- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 69,534
- Reaction score
- 15,450
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
That's great.
Really? Why? please explain. Thank you.
It gives you a motive to build your case against me.
That's great.
Really? Why? please explain. Thank you.
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.
It gives you a motive to build your case against me.
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.
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.
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.
[He’s] another dead drug addict.
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.
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.
This is just dumb. Sorry.
No, Zyph, did Rush waive treatment so he could be sent up the river?
That is his hypocrisy.
The other quote is others' hypocrisy.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
in 1993 right?
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:
I agree.
The same could be said for people who take prescriptions and don't research them.
Illicit drugs are easier to get than regulated ones. I don't like taking anything either.
Yes. Has something changed since then?
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.
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.
Tuck,
He fought the charges rightfully so.
If you read the case, the prosecutorial misconduct was abhorrent.
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.
No I find YOU nit picky, please try to focus.
That's funny coming from the person that had to misrepresent Obama's quote about his grandmother. :lol: