How does Limbaugh justify himself? (Rush's arrest thread)

So for those who haven’t heard Rush Limbaugh has been arrested again (or to be more precise, he’s turned himself in and been processed/released) for prescription drug abuse/fraud. Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter have both been quoted as saying they didn’t think it was newsworthy and won’t comment on it.

This is the same man who since his first conviction on the same charge has called for stiff penalties for crack and smack addicts and the like and sits in judgment…

Okay, I have sympathy for people who get addicted to pain medication. I’m pain free now but a couple of years ago I had a back injury and I could TOTALLY understand while I had it how people get addicted to anything that will stop the shooting pains. BUT, how can they sit in judgment? How can Coulter and O’Reilly and their ilk think this is not newsworthy but if it had been Hillary Clinton you know they’d want the death penalty? And most of all, how can the DittoHeads still follow him (or Jimmy Swaggart or Pat Robertson or Dubya or anybody else who clearly doesn’t practice what they preach)?

A spectacularly lame pitting, but wanted to pit nonetheless. I hate the self-righteous hypocrites more than I hate any similar sinner on Earth almost.

You want Coulter to diss someone? Where I come from, that’s a badge of honor. I’m not comfortable with Limbaugh having one of those.

It’s because they’re fucking stupid and are hypocrites. That’s all it is. The simplest explanation IS the best one. They’re fucking stupid.

Ditto on SteveG1’s post.

Limbaugh’s main audience have never objected to the hypocrisies of his positions before (example: dinking Bill Clinton for marital infidelity while Rush himself has had multiple mistresses, divorces, and remarriages), so this latest incident won’t make any difference to them.

IOKIYAR, silly.

Not that I like rush, but I believe this is the final deposition of the original case from a couple years ago.

The DA did mention “first time offender” in the linked story.

IOW, he didn’t get busted again.

Yup, this is just the continuation of the case that’s been going on for years. And the Dittoheads don’t care. Probably because they’re not capable of understanding :wink:

Speaking if hypocrisy, do you remember when Rush had problems with his hearing? I remember stumbling across the show when he was telling his audience about it, and how he had someone typing in the callers’ questions and comments live so that he could answer them. It was a real pity party. Turns out Oxycontin abuse can cause severe hearing problems.

Do you have evidence that Oxycontin was a cause of Limbaugh’s hearing loss, or that his case was consistent with those related to Oxycontin?

Yes, is that true? I have wondered what the heck could make a guy my age go deaf.

It’s amusing to read a lame pitting from someone who has apparently avoiding cluttering his mind with too much information. Limbaugh hasn’t been convicted of anything, earlier or now. This recent event, his first arrest, is part of an agreement to dispose of the case without any criminal record, if he does what he agreed to.

To **Paul in Saudi ** and The Swan, one of his doctors apparently said there was a possible link.

Hypocrisy is one of the most misused words on this board. First, I heard some of those shows myself. I don’t recall any self-pity. Optimism is what I recall. Second, could you explain how self-pity over a self-inflicted malady is hypocritical? The source of an injury doesn’t have a whole lot to do with what it is like to deal with the results.

Ahhhhhhhhh hahahahahahaha!

Awesome.

I am praying that Michael Moore get’s cought abusing painkillers, just to see the internal conflict on their faces. “Be completely subjective, biased, and unfair and use this opportunity to destroy a rival, or resist that urge in order to maintain the semblance of journalistic integrity?”

Get’s=gets.

I really wish we could edit posts on these boards.

So for those who haven’t heard, Dan Brown has written a follow-up to his best-seller entitled “The DaVinci Code” (or to be more precise, his publisher has released a softcover pocket book edition of the same title).

Cerebral constipation ?

I believe the State Attorneys in Florida refer to this as “deferment of prosecution.” It is pretty common for first time offenders. I do wonder if the $32,000 fine is as common. You know what irks me though. I heard Hannity talking about this Friday and he made it sound like Rush had been exonerated. Not exactly, in fact HARDLY.

This in some ways resembles probation before judgment, but avoids the trial. I think the $32,000 is to pay for the investigation, which I suppose Limbaugh could have obviated by confessing and pleading guilty to something. It’s obviously, as you suggest, an option that is not available to most offenders. If Hannity is portraying this as an exoneration, he has a different understanding of it than the prosecutor, you, I and most likely Limbaugh have. It is clearly a deal to end investigation, prosecution and potential penalties if certain conditions are met, not a finding of anything, let alone innocence.

No. This is not factual. Mr. Limbaugh has been processed for one charge of Dr. Shopping to which he has plead “not guilty.” Under the terms of the agreement with the DA’s office this charge will be head in abeyance for 18 mos, provided Mr. Limbaugh continues to submit to and pass random drug screenings and continue his rehabilitory supervision for the addiction to painkillers which he has admitted. This is the final resolution (provided Limbaugh follows through,) for the scandal that started two years ago, not a new charge.

Link?

Link?

Empathy is good.

You don’t seem to have a problem with sitting in judgement. I’ll wait for the link to Limbaugh sitting in judgement before this merits an answer.

Again, looks like you’re sitting in judgement. I can hardly attack Coulter and O’Reilly for something that they haven’t done, but you think they would have in a hypothetical situation.

There are so many good reasons, legitimate reasons to criticize these two, it seems intellectually lazy to make up hypotheticals, don’t you think? I also notice again that you are “sitting in judgement.”

Again, I’ll wait for the link about Limbaugh “sitting in judgement,” and “since his first conviction on the same charge has called for stiff penalties for crack and smack addicts and the like.”

This latter is going to be a tough one since Limbaugh has not had a “first conviction,” or any conviction for that matter. I’ll help you out though. I follow Rush Limbaugh in spite of what you say for two reasons: 1. This issue, or his personal life and failings as a human being do not, in my opinion, invalidate the entertainment I get from listening during my lunch hour. 2. Your statements regarding the issue are false, innacurate and ill-informed. Your conclusions and judgements based on them are flawed and hence not worthy of emulation based on the merits of the argument as you’ve presented it.

Well, yeah, but I’ve done worse.

Getting your facts straight before passing judgement would be a good idea.

In case you’re curious, last Friday while you state Mr. Limbaugh was being arrested in a drug scandal (after a prior conviction,) he was actually donating the time of his radio show to raising money for Leukemia and other blood cancers. He raised 1.7 million dollars for the Leukemia society, including a $250,000 donation from his own pocket.

I would say that Mr. Limbaugh had a pretty good Friday having found closure for his legal woes, succesfully recovering from an addiction, and raising almost 2 million dollars for a very worthy charity. Now that the issue is over and a settlement has been reached Mr. Limbaugh has stated his intention to do more charity work voluntarily for those suffering from addiction, so that he may use his experience in a positive fashion.

You may very well strongly disagree with Mr. Limbaugh and have many valid reasons for not liking him or his views.

I would like to think, in all fairness, that last Friday was a day when even his worst detractors might have have something good to say about his actions. Regardless of political beleif I think his actions that day are meritorious and worthy of praise rather than the usual knee-jerk, ill-informed falsifications that you have provided.

Feel free to hate him today for noting that on the “Day without immigrants” the highways were clear of traffic jams, the stores were uncrowded and life was pleasant and noting that we should do this more often. If you were looking for a reason, that might be a good one.

On Friday though El Rushbo did good.

Here is one example of Rush Limbaugh sitting in judgement of other drug addicts:

Having said this, do you think Limbaugh was being compassionate for people who are suffering through an addiction? Is he not a hypocrite for taking this hard line stance for others, but copping out when he should, acccording to his own words, be convicted and sent up the river? If not, please explain why not.

This is the problem with sitting in judgement on people. Look not to the mote in my eye and all that…