View Poll Results: does rush limbaugh believes in what he says?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    25 56.82%
  • no

    15 34.09%
  • not sure

    4 9.09%
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 102

Thread: Is rush limbaugh serious?

  1. #81
    Another day in paradise..
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 02:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    67,947

    Re: Is rush limbaugh serious?

    Tuck,


    He fought the charges rightfully so.


    If you read the case, the prosecutorial misconduct was abhorrent.


    Matthew 10:34
    Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

  2. #82
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:43 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    66,686

    Re: Is rush limbaugh serious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    It is completley relevant. Like I said, I was perscribed enough Diladids to get me addicted 3 fold. Had that happened, it would be a far cry different than choosing to go out, buy an illegal substance, use it to get high, then get addicted.

    That said, It would be my own damn fault for being addicted and doctor shopping as it was Rush's.

    He owned up to it. Imaging if all you lefties treated all those addicted the way you bloviate on about him.
    And you were responsible about it. I applaud you.

    Do you think drug addicts intend on getting addicted? To me it doesn't make a lick of difference as to who enabled the addiction.

    As for your last comment, why do you need to group people together? I am not in lock step with all lefties. He said addicts should be sent up the river. Did he ever alter that stance?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The Amish are light-years ahead of the rest of the human race.



  3. #83
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:43 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    66,686

    Re: Is rush limbaugh serious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    This is just dumb. Sorry.
    I agree. Don't try to assume who I hate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The Amish are light-years ahead of the rest of the human race.



  4. #84
    Global Moderator
    Engagement!
    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,939

    Re: Is rush limbaugh serious?

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    No, Zyph, did Rush waive treatment so he could be sent up the river?

    That is his hypocrisy.

    The other quote is others' hypocrisy.
    I acknolwedge how the first part was hypocracy. Actually, I always said that in regards to that particular thing he was hypocritical...though again, as Rev pointed out, taking a 10 year old stance does not necessarily mean his stance closer to the time. And, changing stances over the years is not hypocritical. Now, I'm not saying this as a defense, as I've already stated in that regard he's a hypocrite, but you have to at least strive for a bit of honesty here in understanding that views on things can change and altar over a DECADE.

    But my issue is still with your second quote. Your argument is still looking like swiss cheese.

    Your first post said NOTHING about "otheres" hypocricy, but specifically mention it shows HIS. Furthermore, RUSH LIMBAUGH saying something does not make someone that does the opposite of it a hypocrite unless that person has stated they agree 100% with Limbaugh. So how does the second quote show that other people are hypocrites for making excuses for Limbaugh. Did those other people say the quotes? Did those other people say they agree 100% with Limbaugh? And still, you didn't even mention other people at first, but labled it as an example of how Rush was a hypocrite.
    You down with TPP?

  5. #85
    Another day in paradise..
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 02:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    67,947

    Re: Is rush limbaugh serious?

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    And you were responsible about it. I applaud you.
    Actually, I had no idea at the time. The Doctor did not warn me. He simply stated I should not abrubtly stop. I simply could not take the pills due to the absolute wretching it would cause me.

    i got lucky IMO.

    Do you think drug addicts intend on getting addicted? To me it doesn't make a lick of difference as to who enabled the addiction.

    If you take heroin recreationally you are a moron if you think you wont get addicted.


    If I took the Diladids as perscribed I would have been addicted. I also have means. It might have been real easy for me to continue had I taken them.

    Would I? No, I don't like taking anything. But the potential is there.

    As for your last comment, why do you need to group people together? I am not in lock step with all lefties. He said addicts should be sent up the river. Did he ever alter that stance?

    in 1993 right?


    Matthew 10:34
    Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

  6. #86
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:43 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    66,686

    Re: Is rush limbaugh serious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I acknolwedge how the first part was hypocracy. Actually, I always said that in regards to that particular thing he was hypocritical...though again, as Rev pointed out, taking a 10 year old stance does not necessarily mean his stance closer to the time. And, changing stances over the years is not hypocritical. Now, I'm not saying this as a defense, as I've already stated in that regard he's a hypocrite, but you have to at least strive for a bit of honesty here in understanding that views on things can change and altar over a DECADE.

    But my issue is still with your second quote. Your argument is still looking like swiss cheese.

    Your first post said NOTHING about "otheres" hypocricy, but specifically mention it shows HIS. Furthermore, RUSH LIMBAUGH saying something does not make someone that does the opposite of it a hypocrite unless that person has stated they agree 100% with Limbaugh. So how does the second quote show that other people are hypocrites for making excuses for Limbaugh. Did those other people say the quotes? Did those other people say they agree 100% with Limbaugh? And still, you didn't even mention other people at first, but labled it as an example of how Rush was a hypocrite.
    You are correct about the second quote. I should have been specific. My bad.

    But if you look closely at the second quote he said that he doesn't buy that it is a disease. Yet he sought medical treatment for his addiction. What would you call that?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The Amish are light-years ahead of the rest of the human race.



  7. #87
    Global Moderator
    Engagement!
    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,939

    Re: Is rush limbaugh serious?

    Now, I'm going to break convention from Tucker and Reverend here.

    I admit, I AM someone that generally looks at addiction to pain killers and other perscription drugs DIFFERENTLY than I do from illegal drugs. I do for this following reasons.

    One is taken based on a CHOICE of the person that is purely non-essential reason. Be it emotional pain, fun, escapism or peer presure, they start it for what could easily be considered a non-necessary reason. After that point, addiction may kick in if they're prone to making such choices.

    One is taken based on a NEED due to some kind of physical problem. In general, these are started for a necessary reason. After that point, addiction may kick in if they're prone to making such choices.

    After the initial taking, things proceed mostly the same, its the initial stage that is somewhat different and is what the difference is for me.

    Let me try and put it another way in an admittedly silly hypothetical.

    Lets say you have two alcoholics.

    One decides to go out to the bar one night after not drinking for a year, and have a beer, for old times sake. He's kind of depressed cause he broke up with his girls and the guys are going out drinking. Within a month he finds himself at the bar constantly.

    The other one lets say (here comes the silly portion) has also been sober for a year, but for some medical reason actually has to drink some alcohol. He begins doing it for this medical reason, despite previously fighting the urge to go out to the bar. A month later he finds himself done with his medical treatment, but heading out to the bar.

    Both of these people are alcoholics, just like both illegal drug users and perscription abusers are addicts. The difference is one chooses to be placed in a situation where they can then make poor choices and their addictive personality can come to be, the other is PUT into a situation where that happens.

    While the ADDICTION may not be different, I do not see how one can say that someone that goes and buys coke to try for the first time is the same as someone who goes to get vicoden because they broke their leg. The reasons for the START of it IS different.

    So yes, I think both are bad. But in general, I personally do look at those that get addicted through perscriptions in a slightly less harsh light because they came upon their addiction due to taking a substance out of NEED, not out of pure choice. That doesn't make it alright, it just makes it less bad in my mind.
    You down with TPP?

  8. #88
    Another day in paradise..
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 02:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    67,947

    Re: Is rush limbaugh serious?

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    You are correct about the second quote. I should have been specific. My bad.

    But if you look closely at the second quote he said that he doesn't buy that it is a disease. Yet he sought medical treatment for his addiction. What would you call that?

    I would call that you being nit picky and semantical.



    I don't view it as a disease either but would have sought treament if neccesary.


    Matthew 10:34
    Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

  9. #89
    Global Moderator
    Engagement!
    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,939

    Re: Is rush limbaugh serious?

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    You are correct about the second quote. I should have been specific. My bad.

    But if you look closely at the second quote he said that he doesn't buy that it is a disease. Yet he sought medical treatment for his addiction. What would you call that?
    I'd say I'd want a close that isn't over a decade old, as early in the 90's addiction as a "disease" or more as a psychological disorder was far less researched, far less defined, and far more unsound then it was in the 2000's.

    I'd also say that not believing something is a disease does not mean that its not physical. I don't think Rush, or anyone that has any knowledge of drugs at all, would believe that the addiction to something is not at least in some part physical and mental. That does not mean its a DISEASE.
    You down with TPP?

  10. #90
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:43 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    66,686

    Re: Is rush limbaugh serious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Actually, I had no idea at the time. The Doctor did not warn me. He simply stated I should not abrubtly stop. I simply could not take the pills due to the absolute wretching it would cause me.

    i got lucky IMO.
    You had an irresponsible doctor. Was the medication bottle labelled with a warning or did the pharmacist give you literature about the addictive qualities of the drug. I believe that happens nowadays. Your case may have happened before this policy was implemented.

    I like to say, "If you can't be good, be lucky."


    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    If you take heroin recreationally you are a moron if you think you wont get addicted.
    I agree.

    The same could be said for people who take prescriptions and don't research them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    If I took the Diladids as perscribed I would have been addicted. I also have means. It might have been real easy for me to continue had I taken them.

    Would I? No, I don't like taking anything. But the potential is there.
    Illicit drugs are easier to get than regulated ones. I don't like taking anything either.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    in 1993 right?
    Yes. Has something changed since then?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The Amish are light-years ahead of the rest of the human race.



Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •