If Terri Schiavo had made risen from her bed, read what I wrote above and made an analogy like that her own mother would have said “You’re right, it is like Jell-O in there isn’t it? Pull that fucker and let’s go home.” There is a difference in “altering one’s viewpoint in acknowledgement of error” and covering your ass with a “mea maxima culpa” when you’ve been EXPOSED as a criminal, hypocrite, liar and junkie.
But I still insist you keep the three dollars. Mouthwash is expensive.
If Terri Schiavo had risen from her bed, read what I wrote above and made an analogy like that her own mother would have said “You’re right, it is like Jell-O in there isn’t it? Pull that fucker and let’s go home.” There is a difference in “altering one’s viewpoint in acknowledgement of error” and covering your ass with a “mea maxima culpa” when you’ve been EXPOSED as a criminal, hypocrite, liar and junkie.
But I still insist you keep the three dollars. Mouthwash is expensive.
Limbaugh read note from his “mistress in Georgia” (aka CNN’s Daryn Kagan?)
…though I’m open to the possibility that he may have been joking. I admit, after a while all these hypocritical adultering conservatives blur into each other in my mental Filoflex.
Do you understand the meaning of the word “addiction”? It means you are physically dependent on the drug and without it, you become ill. It’s a narcotic, so people develop a tolerance over time and have to take more and more. 80mgs a day (which is two per day), just not to get sick, with no positive effects. This is common knowledge. Supposedly Oxycontin withdrawal is worse than heroin withdrawal and cannot be done alone because it could kill you.
Oxycontin is an interesting drug and a good choice for someone who wants to abuse drugs and evade prosecution. The threshholds for prosecution are high, like 500 pills, whereas most people don’t have that many on hand at a time (don’t get me started on drug laws biased against poor drug addicts and in favor of rich ones-- that’s another Pit thread waiting to happen). Oxycontin is actually not very efficient for poor addicts in the form it’s prescribed, because junkies don’t usually abuse it in pill form, which is a time-released form, but crush and snort it or dissolve and inject it, which gives a faster, cheaper high than taking handfuls of pills. This is why most people switch to harder drugs, because only rich bastards like Limbaugh can afford all those pills at $5 per pill (and that’s way cheaper than it goes for on the street). Some states’ Medicaid patients require prior authorization for more than two pills per day. In order to get the high you need, if you’re not snorting or shooting (I don’t know that Limbaugh did this), you have to take a fuck of a lot of pills. Addicts can have to take as many as 50-60 per day.
Think about this for a second. Let’s say you need to take 15 Oxycontin/day. That’s low, actually, but I’m being nice. That means, in about 3 days, the bottle that’s supposed to last you a month is gone. What are you going to do for the other 27 days per month? You can turn to a dealer, as Limbaugh allegedly did with his maid last time, or you can get as many doctors as possible to give you prescriptions, fill them all, and do it that way. Got it?
At least two years since his last incident, right? Addictions tend to ratchet upwards, so if he’s been hooked for 3 years, I’d call that a serious and long-term addiction. This is logic, man.
OK, then you are ignorant about narcotics addictions, how they work, how many pills a narcotic addict would need per day after 3 years of addiction, and how hardcore Oxycontin is. Please fight your ignorance before you argue with me.
A person does not need to be convicted for any thinking observer to see and acknowledge that laws were broken. Disingenuous, again. He has an oxycontin addiction, for which he is receiving mandatory treatment, and which he apologized for, therefore admitting it, right? It is a crime to doctor shop, but his lawyers got him out of it. That does not mean he did not do it, just that he will not be punished under the law.
Demonstrate that he was excessively prosecuted. He is receiving no criminal penalties whatsoever and paying a fine that most regular folks could not afford in order to do so. What do you call that?
Sigh. It’s LIMBAUGH and his ilk who can’t get off the Clintons, not you. Clinton wasn’t convicted of anything either, but he’s guilty guilty guilty and no one can ever forget it. I say Limbaugh should receive similar treatment; if you want to dish it out, you ought to be able to take it.
Are you fucking kidding me?
But he’s still a judgemental, name-calling prick, though he hates it when it’s done to him, as do O’Reilly, Coulter, et al. That’s the hypocrisy. He talks about moral values but his are highly questionable. That’s the hypocrisy.
Did he apologize to all the drug addicts on whom he wished ill? Cite?
This isn’t necessarily true. There is a lot of drug in a single Oxycontin tablet–40 mg of oxycodone in the biggest ones, equivalent to 8 regular Percoset. (They used to make an 80mg, but my understanding is that they’ve stopped.) I have known plenty of people with definite addictions to daily amounts no greater than two or three of those. I have also known addicts who were able to maintain habits at a relatively stable dose for longer than I would have expected, largely by not giving in to every twinge of a need for more.
I don’t know how many constitute a “handful”, but there are plenty of addicts who take less than anything you’d call a handful.
Is there anything out there quantifying Rush’s addiction? (There may be, I just haven’t seen it.)
Ok…I had a pretty nice sized Oxycontin addiction going for awhile. I usually did a 80 mg and maybe a 30 mg before bed almost every night. That was certainly not a “handful” and I was definitely an addict. Oxycontin’s are obscenely strong pills, as previously mentioned. You don’t need alot to get you by.
I was also a pharm tech (hey, go figure) and the quantities that Rush was taking in a month was probably more than my pharmacy dealt with in a year. Total for all strengths. Frankly, it boggles my mind that Rush did not OD at some point.(I sure did)
rjung:
Hmm…“mistress” is an interesting choice of words, though I can’t deny that it seems Rush used it. From what I can tell, he started dating her after beginning, but before completing, divorce proceedings from his third wife. Whether or not their relationship was sexual, which would probably be necessary to qualify him as a hypocrite on that particular subject (a la Fallwell), is not at all certain.
A lot of things can make a guy any age go deaf.
My brother was functionally deaf by 30. He got cochlear implants in both ears and hears well now. My brother didn’t realise how much he wasn’t hearing anymore until it became a serious problem. Then, after the implants, he remarked about how loud the world is.
My sister in law was functionally deaf by 30. She also got cochlear implants in both ears. She hears well now.
As far as I know, both of them suffered a lot of low-grade, chronic ear infections as children. But the onset of deafness for both of them was gradual.
I don’t discount the possibility that Oxycontin might contribute to hearing loss (after all, Lamisil can cause a loss of the ability to taste) - but I personally would be more likely to look at the whole earphones-on-ears-for-many-hours-a-week factor. I’m hearing lately that ear-bud earphones, even at low volumes, can damage hearing.
Are you making a distinction between physical dependence and addiction? There’s taking the maintenance dose to be “normal” and then there’s addiction. I got the impression Limbaugh was taking more than 2 pills a day, hence the need to doctor shop.
Oxycontin is a time-release pill, which is why it’s so “powerful” but still not a great choice for people who are addicted. If you crush or dissolve it, you get a much higher dose at once than a person who takes it as prescribed.
Not that I know of, and we probably won’t know because he won’t admit it if he doesn’t have to.
From what I understand, if you cut out all the passages in the Bible where Jesus talks about the poor, about helping out the least among us, you’d have the perfect container to smuggle Rush Limbaugh’s drugs in. - Al Franken
Mean but funny.
No. The term you are describing is chemical dependancy. One may suffer from addiction without chemical dependancy as there are various psychological forms of addiction. Apparently, I understand the word better than you.
Your site does not support what you claim it does. The 80 mgs a day is described as an upper limit not a maintenance level. It says nothing about “no positive effects.” You seem to have made that part up.
It doesn’t say that it will kill you. It says it’s difficult to near impossible to do alone.
Earlier you stated that someone posessing a quantity of Oxyconting equivalent to what Rush had would go to jail for 25 years. Do you have a cite showing the police discovered more than 500 illegally obtained pills in Rush’s posession?
If you don’t, I’ll expect you to back off the statement that Rush is guilty of criminal posession. I’ll expect you to retract the statement that he received favorable treatment because someone else would go to jail if they had the quantity that Rush had.
I think it’s very reasonable to ask you how many pills the police found when you say that an equvalent amount would send somebody else to jail for 25 years. Again. Please. Now that you’ve stipulated the number is greater than 500 pills please show the cite saying that’s what the police found in Rush’s posession.
Earlier you said that Rush would have to take handfuls of pills to satisfy his level of addiction. I questioned this and two experienced people disputed your statement. Your own initial cite disputed this statement. Two 40mg pills would cost ten dollars a day in prescription value according to your statement above. That’s $10 a day. I think that’s in the reach of people other than “rich bastards like Limbaugh.”
No. You appear to be making things up again. You have no evidence to suggest Rush was snorting (or you’ve shown none and admitted that you don’t know Rush was doing this.) Your initial cite says 80 mg, which would be two 40mg pills a day would be a strong addiction. Two other posters, one a doctor, the other a former Oxycontin addiction sufferer support this.
I understand, but you’re pulling the 15 a day number out of thin air. You’re making it up. I’ve asked you for a cite showing Limbaugh’s level of addiction. You have ignored that request. You cannot speculate meaningully about what it took to satisfy Limbaugh’s addiction without demonstrating what that level of addiction was. You get that?
Again. Please show me a cite demonstrating Limbaugh’s addiction level.
No. It’s kind of embarassing, your lack of logic and propensity to make up facts.
Limbaugh admitted an addiction two years ago. He immediately went into rehab. The rehab lasted six weeks. He claims he hasn’t had any oxycontin since then. He has been subject to voluntary random drug testing since he got out of rehab. This has been shared and accepted with the DA’s office who have confirmed that Limbaugh has not a positive test for Oxycontin since. As part of the deal that was made the random drug testing will continue for another 18 months with the results to be supervised and shared with the DA’s office. Provided Limbaugh continues not to test positive, the single charge of Dr. Shopping will be dropped.
The length of time Limbaugh was addicted prior to going into rehab has not been disclosed, so we have no idea how long he was abusing oxycontin.
The fact of the matter is we do not know how long or how severely Limbaugh was abusing the drug. We do not know much he was taking. You keep making statemtents as if you did know. I keep asking you to back them up. You keep failing to do so.
My conclusion: You’re simply making this up as you go along.
No not ignorant. I simply don’t know very much about it. I’m also smart and honest enough to admit what I don’t know instead of making things up and asserting them as fact, which is what you’ve been doing.
Have you observed Limbaugh breaking the law?
No. He has recieved voluntary treatment for the last two years, not mandatory treatment. He has submitted to random testing and shared the results with the DA’s office to demonstrate that he is not abusing Oxycontin. He has not been compelled to do so. This fact has been subject to much debate over the last two years as the DA has attempted to gain access to all of Limbaugh’s medical records. The DA failed. Limbaugh has shown his testing results voluntarily. He has made a deal in which he will continue to do so for 18 months.
Limbaugh has admitted to being addicted to Oxycontin. Your own cite and other knowledgeable posters have demonstrated that this addiction need not be the “handfuls” of pills that you falsely claim it has to be, but could just as easily be one or two pills a day. This hardly necessitates Dr. Shopping of the vast quantities of illegal pills that you claim it does.
An accusation is not a fact. If you wish to insist as a fact that Limbaugh was Dr. Shopping, you need to demonstrate it.
The DA’s office spent two years and millions of dollars investigating Mr. Limbaugh in order to prosecute charges against him for illegal posession and Dr. Shopping. This was an excessively uncommon amount of effort and expense. They sought access to his private medical records which are protected by Dr./Patient privilege. This caused quite a stir in the legal world as their attempt for a warrant to search the records under these grounds was unprecedented.
These two facts should demonstrate an unusual zealousness on the part of the DAs office. Whether or not it is excessive is a matter of opinion. The fact of the matter is that it was highly unusual.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Limbaugh is not paying a fine, that I’m aware of. Did you just make that up?
I am receiving none, because nobody has been able to prove criminal guilt.
He can’t? I don’t recall him talking about the Lewinsky thing recently. Can you show that he has been harping this subject or are you making that up, too?
I agree. I think he was guilty of perjury.
You’re being judgemental and calling names. Are you also a hypocrite?
Not that I can recall, nor can I recall him wishing them ill. Do you have a cite for that?
A person who is chemically dependant on a drug is addicted. A person who is addicted to something is not necessarily chemically dependant upon it. A square is necessarily a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.
In the context of a person who is chemically dependant on oxycontin and taking a “maintenance dose,” to be “normal” because they would go through withdrawal without such a dose… That person is, in every sense of the word “addicted.”
From where (besides pulling it out of thin air) did you get this impression?
He probably also would see no need to admit it if it wasn’t true.
You have it backwards. Chemical dependency is when you need to take the drug to be normal, ie, free from pain; it is not as extreme a situation, nor does it entail psychological nor physiological dependence. My father is chemically dependent on his cholesterol medication. He has to take it or his body cannot function normally. However, he feels no compulsion to take the drug, nor is he willing to commit illegal acts to get it. Addiction is when you suffer from withdrawal, you feel a compulsion to take the drug and cannot stop voluntarily if you need to. Dependence on painkillers is pretty easy to fall into. Addiction is more serious. Limbaugh admitted to addiction for “some years”. Look it up yourself. You’re the one who is ignorant here.
I didn’t make it up. When you take 100 pills a day, you are taking them because you need to get high off the drug. Taking 2 pills a day because you have a physical dependence on a painkiller in order to be free of pain is not the same as a person who has to take more and more to get the euphoric feeling from the drug. This is why people have to take more and more. Right?
We’re talking about a shit ton of pills scored for him by his maid.
The upper limit for a Medicaid prescription in some states is two a day. If you need to have more than the two a day, you doctor shop so you can get more than two a day. Of course, this is after scoring your little blues in parking lots and getting your hired help to buy them for you. Didn’t work out so hot, better to get several doctors to legally prescribe them and hope you can lawyer your way out of the charges. This seems pretty clear to me. It’s only not clear to you because you are going to defend your boy tooth and nail, even though he is unworthy of your fanatical support.
Do you know what the word “hyperbole” means? If not, look into it.
He had thousands of pills. That’s criminal possession. When someone has thousands of pills, often the charge is conspiracy to distribute and/or fraud. The penalties for these are very high. Of course, now you’re going to scream that he wasn’t found guilty of these things, therefore he didn’t do them, but that’s just you being disingenuous again. A different person, caught with that much Oxycontin (he also had hydrocodeine during the 2003 bust) would be charged and likely convicted and “sent up,” just as he wished on other smack addicts.
CNN transcipt that says Limbaugh was taking 100 pills a day. That would cost what now per day? I expect you to retract your above nonsense now. I will exhale rather than turn blue holding my breath, though.
According to the CNN transcript, his addiction goes back to 1998. That means we’re going on 8 years. That’s pretty serious.
No, I was being conservative. Apparently I was low by 85 per day.
You’re hilarious.
Do you know what “lying” is? Because that’s what Rushbo was doing. Why would he defer prosecution and agree to 18 months of rehab if he’s not addicted? Why, praytell?
[third grade voice]No, YOU are![/tgv]
I think the ball is now in your court to refute my cite. If not, I expect you to admit you’re pulling a kneejerk defense of Limbaugh because you like him and not because he’s innocent of drug abuse, doctor shopping, etc.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The charge of doctor shopping is being dropped, in this case, after he does the rehab. If he fails to do the rehab, the prosecution will no longer be deferred. This is pretty close to “mandatory” rehab, unless he wants to be prosecuted.
Cite? They said they were prosecuting all number of people who were involved in illegal possession of Oxycontin, and Limbaugh was just one of the people in the investigation. You are misrepresenting the investigation, big shock.
$30,000 in court fees he’s paying as part of the deal. See last cite or get off your ass and look it up yourself. When was the last time YOU offered a cite to back up your opinion?
Not recently? How long ago was the Lewinsky scandal? How long did he bring it up?
Innocent until proven guilty. Was Clinton convicted of perjury? How much money and prosecutorial time was spent questioning him about shit that was, before the perjury, just no one’s business? Talk about excessive prosecution.
Am I touting moral values on the airwaves? Am I denouncing people for doing illegal or immoral things that I myself am doing? Then no. No one cares what I think, but a lot of people listen to and care what Limbaugh thinks. He abuses that power to distort and defame people he doesn’t like, but when he is in a position to be defamed or his wrongs distorted, he cries like a little girl.
He wished hard time on them, which IMO is wishing them ill. I already gave you a cite for that, from October 5, 1995. Please stop being disingenuous. It belies your alleged intelligence. Mr. Limbaugh himself has evaded the same “hard time” he wished on others. I call that hypocrisy for which he has not apologized.
I wonder if you’d have this much compassion for some other narcotics addict that you didn’t like so much. I really have to wonder.
You are incorrect. I have offered a cite refuting this. Can you offer one supporting the above? If so, I’d like to see it.
No. You don’t seem to understand your cite. Your father is not chemically dependant on his cholesterol medication. I’ll address this at the end of the post in more detail
No. Chemical dependancy, or physical dependancy will cause you to suffer withdrawal from your addiction. Addiction does not imply an inability to stop voluntarily. I was addicted to cigarettes. I stopped voluntrarily though I suffered withdrawal. Nicotine is considered one of the most addictive substances in the world, yet many people quit voluntarily.
I did. I checked my Harvard Guide to Family Medecine to make sure I was using “Addiction” and “Chemical Dependancy” properly. You seem to be confusing “Physical Dependancy” with “Chemical Dependancy” and “Addiction” in a haphazard fashion. Your cite does not support your usage of “addiction.”
No. It does not follow from addiction that an addict must progressively increase their drug intake of narcotics. You’re mistaken. In most instances of long-term addiction the body loses the ability to experience euphoria or it is greatly diminished through the buildup of a tolerance to the drug, and the addict may simply maintain to prevent the ill effects of withdrawal.
Uh-huh. According to the National Enquirer who paid her over a $100,000 for the story. Conveniently she no longer has any of the evidence as she gave it all to authorities (who must have mysteriously lost it.)
All of your cites attempting to quantify Limbaugh’s addiction come from this National Enquirer story as a primary source.
The National Enquirer has a history of fabricating and/or exagerating stories and lost several cases for doing just this against celebrities. One of the ways they reduce their liability these days is to convince somebody else to be the source of the story. They pay that person a lot of money to be the source and protect the paper from a suit. That this can and does happen does not constitute proof that it did happen this way in this case, but the fact that the maid received significant compensation to tell a salacious story and the fact that she conveniently no longer had posession of the conclusive evidence to back her story is more than enough to seriously question her credibility. I question her story for this reason and also because the Limbaugh she portrays is so out of control and so far gone in his addiction that it seems likely that it would have been observable from his demeanor during the 3 hours a day he is on the air. It was not.
This is just getting stupid. You think Limbaugh was on Medicaid? A post ago you called him a rich bastard for being able to afford his addiction. Now you think he’s on medicaid?
He’s on Medicaid?
Fantasies often do. Medicaid. That’s funny.
No. It’s clear to me because I’m not fantasizing that Rush is on medicaid.
Sure do. Hyperbole is an obvious overstatement for emphasis. You said that if you try to get off Oxycontin by yourself you’ll die and you provided a cite. This is a hardly an attempt at hyperbole you’ve made.
But Limbaugh was not found to have thousands of pills, was he. Both your cites refer to the the National Enquirer and the story which they paid the maid for as their source.
If The National Enquirer pays someone $100,000 to tell them that Bill Clinton has a 47,000 pound marijuana stash is that enough evidence to convict him and pronounce him guilty?
This is the sum total of your evidence. Do you also beleive the stories about the UFOs and Batboy?
Please don’t accuse me of being disingenous, especially with such blatant stupidity. First off, you have misrepresented my argument. I never said nor implied that absence of proof constitutes proof of absence. I resent having my words twisted. I have simply pointed out what should be eminently obvious, which is that lack of proof does not constitute proof. You seem to be implying that a lack of evidence, convictions, or charges for posession somehow constitutes proof of posession. This is just stupid.
If you don’t want me to consider you a liar, I expect you to immediately retract this outright fabrication. Alternately you may show me a credible source showing that Limbaugh was arrested in 2003 with Oxycontin and Hydrocodeine in his posession in illegal quantities.
Source; the National Enquirer story with the maid they paid to tell that.
The CNN transcript is again apparently referring to the National Enquirer story. It would be pretty serious, as I’m sure was the case of George Bush’s transvestitism that was doubtless also covered in the Enquirer that day.
Sure. “Lying” is what you are doing when you claim Rush was “busted” with illegal quantities of drugs in 2003.
Why would he agree? Let’s see. He’s agreeing because he is not being asked to do anything he is not already doing voluntarily. He’s agreeing to avoid the costs and publicity of a public trial. He is agreeing because it puts this behind him and allows him to get on with his life. He is agreeing because its a good deal the lawyers have negotiated for him.
It didn’t especially change my opinion when he readily admitted that he suffered from an addiction, and it wouldn’t have changed my opinion had he Doctor shopped. I enjoy listening to Rush’s show for an hour in the car during lunch. I don’t especially admire or seek to emulate the man and I wouldn’t want his personal life for a million dollars.
I don’t see myself so much defending Rush as I do attacking lies, stupidity, and fabrications.
Take the Kennedy situation that occured today. I think it is very bad that the police did not perform a sobriety test after his accident. I think it’s inexcusable. I do not however think that it is fair to assume that Kennedy was drunk simply because the test was not performed. He has a history of mental illness and is on medication to combat this and other maladies and it is quite possible that Kennedy became confused and delusional because of bad effects of the drugs he prescribed and that led him to crash his car this morning.
In the absence of convincing evidence that points me to the conclusion it is irresponsible, unfair, and stupid of me to conclude that Kennedy was drunk when he crashed his car. Therefore I do not.
That is the same standard that I apply to Limbaugh.
You said “mandatory.” Now you say “pretty close to mandatory.” In fact it is neither you can call a chicken a duck or say it’s close to a duck but the fact is that a chicken is not a duck. It’s not mandatory. He was doing it anyway. All the DA is asking him to do is continue with what he had decided to do on his own.
Your cite works fine. They also said Limbaugh was not a target of the investigation yet they specifically sought his medical records in order to prosecute a charge of Dr. Shopping. Regardless of how they began the case Limbaugh clearly became the target of it, as they’ve levelled the charge against him.
Can you find any other charges besides the one they made against Limbaugh that resulted from this investigation in which Limbaugh was supposedly not the target?
I don’t need cites to back opinion. I need cites to back up facts. You claim Limbaugh was fined. I ask you for a cite to back up this fact. You show a cite saying Limbaugh agreed to pay $30,000 in court fees. I knew that. You said Limbaugh was fined. Agreeing to pay court fees is not a fine. Please show me where Limbaugh was fined or retract your lie.
If you are not fabricating your statement that Limbaugh can’t get off the subject, then you should know this, shouldn’t you?
On the internet.
Yes. You are. I’ve already accused you of hypocrisy for your fabrications distortions and namecallings… things you’ve accused Rush of and have argued are morally reprehensible.
Actually, he wished for an equal standard of justice. This is different than wishing them ill. For example, if I hope a bankrobber gets caught, I am not wishing ill on the bankrobber I am wishing for justice for the people who’s money was stolen.
In that cite Limbaugh was wishing unfavorable special treatment would not be given to criminals because they are white and have money, while poor and black ones do not get the treatment.
You cannot reasonably construe that he is wishing ill on rich white people because he seeks to end an injustice. That would be a distortion. That would be disingenous.
You can call it what you want, but the fact is that I heard Limbaugh apologize for his previous unsympathetic statements concerning drug addiction, retract them, and vow to use his experience to help others who were simarly afflicted. He did not specifically play any quotes from , but he made these statements categorically and more than once, most recently on Monday’s show near the opening.
The last time you made this stupid and untrue argument, I pointed out that Rush did apologize. Then you got mad because he wasn’t consitent with his previous statements and you “wanted consistency.” Remember?
You can’t have it both ways, and you can’t fabricate things. Keep that in mind.
It’s not compassion for Rush, it’s contempt for ignorance, lies, and fabrications that is motivating me, here.
Next post:
No. I’m not incorrect. You’re confused. You offered a cite about physical dependancy. What I had said was “chemical dependancy.” These terms have different meanings and are not interchangeable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_dependency
Please also note that your understanding of physical dependancy is also incorrect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_dependence
Note that a person who required blood pressure medication to keep his blood pressure down is not “Physically dependant,” nor “chemically dependant.”
Here’s one on drug tolerance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_tolerance
Here’s one on addiction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction
As you can see addiction does not require chemical or physical dependancy, but in fact seems to be used to describe a psychology condition of compulsion whether or not it is attached to a physical dependancy.
I hope that helps.
I never said Rush Limbaugh was on Medicaid, you idiot. I was using the two pill a day standard to compare how much he was taking to how much normal people are allowed to take when they don’t have the money to buy illegal drugs.
That’s all I’m going to say to you, because it seems like there’s no way I will ever be able to communicate with you, and frankly, this weekend I don’t have time to find cites to please your insatiable desire for more and more evidence. Suffice it to say, if it wasn’t your boy Rush in this situation, you wouldn’t bother with this inane defenses of a drug addict. That seems quite clear, so spending an hour on a post that you will willfully misinterpret is just a waste of my valuable resources.
If you resent me calling you disingenuous, a charge I stand behind 100%, or my lying and want me to apologize to you or anyone, just put me on your blocked list and don’t read my posts anymore. I really don’t care how you take this or what you think of it. Call me names, resent me if you give enough of a shit to waste that much energy on a stranger. Please do NOT take this as a concession, any sign that you’ve won the argument, or that I’m giving up because I think you’re right. Take it as you have more time on your hands than I do right now and I frankly don’t care about Rush Limbaugh as much as you do. I can and will contine to ignore him as much as possible and hope he dries up and blows away.
If this thread is still going on Monday after my guest leave and is not just you and me talking past each other, I’ll jump back in. but if not, oh well. You win the Internets.
Save your breath, Ruby – Scylla is a total whore of the Right, and has more excuses for their hypocrisy than you’ve had hot lunches.
No you were weren’t. You were using it to support your allegation of Dr. Shopping. Here’s what you said:
“The upper limit for a Medicaid prescription in some states is two a day. If you need to have more than the two a day, you doctor shop so you can get more than two a day.”
It must be frustrating that I accept your lies and outright fabrications.
Well, if you are going to say that Limbaugh was busted in 2003 with illegal quantities of 2 prescription medecines, you should be able to support that. The only reason not to, is because you are unwilling to admit that it’s a pure fabrication. A lie. A liar will make up all kinds of excuses when pushed in a corner to support their lie.
You’re a mindreader, now? No. You’re wrong. It’s your lies and fabrications that are inspiring me to such effort.
If you are going to run away and not support your charge than you’re not really standing behind it, are you. Since your charge of disingenuous is based on putting in words in my mouth and attributing arguments to me that I did not make, it’s not possible for you to stand behind it. Running away is your only alternative to admitting it.
Run, Forrest, Run.
You haven’t really made an argument you’ve just asserted fabrications.
No, I have guests in from out of town and I don’t have time to write a substantive response. Like I said, if you want to call that a victory, knock yourself out, but that ain’t what it is. It takes time to construct a meaningufl and well-documented post and I simply cannot do it. I should be getting out of my house now for my friend’s birthday lunch. As I said, if this thread is still going by Monday, I will cointinue on with you, but if it’s not, oh well.
Scylla wins.