I’d smoke a bowl with Rush.
A real man like Rush, “an excellent role model for the youth of America” should have purchased his drugs from the dealer himself, not send a mere woman, his hired help to do it. Come on Rush show some conservative personal responsibility if you want 30,000 “little blues” don’t send your maid, be a man buy them yourself!
That may be a very practical way of dealing with people in real life, but it is still a logical fallacy.
A couple of questions:
How is it that a man with crippling back pain, of the sort that requires massive medication, can play in golf tournaments?
Correct where needed, but didn’t he already complete some drug rehab? If he returned to drug use after that, wouldn’t he be the aforesaid “architect”.
Does anyone really believe that a rich white man is going to jail for dope? Rich white men go to the Hamptons, they go to Vail, they go to Congress…but not prison.
Props to Valosz for this line: “When the right drugs meet the right people, the hole pretty much digs itself”. Rather neatly encapsulates current thinking among drug rehab workers. It is an axiom amongst recovering alcoholics that they can remember thier first drink as an epiphany from Hell. Potential junkies brains are like a jigsaw puzzle with one piece missing. They’ll tell you that the first time they did whatever, they felt “good” for the first time in thier lives. There but for the grace of God, etc.
If Rush is a hypocritical asshole junkie, and I mostly think that likely, the most important thing is to remove “junkie” from the equation. Work on the rest later.
Joe Conason’s latest column raises an interesting point. Limbaugh’s often-indulged habit of playing 18 holes of golf takes away something from the notion that he was such a victim of crippling back pain, and lends credence to the notion that his habit was recreational rather than medicational.
As to the OP, let’s wait and see what tune he’s singing when he gets out of the clinic. Any court activity, too, will have to wait until then.
My guess is that he will act tough-conservative, playing up the personal-responsibility angle (which will go over big with his core audience), then basically try and make the subject go away, i.e. not talking about it and hanging up on anyone who tries to get him to expand on the subject.
Ho do you know that he was playing golf tournaments when his back pain was an issue? Lets see if you can follow along:
Rush’s back has pain, and he gets prescribed pain medications.
He gets addicted.
Meanwhile, his back heals and he goes back to playing golf.
He’s still addicted.
What part don’t you get?
Unless you have evidence that he was playing golf when he first was prescribed the drugs, then it’s obvious you are just looking for any opening to bash Rush.
He would be the architect of his addiction if he made the decision to seek out the drugs for a high. He is not the architect of his addiction because the medicine was prescribed for pain. Do you seriously not understand this? Your twisting of logic to somehow mean that a failed rehab attempt makes him the architect is absurd.
Ya! Rush is rich, white and male so fuck him!
:rolleyes:
Cite?
Make sure it’s not just an opinion that you don’t like. Come up with something factual that he said that is a lie. Make sure it is bald-faced, and not just a few, I hasten to add.
Sam, for the most part I agree with you.
However, on point B), Rush did make statements that spoke directly to why he thinks he deserves special treatment and why his drug problem is not his fault, the points Scylla has been defending: that his dependancy came about through extenuating circumstances, so it somehow “doesn’t count”.
I’ll wait to see how C) goes, but I’m not holding my breath. I would bet that this stance will continue to be his and his listeners defense – his case is “different” and “special” and “not his fault”. So therefore it has no bearing on any other statements made in the past or in the future regarding drug abusers or drug policy in the U.S.
Or maybe Rush and his listeners will now somehow gain new insight into drug abuse, and add an important, new perspective to the policy debate about drugs in this country.
But I’m not holding my breath.
I have to be honest … my heart soared like an eagle when I heard about Rush’s drug problem. Because you know, the guy’s a fucking hypocrite and his “lock the bastids up” approach is one of the MAIN reason that a lot of people whose crimes are no different from Rush’s are in cages right now, while their families suffer.
To fucking hell with Rush. I hope he does YEARS of hard time for his involvement. Unlike a lot of the people in jail for drugs, he would deserve every fucking nanosecond of it … not because he’s a junkie, but because he’s a fucking soulless damned hypocrite who never gave a shit about all the people whose lives he screwed over with his hard line on drugs.
Thank you, Dr. Godwin.
This is almost as good as what that twerp wrote in the lead story in Newsweek about Rush’s little predicament. He referred to Limbaugh as “the darling of red-state, flyover America.”
Attaway to make Rush look good by justifying his typically moronic statements about East/West coast liberals.
It’s OK to get some satisfaction out of the idea that Rush’s reputation will take a hit from his drug involvement and that he might even be found guilty of a criminal charge. Bringdown of the super-pious is fun.
However, saying venomous things that rival Rush for stupidity will only help rally his megaditto troops behind their fallen leader.
For openers, he failed to tell the truth about his drug addiction, until he got caught.
Beyond that, his history of playing fast and loose with the facts in order to advance his agenda and entertain his moronic audience is pretty well documented. Now, I know you’re not going to like this source, but too bad. The examples of Rush’s wildly inaccurate statements are quite clear, and each example seems to be analyzed objectively. These are not just opinions with which others don’t agree - these are, for the most part, statements of “fact” by Rush that turn out to be completely and utterly wrong. And Rush rarely, if ever, has corrected himself when shown to be wrong.
Bob Cos got it in one. It really is a difficult one to grasp (hence my comment, which could, now that I’m not about to drop over from tiredness, have been more clear), but it’s still a logical fallacy.
g8rguy and Bob Cos:
Hypothetical: I lend a friend $50. He says he’ll pay me back when he gets paid on Tuesday. He never does.
A year later, the friend wants to borrow another $50, says he’ll pay me the full $100 he owes me, plus interest on Tuesday. Against my better judgment, I give him the $50. He never repays me.
Another year passes. The friend comes to me again, wants to borrow $50. Says he’ll pay me $500 on Tuesday to make it all up to me.
Now according to you fellows, it would be a logical fallacy for me to doubt this guy’s veracity. I should lend him the $50, right? I mean, logic dictates…
If logic dictates that I take Rush Limbaugh’s word as gospel, then logic is an ass.
I will not lend either $50 or my credence to someone who has abused the favor in the past.
No, logic doesn’t say that you should assume he’s telling the truth. It says you shouldn’t assume he’s lying. In the absence of evidence either way, you should withold judgment.
Shouldn’t I, rather, insist on evidence?
It seems to me that a lot of folks are willing to accept Rush’s version of events at face value. I am not.
Sure, insist on evidence before making the judgment. But that cuts both ways, and I’m not sure I’m seeing that.
What gr8guy said. As I mentioned before, it can be a very practical way of dealing with people, judging their histories. I wouldn’t lend your pal $50. That still doesn’t mean I can assume he wouldn’t have paid it back.
If Rush states that he had a serious back condition, one where a known side effect is severe pain, that is an issue of fact. Suppose someone of impeccable integrity (from your perspective), someone whose honesty is beyond question based on a universal assessment of his history, says the same thing–i.e., he happens to know that Rush had a serious back condition, one where a known side effect is severe pain. Do you now believe it? It was true or false when Rush said it, it is true or false when the second guy said it.
“Facts” are accurate on their own merit, not on the merit of who offers them. Arguments are logical or they are not, quite divorced from the character of the person making them.
By the way, I am not a fan of Rush, just so I’m not misunderstood via another logical fallacy.
“failed to tell the truth” ??
This does not a lie make. Not announcing his drug addiction to the world is not a lie. It’s perfectly normal for him to want to keep something like this private.
From what I hear on the radio, Rush hasn’t talked about drugs on his show at all ever since his back surgery a few years ago when the drug use started. Do you have any proof otherwise?
Bullshit. Partisan groups have attacked him in the past. But if he is such a big liar why can’t you come up with a single example of it?
Your right. I don’t like that source. They are a liberal, partisan group that clearly is trying to smear Rush.
Your observation that they are clear statements and each example is anaylyzed objectively is hysterical. They need to go back to 1996 and earlier to find this stuff and it is a joke.
How do you know? Do you listen to him? Or are you just taking FAIR’s word for it?
No question about that- but is it your contention that Rush never said those things, or that FAIR’s rebuttals are untrue? (Who else is going to try to debunk Rush Limbaugh anyway?
The back pain thing.
I had serious back pain in the form of a herniated disk. I could still golf, and I wasnt on pain meds. The lateral movements werent as bad as sitting and driving a car- that was very painfull. Staying acitve kept the pain down. Swinging a club was easier than tying my shoes.
It depends on the type of injury, I guess.
I think we need to withhold full criticism until after he comes back on the air. He has an opportunity to make his critics look like fools if he plays his cards right.