• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is rush limbaugh serious?

does rush limbaugh believes in what he says?

  • yes

    Votes: 19 73.1%

  • no

    Votes: 6 23.1%

  • not sure

    Votes: 1 3.8%
  • Total voters
    26
independent_thinker2002 said:
You are rationalizing here. Once you are addicted how you got there is irrelevant. It goes against personal responsibility to think it's somehow different because your dealer has a PhD. He had to lie to continue to get prescriptions. He had a valid excuse to start taking the drug. But he didn't ask his doctor for help to get off of it. Alcoholics have legitimate reasons for starting to use. It's how they deal with their addiction that people judge. The same standard applies here.
Click to expand...





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.
 
Zyphlin said:
What was your point about



Is this back to the topic of the thread in regards to if he believes what he says, or is it something to do with the current topic?

Essentially, he was saying the asme thing many conservatives did. There were a LOT of things being done by republicans over the past 8 years that we were unhappy about. And Rush, like others, DID talk about those things negatively. But, when the time came for election season, if it came down to that republican we were unhappy with and a democrat he would back that republican fully. And year after year he, and other conservatives, continued to do it with hopes it'd start moving back right and year after year we were getting the same bad results.

His rant there came partially out of frustration it seemed, and partially out of entertainment hoping it'd cause a stir (which worked at the time). But I don't think its an inconsistancy in stance, nor does it show he doesn't mean what he says. He was doing the same as you, and many others, have stated we have to do sometimes...support the lesser of two evils. His rant was in frustration of having to do such instead of having a chance to support someone he actually likes.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. I don't support Pelosi. I can't stand her really. She's toxic. I wouldn't carry water for her no matter what. I'm sure there are things I agree with her on. I despise her attitude and tactics. Rush on the other hand would carry her water. I don't have to feel liberated because I don't carry water for those that are on my "team" if I don't think they deserve it. I believe that is the difference between choosing a lesser evil and being a sycophant.

Remember, I voted for Nader. ;)
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Tucker, while I agree that he did take responsibility for his addiction, he had made comments about addicts that made him look hypocritical in light of his own situation.
Click to expand...

I don't know, IT. There's some truth in what he is saying in this one:

Every time you go back, you are making a personal choice. I feel very strongly about that.’... What he’s saying is that if there’s a line of cocaine here, I have to make the choice to go down and sniff it….And his point is that we are rationalizing all this irresponsibility and all the choices people are making and we’re blaming not them, but society for it.
Click to expand...

I think he actually admitted as much. Where I would have a problem is if he tried to defend his own actions and pass them off without recognizing the same thing about himself with regards to them. But in truth, I haven't found anything that shows that he didn't hold that view of his own drug use. His commetns seem to say that he feels the same way, even with regard to his own actions.

That's not necessarily hypocrisy. It only becomes hypocricy if he tries to treat his own actions differently than he does other people's actions.


Now, I would prefer to hear the full context of this comment:

[He’s] another dead drug addict.
Click to expand...

Before I vilify Rush over it. Was it said in a "It's such a pity, he's just another dead drug addict" fashion or was it said with a degree of "glee" over Garcia's death? If said with glee, he was being a total asshole, but not necessarily a hypocrite. He might have felt that the same statement would apply to himself if he had died during his period of drug use.

I cannot necessarily make a claim to hypocricy on that comment alone.



On this quote:

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. What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we’re not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.
Click to expand...

He in effect says he should have gone to jail for his actions.

One could easily argue the fact that he fought so hard against the charges, and accepted treatment in liue of jail-time, even after admitting responsibility for hi sactions, implies he was acting in a hypocritical manner.

I would like to know if he still holds the views regarding jail-time for addicts or if he has softened on that stance.

There is no difference in illegally obtaining prescription drugs and illegally obtaining other drugs. His argument was that breaking the law for drugs should be punishable by jail-time. He clearly broke laws in order to obtain his drugs. Seems pretty clear that if he still holds these views, or he held them and espoused them while he was addicted and illegally obtaining drugs, he deserves to be called a hypocrite.

Also, if he treats illegally obtaining prescription drugs as more forgivable than illegally obtaining other drugs, he is engaging in hypocricy. Since the statemnts above were never qualified regarding the type of drugs, only in the legality of obtaining them, the argument for "hypocricy" would be sound if he still stands by the comments.



P.S. What I would like to see more than anything else, is if Limbaugh ever made derisive comments about Elvis' drug use, or other prescription drug abusers, prior to Rush's "outing" for drug use. But if he made sympathetic comments about prescription drug-abuse, I would have to say that even if he still holds the all of the quoted views regarding drug use above, he couldn't necesarily be labelled a hypocrite in any circumstance because he has always made a distinction.

That would be interesting to find out, if possible.
 
Tuck,


He fought the charges rightfully so.


If you read the case, the prosecutorial misconduct was abhorrent.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
No, Zyph, did Rush waive treatment so he could be sent up the river?

That is his hypocrisy.

The other quote is others' hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

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.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
And you were responsible about it. I applaud you.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...


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?
Click to expand...


in 1993 right?
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
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.
Click to expand...

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." :mrgreen:


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
If you take heroin recreationally you are a moron if you think you wont get addicted.
Click to expand...

I agree.

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

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
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.
Click to expand...

Illicit drugs are easier to get than regulated ones. I don't like taking anything either.


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
in 1993 right?
Click to expand...

Yes. Has something changed since then?
 
"I had learned not to care...I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though..."

Barack Obama, Dreams of My Father

;)
 
Last edited:
independent_thinker2002 said:
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." :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


I agree it is my responsibility, but it's hard to google when your leg feels like.... well like your femur was broken. ;)



I agree.

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

see above.

Illicit drugs are easier to get than regulated ones. I don't like taking anything either.
Click to expand...


I disagree. Would you like for me to get into?




Yes. Has something changed since then?
Click to expand...




perhaps his stance?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you find the AMA and APA nitpicky and semantical. Rush was wrong on that point. His actions belie his words on that point.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Tuck,


He fought the charges rightfully so.


If you read the case, the prosecutorial misconduct was abhorrent.
Click to expand...

Hell, I have no problems with him fighting the charges. He'd be an idiot not to fight them.

Now, personally, I'd rather be a "hypocrite" than in jail. I don't blame a person who makes a comment before it applies to themselves for changing that opinion AFTER it applies to them. He might have made those comments fully unaware that he himself would eventually be subject to them.

He may have, like many addicts do, thought it was impossible for them to apply to himself.

Thus, I would say that if he still holds the same views, he is being a hypocrite.

And, regardless of any prosecuter misconduct, the statement by Rush deals with breaking the law for drugs. If he doctor-shopped, he was breaking the law for drugs. Regardless of prosecutotrial misconduct, the act was still a violation of the law. If he still holds said views (which may well have changed due to his own expereinces), then he is inarguably a hypocrite.

I would give him the benefit of the doubt that his views have changed on teh matter given his voluntary donations to "drug courts" and such that allow addicts to receive treatment instead of incarceration. The fact that he participated in this, as well as made voluntary donations to it, shows that his views have changed a bit on the matter.

I've changed my views, as has everyone. Usually, I change views when my understanding of things changes. If Rush change his views because of personal expereince, it is no different to me than if he changed views because of someone elses arguments. I can't necesarrily say commetns made befor Rush really understood addiction (as he does now) are indicative of hypocricy.

It may be more of an indicator of ignorance (lack of knowledge, not used as a derogatory comment) on the matter than anything else. Perhaps after dealing with the problems of addiction, and the psychological factors involved, he now has much more sympathy for the addict, while still making it clear that it is a personal responsibility to not be an addict either by not becoming one or ceasing the behavior of one.

When I said an argument could be made, I mean that. An argument could be made. But if his views changed, or he has always had a softer view ergarding prescription drug addiction, then charges of hypocricy are no longer applicable.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I went to rehab in 1991. It was recognized as a disease then as it is now.

I understand that it's not like Bubonic plague or malaria, but the medical community has declared it as such.
 
-edit-

Nevermind, I see IT made a comment.

That said, as I stated, I can very easily see how people can not believe it to be a legitimate, actual "disease" in the commonly accepted vernacular rather than a technical medical instance, yet still acknowledge that being addicted to something can have physical and mental side affects that need to be addressed.

However really, Tucker strikes again with another on point post that puts my thoughts into words better than I can.

Also, I'd still love to hear your comment in regards to him having no emapthy or compassion for anyone else.
 
Last edited:
I fully agree tucker, and IT should pay close attention to your 6th paragraph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom