it's definitive evidence
> that atheists have it right.

The "uh" was cute, but you guys don't seem to realize that trying to sound superior by grunting does not translate well with the written word. I wouldn't disparrage Rush's talent -- apparantly YOU see him as a threat to your thought process.

>
> > Junkies who use illegal drugs, however, were never
> > prescribed the likes of heroin, coacaine and crystal meth.
>
>
> Oh brother, this is the weakest excuse I have ever read on
> this board since getting here. Rush did not receive a
> prescription for sending the maid out to score
> warehouse-club sized bottles of Oxy. Maybe some of the
> perps nailed on Cops could use that as a defense during the
> sting drug busts though. Maybe.

You, as always, convenielntly forget the facts: he was FIRST perscribed the drugs... you go on about double-standards, etc. but always employ them shortly afterward -- see your defense of Randi Rhodes in previous posts, who was doing substances which were NEVER perscribed to her (it would be unfair for ME to disparage her for a drug problem, however, because it could have happened to a lot of people, with high or low levels of morals -- an I will not go so low as to say she has a certain level of morals, I don't know the woman) and you refuse to attack her.

>
> > There IS a difference, and maybe there is something to low
>
> > morality which adds to this (remember, even AA is a
> religous
> > organization). Treatment is also imoprtant, but jail time
>
> > is also imperative for the purveyors of illegal substances
>
> > (many pushers like to recruit in local schoolyards).
>

> Which is why there will be Rush fans that will advocate
> sending the maid to jail but leave The Hypocritical One free
> so he can continue to pretend absolutely nothing happened.

I don't know any Rush listener personally who would do this... but Limbaugh would be best to talk with young people at high schools and drug rehab centers about these little-known addictions.

>
> > > Randi Rhodes had a drug issue in the 1980s. She sought
> > > treatment and is presumably clean today.
> >
> > "presumably" -- cute. :-]
>
> Not cute, factual. I don't search the woman's cabinets, and
> she was never busted for it. She sought treatment herself
> and didn't involve "the help" in securing her supply.

I see that you're keeping with the morally relative groupthink... face it: they both did drugs -- Rhodes tool illegal substances for no reason other than to "get high" and Limbaugh went doctor shopping and sent the maid to do the dirty work... acknowledge that they BOTH did wrong and got help.

>
> > Now, Dampmeister, Ted Kennedy should have been in jail for
>
> > manslaughter, DWI and leaving the scene of a crime, then
> > beaten in prison for saving his own a** and letting a
> woman
> > drown in his car... Rush popped prescription drugs and
> > finally got treatment (and is presumably off of them)...
>
> "presumably" -- cute. It works both ways, doesn't it.

I probably should have spelled it out for you: I p-u-t t-h-a-t w-o-r-d t-h-e-r-e i-n r-e-f-e-r-e-n-c-e t-o y-o-u-r u-s-e o-f i-t.

>
> Using Ted Kennedy as a "shiny keys" distraction from Rush's
> own lapses just frosts the Hypocracy Cake.
>

Now, now, dampier: it was YOU who brought up Ted Kennedy, I just pointed out the rdidculous comparison.


> > You talk about moral high ground on the Right, but this is
> a
> > good example of what the lack of morals and common sense
> > among the Left. As George Carlin once said: "somewhere
> > between 'Live Free Or Die' and 'Famous Potatoes,' the
> truth
> > lies -- probably a little closer to 'Famous Potatoes'"
>
> Most of us on the left are more concerned with our own
> morality instead of worrying more about everyone elses.
> With regularity, the morals crowd fails to practice what
> they preach. Limbaugh today carries on with the same
> rhetoric that he had prior to his awakening from the Oxy
> Haze.
> Nobody should be surprised when those on the other
> side call him on it, and while his sheep would forgive him
> if he ran over their kids, don't expect the rest of America
> to simply leave out the man's own moral lapses when
> considering his standing to issue judgments about others.

Okay -- We get it: you hate Rush Limbaugh. Not only that, you hate anyone who thinks like him (moderately conservative). These peolpe are sheep just as much as those who will defend Leftist AAR and its hosts for anything they have said or done as they are ALWAYS right (I wonder who posts the quickest after someone writes abut an AAR failure).

IR

 

[dampier]

> I wouldn't disparrage Rush's talent
> -- apparantly YOU see him as a threat to your thought
> process.

The only one who perceived a threat was you who replied to my original assertion that drug use bashing directed at talk show hosts has become irrelevent since Rush got his free pass. None of this tap dancing in defense of Rush has changed my original point one bit.

> You, as always, convenielntly forget the facts: he was
> FIRST perscribed the drugs... you go on about
> double-standards, etc. but always employ them shortly
> afterward -- see your defense of Randi Rhodes in previous
> posts, who was doing substances which were NEVER perscribed
> to her (it would be unfair for ME to disparage her for a
> drug problem, however, because it could have happened to a
> lot of people, with high or low levels of morals -- an I
> will not go so low as to say she has a certain level of
> morals, I don't know the woman) and you refuse to attack
> her.

I'm the liberal, remember? We treat drug abusers and don't advocate that they be sent to jail. Rush is the guy who attacks, claiming it's a moral lapse and these people need not be coddled and should be sent to jail. He's said that about ALL illegal use of drugs. It's not about what you personally think of Randi Rhodes... we're discussing what Rush thinks and has said on the air.

I have no interest in using Rush's personal morality (or hypocracy therein) to frame the debate over who deserves to get attacked and who doesn't. Being in my shoes means that when you worry more about your own life instead of worrying about everyone elses gives me the right not to dwell on this seedy judgment corner. That's reserved for Rush and his believers.

My point is simply to illustrate why your argument fails when you are forced to defend a guy who can issue the criticism and attacks, but can't take it in return when he can't even live up to his own standards. Prescription abuse on his level is a felony. Smoking crack is a felony. Both represent drug abuse no matter which route you took to get there. Those are Rush rules.

> I don't know any Rush listener personally who would do
> this... but Limbaugh would be best to talk with young
> people at high schools and drug rehab centers about these
> little-known addictions.

That would mean admitting he had a problem. He had a one day Oprah moment on his show and now it's business as if nothing ever happened.

> I see that you're keeping with the morally relative
> groupthink... face it: they both did drugs -- Rhodes
> tool illegal substances for no reason other than to "get
> high" and Limbaugh went doctor shopping and sent the maid to
> do the dirty work... acknowledge that they BOTH did wrong
> and got help.

This is your topic sandbox. You are arguing with my contention that talk show hosts get a free pass on the drug use since the industry (and listeners) forgave Rush. Come back to my sandbox.

> Okay -- We get it: you hate Rush Limbaugh. Not only
> that, you hate anyone who thinks like him (moderately
> conservative).

No, you don't get it, and you won't as long as you continue to miss the original point about free passes I made which started this side thread.

To suggest that Rush Limbaugh represents a "moderate/conservative" doesn't pass the laugh test. Keep going to the right and you'll get there. Chuck Hagel or Susan Collins, both GOP senators are the moderate conservatives. Rush is far to the right of them.

> These peolpe are sheep just as much as
> those who will defend Leftist AAR and its hosts for anything
> they have said or done as they are ALWAYS right (I wonder
> who posts the quickest after someone writes abut an AAR
> failure).

The better question is who are the people who crosspost what they call an "AAR failure" that, upon investigation, turns out to be the equivalent of someone knocking a stapler off the desk. I don't spend my time posting AAR success stories - I spend far more time debunking the nonsense that can go on someone's personal blog, get posted here, but can't withstand the scrutiny in a two-way forum where the facts are... ohmygod, checked for accuracy.