Poor Rush

[Natoma]

I read that. And the fact of the matter is, he didn't avoid the subject of drugs. He said specifically that druggies should be convicted and sent up....

Pssst....that was before he became addicted...he avoided the subject of drugs after he became addicted.

Oh come now Joe this is a stretch, even for you.

But anyways, he said that he became addicted in "1996, 1995, whenever". He can't even remember. But he certainly made those comments in 1995. So you cannot say with any certainty that he made those comments before he got addicted. As if it even matters.

If he weren't being hypocritical, he'd volunteer to put himself away, just as he stated druggies should be.

...well, there's a statement from my TV show they're using from 1995 which they are taking totally out of context about more white drug users need to be in jail.

Reporters taking statements out of context...nah...couldn't be.

I would like to hear all those statements in context myself, of course.

Hmmm.

There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country.

And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them.

And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.

How that is taken out of context I can't figure out. Rush violated the law. He should thus be sent to prison, if he's going to keep in line with his espoused statements on drug abusers.

p.s.: You just got bored and wanted to pick a "fight" didn't you Joe. That's why you resurrected this thread after all this time isn't it?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

But anyways, he said that he became addicted in "1996, 1995, whenever". He can't even remember. But he certainly made those comments in 1995. So you cannot say with any certainty that he made those comments before he got addicted. As if it even matters.

Now, here's your accusation of Rush being so "hard-nosed" against drug addicts...that for the 8 years following that single quote, with him on the air virtually every week-day, he hasn't said anything about them? (And don't tell me the media hasn't looked....)

Give me a break...

....How that is taken out of context I can't figure out.

It depends entirely around the rest of the article (or speach, or whatever) he said it in relation to.

You do know what "context" is, right?

In any case, where did Rush say he now feels that Drug abusers shouldn't be convicted and sentenced?

p.s.: You just got bored and wanted to pick a "fight" didn't you Joe. That's why you resurrected this thread after all this time isn't it?

Not quite as bored apparently as someone who started a thread a month ago about this in the first place.

Rush just made these statements today, and since he directly addressed most of your "concerns", I thought you might want to hear it directly from him.

But of course, your post was only about Bashing him...not really interested in a response from him.

 

[pax]

Question is I wonder if ol Rush would have been hard on drug users as he was before he became addicted himself and how his msg in the last 8 years would have been different. Too bad Rush couldnt have suffered like the other groups he attacked. His msg would have been diff there as well hhe...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Too bad Rush couldnt have suffered like the other groups he attacked. His msg would have been diff there as well hhe...

I have no idea what you mean....

 

[Natoma]

But anyways, he said that he became addicted in "1996, 1995, whenever". He can't even remember. But he certainly made those comments in 1995. So you cannot say with any certainty that he made those comments before he got addicted. As if it even matters.

Now, here's your accusation of Rush being so "hard-nosed" against drug addicts...that for the 8 years following that single quote, with him on the air virtually every week-day, he hasn't said anything about them? (And don't tell me the media hasn't looked....)

Give me a break...

Oh he seemed so "hard-nosed" about druggies before he got his own addiction right? Of course you won't see anything from him on the subject. He doesn't want to be convicted and "sent up" as he espoused for people like him.

So either he's hypocritical in his stance on how drug abusers should be treated, or he's a vacuous blowhard who didn't mean anything he said. Then again, maybe he's a little bit of both.

Yes, give us a break indeed. You argue some whoppers Joe, but this is certainly up there.

....How that is taken out of context I can't figure out.

It depends entirely around the rest of the article (or speach, or whatever) he said it in relation to.

You do know what "context" is, right?

In any case, where did Rush say he now feels that Drug abusers shouldn't be convicted and sentenced?

Uhm.....

Me no like drug users
Me no like drug pushers
Me no like drug traffickers
Me thinks all of the above destroys famiwees and little chillins
Me thinks all of the above should be sent to the bad bad place wif bubba

Hmmm...... But yea, it's out of context. :?

p.s.: You just got bored and wanted to pick a "fight" didn't you Joe. That's why you resurrected this thread after all this time isn't it?

Not quite as bored apparently as someone who started a thread a month ago about this in the first place.

Oh I wasn't starting a fight or doing it out of boredom. Just laughing at a pompous blowhard taking a fall.

Rush just made these statements today, and since he directly addressed most of your "concerns", I thought you might want to hear it directly from him.

But of course, your post was only about Bashing him...not really interested in a response from him.

Really? He addressed the concern that he demonized drug users, and now that he himself has an addiction problem, he's not in prison as he stated drug users should be?

And yes, my post was certainly about making fun of him and his holier than thou ranting cum bite him in the ass. Nor was I interested in a response from him. What response is required? He said drug users should be put in convicted and put in jail. Now he's a drug user. So he should be convicted and put in jail. Right? Just as he said drug users should be. You're such a laugh riot Joe. I swear the majority of the time I get into these "debates" with you just so I can laugh my ass off when you make your next "foot-in-mouth" comment. But of course now you'll come back with some witty "yo mamma!" retort to get in your last word and all will be good again.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

So either he's hypocritical in his stance on how drug abusers should be treated, or he's a vacuous blowhard who didn't mean anything he said. Then again, maybe he's a little bit of both.

Or he's just what he said he was: hiding from his addiction...and one way to do that is not to bring up the subject at all?

Nah...couldn't be.

And yes, my post was certainly about making fun of him and his holier than thou ranting cum bite him in the ass....Nor was I interested in a response from him.

Of course you weren't interested in that. Because if you were, you might not be just another liberal hypocrite with a holier than thou ranting attitude.

 

[Ty]

In the end, what difference does it really make when he said whatever he may have said about addicts? I agree with him, wrong is wrong and it doesn't matter if the person espousing that statement is a hyprocrite. But just because you stopped attacking a problem after you've become a part of the problem does not excuse your behavior either. It's still wrong.

What it does affect, however, is that person's credibility (but not the message itself - the two may be held to different standards if you wish).

I for one would be more interested in what his view is now on Drug Addiction.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

But just because you stopped attacking a problem after you've become a part of the problem does not excuse your behavior either. It's still wrong.

Correct.

I for one would be more interested in what his view is now on Drug Addiction.

Me as well. Will be checking his web site from time to time to see if there's any tid bits about that stuff.

 

[Natoma]

See, that's where you're wrong. I espouse certain beliefs about drug abusers. And I were found to be abusing drugs, I would expect to be prosecuted under those beliefs of rehabilitation and potential incarceration.

But of course, we don't hear anything from Rush about how he should be sent to jail for his crimes that are destroying families, the country, society, nay the universe itself!

Such an apologist. Typical conservatives. Rail and rail and rail on and on and on about the evils and perils of society, only to be caught up in those same perils. And when they're found out and then "confess" (though it doesn't matter since they're found out anyways), they're forgiven by the unthinking hoards. With the caveat that any and all proselytizing regarding punishment for said deeds is thus forgotten and forgiven.

 

[pax]

Well Joe seems to me there's at least one quote from Rush on drug abusers pre his own addiction with his then quieting down once he himself becomes addicted. So if Rush had been the victim of other social ills he typically relegated to failures of personal responsibility then maybe he would have kept quiet on them too.

Now I havent listened to Rush all that much so Ill leave it up to natoma or others to list his criticisms of left wingers and their liberal bleeding heart approach to social problems and their victims but even if Rush could be shown to have made no criticisms of other social ills, as a conservative and the typical approach of conservatives on a myriad of social issues he will still look a bit hypocritical.

Heck if only by association he looks bad... As he at the very least never criticised the condemnation of drug addicts his friends and peers in the conservative media indulged in...

 

[Ty]

See, that's where you're wrong. I espouse certain beliefs about drug abusers. And I were found to be abusing drugs, I would expect to be prosecuted under those beliefs of rehabilitation and potential incarceration.

Not quite true. You'd be responsible to the law, not your own beliefs. After all, if I believed in theft, could I go around stealing with impunity?

Don't get me wrong, he should be completely responsible for his actions and if jail time is proper and fair then I'm all in favor of it. But to me this does not change the value of the message but frankly it does change the value of the messenger. No longer can he be taken seriously IF he were to claim moral superiority on any issue.

 

[TheMightyPuck]

Just have to make a point. A biased point (i.e. IMHO). I LOVE DRUGS. They are fun. They kill pain. They cure diseases. They help people who cannot function in society function: people with depression for instance. They can stop a heart attack or a stroke. They can lower cholesterol. They can make you really really happy and love everyone you are with. They can make music seem a lot cooler. They can relax you. They can keep you awake and alert. I mean shit. They can do a lot. Drug addiction on the other hand sucks. It makes people you love act like people you hate. It makes people you love die. It makes people you don't know rob you and/or the people you love. It makes people act like jerks. It makes people stop being productive members of society. It does a lot of bad shit. One thing I do know it that the "conservative" (and I use this term very generally as I know many conservatives who feel differently) legal attitude towards drugs has nothing to do with science and everything to do with narrowminded puritan notions of "morality". What is wrong with needle exchange programs? What is wrong with giving addicts access to the drugs they are addicted to in some regulated way. What is wrong with decriminalizing drugs and/or changing manadatory minimum sentences for small time drug offences. There is nothing morally wrong with doing illegal drugs. It is what would be called a malum prohibitum as opposed to a malum in se crime. Our present war on drugs has had little effect on drug use (well, it has led smart people to create incredibly powerful indoor grown weed and it has changed consumption from imported drugs like cocaine to drugs easy to manufacture at home like crystal meth). I'm not claiming to have any answers but I think that demagogery that works by attacking ideas without really engaging those ideas doesn't get us anywhere. Unfortunately it is the most effective means of political discourse and always has been. It is ironic that Rush is addicted to pain killers and it isn't surprising that the media and his detractors have picked up on it. It may not be fair, but Rush is the king of the kneejerk "gotcha" attack that doesn't dig deeper into the real issues at hand so it's kinda apropos that his own methods are coming back to haunt him.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

See, that's where you're wrong. I espouse certain beliefs about drug abusers. And I were found to be abusing drugs, I would expect to be prosecuted under those beliefs of rehabilitation and potential incarceration.

This is where you're wrong.

Who says Rush isn't expecting prosecution?

If you were caught using drugs would you turn yourself in? Volunteer to be sentenced to prison, or whatever?

Such an apologist. Typical conservatives. Rail and rail and rail on and on and on about the evils and perils of society, only to be caught up in those same perils.

Such a hypocrite. Typical liberals.....rail and rail and rail about how it's "not the person's fault..they are a victim that needs public help and support, not condemnation", only to be caught up in the spouting that same condemnation and blame that they so vehemently prtest against.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Don't get me wrong, he should be completely responsible for his actions and if jail time is proper and fair then I'm all in favor of it.

right...and so am I, and as far as we know, so is Rush.

 

[Ty]

Don't get me wrong, he should be completely responsible for his actions and if jail time is proper and fair then I'm all in favor of it.

right...and so am I, and as far as we know, so is Rush.

Where did he state this? That he was expecting to be held legally responsible for his actions?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Don't get me wrong, he should be completely responsible for his actions and if jail time is proper and fair then I'm all in favor of it.

right...and so am I, and as far as we know, so is Rush.

Where did he state this? That he was expecting to be held legally responsible for his actions?

He hasn't stated it. That's why I emphasized ... "as far as we know." He hasn't stated anything to the contrary either. Unless he has stated the contrary, I don't see the hypocricy.

 

[Ty]

He hasn't stated it. That's why I emphasized ... "as far as we know." He hasn't stated anything to the contrary either. Unless he has stated the contrary, I don't see the hypocricy.

Then you can't really state in the affimative (even with the disclaimer limiting your scope of awareness) that Russ is expecting to be held accountable for his actions. We just don't know either way full stop. That said, within the limited scope of our argument, I don't see hypocrisy yet.

*Editted to clean up quoting mistake.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

We just don't know either way full stop. That said, within the limited scope of our argument, I don't see hypocrisy yet.

Exactly

I've said several times already...it's possible that Rush can show himself to be hypocrite...but he hasn't. (Again, at least not yet.)

 

[Natoma]

See, that's where you're wrong. I espouse certain beliefs about drug abusers. And I were found to be abusing drugs, I would expect to be prosecuted under those beliefs of rehabilitation and potential incarceration.

This is where you're wrong.

Who says Rush isn't expecting prosecution?

If you were caught using drugs would you turn yourself in? Volunteer to be sentenced to prison, or whatever?

For all his bluster regarding how druggies should be convicted and sent up, you'd think he would have said something on the matter regarding how he feels that he's broken the law and needs to be punished. I mean, that is the conservative way right?

If I were caught by the police I would surrender and give them any and all information, hoping to get rehab as per the current drug laws (varies state by state). And yes, I would admit my crime and hope for leniency. However, I'm not the one going on public radio spouting off about the evils of this and that, only to be caught up in those very things myself. Bill Bennet and Rush Limbaugh have been perfect examples of conservative hypocrisy and irony this year.

But nothing beats the Jimmy "Ahh have siiiiiiined!" Swaggert tearful confession regarding adultery. That to this day is one of the best in conservatives falling flat on their pompous high falutin faces.

Such an apologist. Typical conservatives. Rail and rail and rail on and on and on about the evils and perils of society, only to be caught up in those same perils.

Such a hypocrite. Typical liberals.....rail and rail and rail about how it's "not the person's fault..they are a victim that needs public help and support, not condemnation", only to be caught up in the spouting that same condemnation and blame that they so vehemently prtest against.

I'm not condemning Rush for having a drug problem. Hell tomorrow I could be addicted and end up in the same venue. I didn't condemn Bill Clinton when he committed adultery. That was between him and his wife, and it's why I didn't care, despite the best attempts of the right-wing to make it the issue to bring down a presidency. I didn't condemn Bill Buttimer for being a compulsive gambler. I didn't condemn Jimmy Swaggert for committing adultery.

Why don't I condemn anyone for having failures of character and straying from "the path"? Because it could happen to me, just as it could happen to anyone.

What I do condemn are the pompous, unforgiving, holier than thou attitudes of Rush Limbaugh, Swaggert, and Buttimer, to name just a few conservatives, who show no mercy on those less fortunate. When they themselves fall into that morass, I chuckle at the irony and the hypocrisy of the situation, NOT the situation itself and it's implications.

 

[Clashman]

Does anyone know where you can find transcripts or archives of Rush's shows? I looked for awhile and couldn't find diddily shit. I've got a feeling that the reason why more hasn't been found in terms of Rush's commentary on the subject is because the transcripts aren't public and thus aren't easy to examine. I find it nearly impossible that Rush could go 8 years without saying ANYTHING on the subject. It's too big a subject to completely black out for 8 years. I'm almost certain that at least someone would call in to rail on Robert Downey Jr, and he would have to respond in some way. To my knowledge I haven't seen any quotes supporting leniency, either, so I would guess that publicly he didn't change stances too much.