Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Rush Should Do
Vanity | 10-24-03 | Always Right

Posted on 12/24/2003 6:20:48 AM PST by Always Right

Rush Limbaugh needs to resolve this malicious prosecution as quickly as possible and do so to the benefit everyone. The case the prosecutors are building against Rush appears likely to be trumped up charge of money laundering and doctor shopping. Rush’s real crime was becoming addicted to pain-medication, which he has admitted and has sought appropriate treatment for. Rush is a first-time offender and should be punished as such. The prosecutor however has given immunity to the maid for much more serious charges to pursue these minor charges against Rush. It is unheard of that a prosecutor would do this, and the only explanations can be the prosecutor is seeking personal gain from this case or is on some political vendetta. This type of prosecution is unethical and should stop. If this was any other person, this case would not have been pursued or there would have been a reasonable plea-bargain long ago. This is will be a very expensive case if it goes to trial, and the level of this crime is clearly not worth spending more tax dollars on.

So what should Rush do? If I were Rush, I would immediately pledge $2 million dollars to drug treatment programs in Florida. However, for every dollar the prosecutor spends from now on this over-zealous prosecution, I would reduce that pledge. I would also volunteer to speak out against drug abuse around the state and give Florida a few PR announcements on his program. It is a joke of that prosecutors are apparently seeking to put Rush in jail for this. Rush has been as open as possible on this subject without putting himself at the complete mercy of this over zealous prosecutor. Yes, Rush should pay for his crime, but the punishment must fit the offense. The politics of personal vendettas and personal gains has no place in criminal prosecutions.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: cheechlimbaugh; drugs; dumbjerk; godblessrush; politics; rush; rushisright; xanaxman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

1 posted on 12/24/2003 6:20:49 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Always Right
No argument there. You're Always Right.
2 posted on 12/24/2003 6:22:51 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (No words were harmed during the production of this tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
You're joking, right? You are suggesting that Rush buy his way out of this? Yea, that'll go over well.
3 posted on 12/24/2003 6:25:03 AM PST by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy
Almost completely right with the exception of: "Rush’s real crime was becoming addicted to pain-medication."

1. It's not a crime to be addicted.
2. He started on it legitimately for back pain.

That said, he's already admitted it was wrong to continue to use it, particularly in the quantity he was using which constitutes abuse.
4 posted on 12/24/2003 6:29:17 AM PST by zencat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
You're joking, right? You are suggesting that Rush buy his way out of this? Yea, that'll go over well.

What I propose is a win-win proposition. Why should millions be wasted on lawyers on this case? Under the current path, there will be no winners, except for those with some personal vendetta. There is no state interest in pursuing this case.

5 posted on 12/24/2003 6:29:45 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
Bump....
6 posted on 12/24/2003 6:38:20 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
The smell of the Clintons and the DNC are all over this thing!
7 posted on 12/24/2003 6:38:33 AM PST by Don Corleone (Leave the gun..take the cannoli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
Roy Black, Rush's lawyer, was a Clintonista talking head during impeachment times.
8 posted on 12/24/2003 6:40:33 AM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Oh, I see...Rush should buy his way out of this, while others who are going to be prosecuted under the new FL doctor-shopping law will go to jail. Tremendous logic.

Do you know for a fact that Rush was not doctor shopping?

9 posted on 12/24/2003 6:40:47 AM PST by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
To be an "addict" -- which Limbaugh himself has described as his condition -- one must be addicted to some substance and/or behavior. That "addictive" substance -- be it Oxy, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, or tobacco & alcohol -- may be a controlled substance or it may not. If the addiction is to a controlled substance -- even if, as Limbaugh continues to hide behind, the substances are "prescription" drugs -- then that substance must either be legally (eg methadone is distributed by authorized medical or criminal justice facilities) obtained or illegally obtained (eg "the black market", dealers, friends or even manufactured by the addict themselves). If Rush became an "addict" to Oxy and other "presciption" drugs and illegally obtained, possessed, used and possibly distributed to others those drugs, then like it or not, in terms of "the law", he is a criminal. Please refer to U.S. Code (federal penalities) and Florida state laws for the prescribed penalties of these crimes. If tried and convicted, Rush should be held accountable, as we would expect of any other criminal. IMHO: he should stop taunting and accusing and either get himself REALLY straight or shut up.
10 posted on 12/24/2003 6:42:48 AM PST by Nick Thimmesch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
There is no state interest in pursuing this case.

Thisis a ridiculous statement. There is a huge state interest in pursuing this case. They are making Rush the prime example of the new doctor-shopping law. What better way to impress upon the citizens of FL the state-perceived importance of the law, than by going after a high-profile celeb?

11 posted on 12/24/2003 6:43:23 AM PST by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
There is no state interest in pursuing this case

Sure there is... to increase the power of the state over the sheeple. To make a political point (destroy the "conservative" voice). To employ cops, judges, lawyers, prison employees. To punish Rush for possesion of gov't-unapproved intoxicants. To punish his conspiracy to obtain those intoxicants. To perpetuate a war on the people & their liberties 100 years old and still going strong.

Rush probably has too much money to see the inside of a jail, but they'll get a lot of that money from him before it's over & it'll provide a good lesson to the sheep: "if we can take down someone like Rush, just think what ewe can do to you!"

12 posted on 12/24/2003 6:44:28 AM PST by LIBERTARIAN JOE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
The smell of the Clintons and the DNC are all over this thing!


Your right there... I was listening yesterday and thinking, I would not be suprised if Bill and Hillary would have hired a hit man. The LEFT has had it out of RUSH for a long time, not to mention the Barbara Streisands of the the world.

THOSE of us who KNOW Rush..... SUPPORT RUSH.
13 posted on 12/24/2003 6:45:18 AM PST by JFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
State senator calls for investigation into prescriptions

By Bob Mahlburg and Doris Bloodsworth Tallahassee Bureau Posted December 3 2003

TALLAHASSEE · The head of the Florida Senate's health committee said Tuesday he is requesting a legislative investigation into doctors who overprescribe the powerful prescription painkiller OxyContin.

Sen. Burt Saunders, R-Naples, said he was prompted to act by a series of articles about prescription drug abuse in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel and the Orlando Sentinel.

"It's not only very damaging to the public but costly to the state, so there's every reason to do this," he said.

OxyContin has been linked to more than 200 deaths in Florida, and many victims were taking prescriptions but suffered accidental overdoses or addiction. In addition to the human toll, Saunders said, billing abuses and Medicaid fraud involving the drug are wasting taxpayer money.

"The state is losing tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars because of this," he said. "It's a huge issue."

Saunders said he will ask Senate President Jim King next week to name a select panel of legislators to investigate problems, hear testimony from experts and recommend changes in state law.

Gov. Jeb Bush on Tuesday directed his drug czar James McDonough to "lay the groundwork for a comprehensive solution to this fatal and expensive form of drug abuse" during a meeting set for Dec. 12 with several state agency heads and Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist.

Among the issues Bush cited in a letter to McDonough was "doctor shopping and pharmacy hopping," suspect Internet pharmacy sales, adulteration and illegal importation of prescription drugs "and other various allegations of illegalities."

"We must preserve the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, guarantee the best possible pain management and medical services, and ensure the privacy of the individual. At the same time, however, we must halt the widespread abuses …and decrease the deadly and expensive consequences that come with such abuses," Bush wrote.

Am I missing the state interest?

14 posted on 12/24/2003 6:48:03 AM PST by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: zencat
I don't think that the state offering his source immunity for turning evidence against him the buyer makes sense. Some WOD.
15 posted on 12/24/2003 6:49:17 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (No words were harmed during the production of this tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JFC
I love the double standards. When this happened I predicted to friends that some folks in the end would blame the whole thing on Bill and Hillary and so would Rush. Somehow we have lost the days when conservatives stuck to unflinching principles that were applied to everyone, including themselves, the days when Barry Goldwater and Will F Buckley and, yes, Ronald Reagan were at the vanguard of conservativism. Now what we do is demand certain things (punishments, etc.) for others and react in a certain way (demand a hard line on sentences for drug offenders) for some...but not for those our side. Everything in the world is not because of Bill and Hillary's power....because if they were that powerful the Democrats would still be in control. NO matter what evidence ever came out, there are some who will defend Rush because he is our friend. So our friends can't behave in the way we would demand it of others. Similarly, I don't see a lot on this site about the case of the governor of Connecticut.
Yes, it's all because these are all partisan Democrats out to get Rush because he has articulated views many (including me) agree with.
In the end Rush may be 100 percent innocent and he IS innocent until proven guilty and, yes, there is no accusation of illegal drugs. But I am amazed how immediately some will blame "the Clintons" as behind behind it and conclude it is all "trumped up." No one on our side can ever do wrong, and if they do we will excuse them because their hearts are pure. But let a Democrat or someone not famous do the same thing -- stiff sentences, get them off the street, their lawyers are merely hired hacks lying to save their skins.
(It's raining outside. The Clintons did it)
16 posted on 12/24/2003 6:51:44 AM PST by jraven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ContemptofCourt
Oh, I see...Rush should buy his way out of this, while others who are going to be prosecuted under the new FL doctor-shopping law will go to jail. Tremendous logic.

Oh puh_leeez show me one case in Florida where this has been pursues as the major offense. Every case I have seen also has more serious charges of dealing and fraud involved. Here the prosecutor by-passed more serious charges to go after Rush. This case is a malicious prosecution.

Do you know for a fact that Rush was not doctor shopping?

Do you know he did? From the details I have seen it depends on the interpretation of the law. If Rush obtained prescriptions from different doctors for different ailments, there may have been no doctor shopping offense. Reguardless, it is a stupid law, IMHO, in response to a serious problem (people are using doctors to obtain multiple prescriptions to re-sell to others). The real problem is the dealing those drugs to other people and in a lot of cases these are kids. This law was made so presecutors did not have to prove the real offense (re-selling the drugs), so convictions would be easier. Which makes it a bad law, IMHO.

17 posted on 12/24/2003 6:54:27 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
A JUDGMENT TO RUSH


by


Russell Madden


http://home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/webdocs/Judgment_to_Rush.html


The recent brouhaha regarding radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, and his self-described addiction to prescription pain medicine has revealed the moral bankruptcy of those who occupy the supposedly opposite ends of the political spectrum. Both liberal and conservative commentators have evidenced their usual propensity for selective focus and their utter disdain for anything remotely resembling logic and consistency. As for principles...that remains a creature shrouded in mystery and terror to those who swim in the mainstream.

While Limbaugh has admitted to a dependence on painkillers following an unsuccessful back surgery, he has not yet discussed the source for those pills he "abused." Allegations continue to float that he obtained illicit medicine via a connection provided by a former housekeeper. Florida police acknowledge an on-going investigation but decline to provide details as to Limbaugh's alleged involvement in illegal drug transactions.

As stories swirled throughout the media, Limbaugh announced to his audience that he intended to check himself into a rehabilitation center for a third try at breaking his addiction. He said he was "not making any excuses," that he was "no role model" given his reliance on pain medication to make his life bearable, and that he is "not a victim" but takes "full responsibility for [his] problem"...even though he said it was the _medication_ that had a "hold" on him.

For decades, our culture has been polluted by both Demicans and Republicrats condemning those who purchase or use drugs without the explicit permission of the State. The reason did not matter. Terminal patients racked with pain from metastatizing cancer were verbally lacerated for seeking the solace of marijuana and its THC as a means of alleviating their pain or of providing a way to quell the nausea preventing them from retaining their medicines. Indeed, some who dared defy the edicts of the State found themselves locked behind bars and, essentially, condemned to death because of their desire to live. Better, it seems, that truly sick people die or go blind or suffer excruciating agony than for the State to weaken its hold on its power over us.

Citizens who approved statewide referendums to offer a measure of mercy to those using "medical" marijuana found their wishes usurped and discounted by the Feds. The latter vowed to wage their war regardless of what any mere state said. Objections be damned. Even with regard to legal drugs, some doctors faced loss of their licenses, fines, and/or jail time for prescribing "too much" pain medication to patients with intractable pain (with the definition of "too much" left to the "expert" opinions of grossly ignorant bureaucrats and politicians).

Even worse treatment than that meted out to sick folks awaited individuals who sought illicit drugs for mere "pleasure." The compassionate politicians running this country into the ground declared that mandatory sentences for nonviolent acts; that sentences of 99 years for growing "too many" marijuana plants; that even execution for selling drugs to willing buyers; that all of these punishments represented acts of justice for those "destroying" our society and "aiding" terrorists.

Limbaugh, of course, never shirked from supporting draconian measures against those involved in the drug trade. Indeed, he believed the treatment of white drug "criminals" was not harsh enough; that too many of them received passes on their evil actions or, at best, suffered nominal punishment.

Perhaps one day soon we will learn why Rush did not turn himself into the police and demand the hard jail time he maintains all drug users deserve rather than treating his problem as a medical condition by checking into a rehab center.

Perhaps we won't.

After all, others who are most eager to see drug users rot in jail have abruptly discovered the power of rationalization. Unlike the poor schmuck in a ghetto hoping for a bit of solace from a lousy job or a bad relationship or a life that sucks, Rush's problem, we are told, "is personal and human." Unlike the penalties pushed by Drug War supporters -- such as life-sentences given to marijuana growers or the loss of all one's assets (even if one never used drugs) or death when DEA agents raid the wrong house -- the Left's unpleasant words about Limbaugh are "ruthless and cruel" treatment. Unlike dying cancer patients withering in pain who are denied narcotics or who are arrested if they use such drugs illegally, Rush has "big-time pain" that justifies _his_ consumption of painkillers. Unlike those ordinary citizens caught up in the nightmare world of guilty-until-proven-innocent-and-probably-not-even-then, Limbaugh is being wronged because his opponents offer him "no sympathy for his medical ordeals." Unlike recreational drug addicts who only want to get "high" and feel better and thus deserve Limbaugh's unremitting censure, Rush should receive "slack" because he wanted to feel better. Unlike many patients who use illicit drugs in order "to live as normally as possible" but who should still be tossed in the slammer or have their lives ruined, Rush should not be in jail merely because he advocated such penalities for others yet wanted painkillers "to live as normally as possible" himself.

No. No inconsistencies there. None at all.

As bad as the conservatives in their reactions to this story are the liberals who have flocked to the airwaves to discuss the issue of addiction. The left-leaning morning talk shows consistently aired the views of "experts" who called addiction a "disease" over which no one has "control." (Compare this to Limbaugh's statement regarding the "hold" the drugs had on him.) Naturally, no one is responsible for getting sick. (Unless -- according to many conservatives -- you are a gay with AIDs....)

These liberals desperately want to co-opt Rush into their wacky world of medical voodoo. They want him to reject and renounce his negative judgments regarding lifelong welfare recipients, those too lazy to work, or those desperately clamoring for increased government largesse. In weakness and helplessness lie his salvation from jail. "Join us," they implicitly say. "Accept the dark side and be free."

None of these proponents of powerlessness and passivity would accept the fact that addiction is a _choice_, not a disease. (See, for example, the work of Stanton Peele for a further discussion of the latter.) To acknowledge this reality would cost these compassion-junkies their livelihoods and the source of their "self-esteem." To accede to the truth would be to admit that addiction reflects people's "values, skills at living, and personal resolve -- or lack of it." (Peele, p. 3.)

Despite his self-contradictions, Limbaugh at least does not call himself a victim or deny his responsibility for his situation. After all, "there is no biological urge to form addictions." (Peele, p. 4.) Addictions "are known by the goal-directed behaviors they describe." (Peele, p. 6.) While some such actions are destructive, others merely enable people to cope with their problems.

But neither the gurus of addiction-as-disease nor Limbaugh himself can admit that, at times, addictions perform a positive function, that addicts "get something" from being addicted. Abandoning obvious error is a task many find beyond their ken, especially those intent on forcing their views upon others or seeking absolution for their own shortcomings. Rush could say, "Hey, the Drug War is ridiculous. I haven't hurt anyone. Why am I the subject of a criminal investigation? Most drug users do not abuse their drugs. I needed mine to deal with a problem I could not solve by surgery. What business is this of the State? Go away and leave me alone!"

But he won't.

After all, the Drug War is not an exercise in _disease_ control. It is merely an example _of_ control.

Sadly, many libertarians similarly fail to recognize the centrality of this assault upon our liberty. They fear the Great Unwashed will "misunderstand" our opposition to drug prohibition, and thus we should soft-peddle the issue. It appears that loss of (potential) control motivates even otherwise reasonable people.

But the Drug War encompasses a hell's half-acre of abuses in its restrictions upon our right to keep and bear arms; upon our right to due-process; upon our right to properly limited and conducted searches and seizures; upon our right to financial privacy; upon our right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. No-knock raids, the militarization of our police, asset forfeiture, money-laundering laws, military patrols of our borders, promotion of violence and disrespect for the law, corruption of public officials, an explosion in our prison population, destruction of innocent lives... It is difficult to find a single program that manages simultaneously to increase State power and decrease individual freedom in more areas than does the Drug War, a.k.a., the War Against People.

Limbaugh does not see this. His conservatives apologists do not see this. His liberal enemies do not see this.

The status quo will remain intact. The privileged and the connected -- like the daughter of Florida governor, Jeb Bush, who likewise abused prescription drugs -- will skate through the system relatively unharmed. The poor, the lonely, the uneducated: they will continue to receive the brunt of the santimonious and wrong-headed policies that have afflicted the people of this nation for so many decades.

No. Limbaugh should not be jailed. No drug user should. But for his hypocrisy, for his championing of a policy that undercuts all he claims to believe, for his failure to see the facts; for these actions, we who truly comprehend what is required of us to be free should not fail to deliver a judgment to Rush: a _moral_ one.

That kind of a judgment, Rush fully deserves.

18 posted on 12/24/2003 6:56:43 AM PST by KDD (Time makes more converts than reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ContemptofCourt
Am I missing the state interest?

THe state interest is reducing the harm from the abuse. Since Rush has sought treatment, the state interest has been addressed. What I am proposing is Rush volenteer to further this state interest. What state interest do you see in putting Rush in jail?

19 posted on 12/24/2003 6:57:20 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ContemptofCourt
You know what's really annoying? My daughter, who has rheumatoid arthritis, was really helped by Oxycontin because it's a time release pain medication. Because of those who abuse Oxycontin, she cannot get a prescription for Oxycontin (she used to)--and even if she could get a doctor to give her a prescription for Oxycontin, she can't find a pharmacist in her area to fill it. No one's selling it, or even stocking it. The only time that Oxycontin is available to her is when she's an in-patient at the hospital.
20 posted on 12/24/2003 6:58:07 AM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
So what should Rush do? If I were Rush, I would immediately pledge $2 million dollars to drug treatment programs in Florida. However, for every dollar the prosecutor spends from now on this over-zealous prosecution, I would reduce that pledge.

This would not be perceived well. Would you recommend that Kobe Bryant do the same thing? Michael Jackson?

21 posted on 12/24/2003 6:59:59 AM PST by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Rush should right now be knocking on Jeb Bush's door with all the real information; total truthfulness about addiction, political prosecution, how past cases were handled, etc.

He should have in place a final option: Governor pardon.

Doctor shopping is technically by those WITHOUT a medical condition looking for doctors who will prescribe. Rush clearly had a medical condition and matching, known pain to go with it.

The quantities he purchased is consistent with an alcoholic hiding bottles all around his property.
22 posted on 12/24/2003 7:07:05 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
If I were Rush, I would immediately pledge $2 million dollars to drug treatment programs in Florida. However, for every dollar the prosecutor spends from now on this over-zealous prosecution, I would reduce that pledge.
Oh ho! THAT'd go over big! I've gotta agree with Hildy (post 3) - buying your way into the public's eye like that will KILL his reputation - ESPECIALLY if you start 'caging' the amount with that bit about the prosecution's expenses. You don't gain friends by extorting the prosecution. And though it may be legal (though only by virtue of not specifically being declared illegal) something like that should be the first shovel-full of dirt on his coffin.

Rush’s real crime was becoming addicted to pain-medication, which he has admitted and has sought appropriate treatment for. Rush is a first-time offender and should be punished as such.
By your judgement, perhaps. It's still open to discovery and prosecution and judgement whether or not doctor-shopping (illegal in his state) can be proven, as well as buying them from a non-physician (Stupid sure picked a great state to screw up in).

It's not a crime to become an addict: it's a crime to obtain materials BY THE WRONG (illegal) METHODS - which it still has to be judged whether or not he did. The law was on the books before anyone found out he was goofballing. Also "he sought appropriate treatment"; BY WHOM? What do THEY have to say about his treatments? Was it a real rehab center or did he just confidentially cool it for a while at some friend's place? As for 'first time offender' status: that only washes IF the crime was comitted ONCE (i.e. getting caught at your first holdup) - it doesn't work if he made purchases on more than one occasion. Otherwise, muhammad & malvo would be first-time offenders too since they were only caught once.

Rush has been as open as possible on this subject without putting himself at the complete mercy of this over zealous prosecutor.
IOW: he's been as open as is possible to the limit of avoiding disclosing incriminating evidence. Thats' why you hire a lawyer - to determine exactly where the line is drawn and fight against anything after that. If he IS found guilty (extending your previously mentioned idea): should he then be required to pay the prosecutor's costs too for extending this defensive farce?

IMO: I equate your "putting himself at the complete mercy of this...prosecutor" to "telling the complete truth to this prosecutor".

23 posted on 12/24/2003 7:10:16 AM PST by solitas (it only LOOKS like I'm pí$$íng on the First Church of 'pillhead'...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
You are suggesting that Rush buy his way out of this?

Hey, it worked for Michael Jackson.

24 posted on 12/24/2003 7:12:32 AM PST by New Horizon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
"So what should Rush do?"

Since Rush has frequently or at least annually, sang the praises of our founding fathers for pledging their fortunes, families, and sacred honor to the quest for liberty, why does he not do the same?

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people."

The "people" surely have the "retained" right to consume the chemical of their choice to help lessen or eliminate pain we suffer in our bodies.

Laws by government to the contrary are blatantly unconstitutional.

A true conservative, one who wishes to conserve the constitution and it's protection of liberty, should fight this possible indictment for illegal activity tooth and nail, especially since he has the fortune to pledge to the fight for libery of which he has accumulated over the years from his radio program.

But I am sure he will not take my recommendation seriously and that is quite frankly why I devote less and less time to the task of listening to his radio program.

The "talk" is cheap. The preaching to the choir is tiresome. It is time for action.

He and I are both from Missouri. The motto of the great State of Missouri is "The Show Me State."

It is time to "show me" that you believe in liberty.

25 posted on 12/24/2003 7:20:49 AM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LIBERTARIAN JOE
"...& it'll provide a good lesson to the sheep: "if we can take down someone like Rush, just think what ewe can do to you!"

You are absolutely, 100% correct. I could not have said it better.

See post number 25 for my remakrs about the issue of liberty concerning Rush Limbaugh's predictament.

26 posted on 12/24/2003 7:25:30 AM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jraven
Your 100% right.

If this were Jesse Jackson who did this and not Rush this board would be all over him.

The only reason he stopped is because he got caught.

Let my put my asbestos suit on. Okay, flame on.

27 posted on 12/24/2003 7:27:37 AM PST by philo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: solitas
If he IS found guilty (extending your previously mentioned idea): should he then be required to pay the prosecutor's costs too for extending this defensive farce?

By that convuluted logic, all criminals should pay prosecutor's cost. I can see you really support equal application of the law....

IMO: I equate your "putting himself at the complete mercy of this...prosecutor" to "telling the complete truth to this prosecutor".

So you suggest Rush should just freely give up his 5th Amendment protections? Yeah, I can see where you are coming from....

28 posted on 12/24/2003 7:31:56 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: philo
If this were Jesse Jackson who did this and not Rush this board would be all over him.

There might be cries to prosecute from people who hate Jackson, but no honest prosecutor would pursue the case under these circumstances. Shoot, even Lanny Davis is saying that this case should not be prosecuted.

29 posted on 12/24/2003 7:35:33 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
You're assuming that we know everything

A) Rush has done concerning his addiction. It could be more, it could be less.

B)That the prosecution is investigating only those allegations that have made the news.

C) We don't know if Rush is willing to pay for his crime as minimal or otherwise as it may be. So far he seems to believe that his outing is sufficient punishment.

30 posted on 12/24/2003 8:10:33 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Rush stated in his "going away" monologue that if there is a criminal prosecution he would co-operate fully.

I realize that criminal and personal self incrimination are quite different. But if your boss asked you for all the records necessary to find something to fire you about and you tried to keep some from him, would you be co-operating fully? Where do you draw the line in terms of self incrimination?

31 posted on 12/24/2003 8:50:31 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
does this fall under the "too many vanities" warnings we have been seeing?

Donating money will not work. This is full contact courtroom conduct.

Hopefully the case will not be assigned to that overweight judge who ruled on the FL constitutional privacy issue. This case will be over when there is victory in the court.

Want to help? make sure you are registered for jury duty in you live in palm beach. That would be the ultimate freep.
32 posted on 12/24/2003 8:51:28 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Shoot, even Lanny Davis is saying that this case should not be prosecuted.

Then that shoots the left is trying to get him by all means possible.

33 posted on 12/24/2003 8:52:05 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
If you have a desk job. You don't drive anywhere. Does you boss have a right to inpect your medical records for any illnesses that my affect insurance rates?

I have seen some boobs railing about "no privacy right" when FL does have a privacy right the Federal constitution does not have.

Medical records are an exception to the heresay rule BTW.

I think we have a situation where cooperation would be abused. Remember the criminal system is designed to be UNfair. It is UNfair to the prosecustion, they have the burden of proof. (why prosecutors ask jurors to be fair rather than give a fair trial during voi dire) Cooperate, yes; be a sucker, no.
34 posted on 12/24/2003 8:58:38 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
A) Rush has done concerning his addiction. It could be more, it could be less.

Rush has done, what any adictition program would have demanded. More than some too.

B)That the prosecution is investigating only those allegations that have made the news.

That is incorrect.
The prosecution is collecting every shread of potential evidence
in order to determine which crimes they can charge.
This is not investigating a crime, this is collecting the blocks and figuring out what they can build.

C) We don't know if Rush is willing to pay for his crime as minimal or otherwise as it may be. So far he seems to believe that his outing is sufficient punishment.

At most Rush should pay what anyone else would have to "pay", treatment.
The FL courts have a drug treatment intervention system.
Upon completion the case is dropped. Not dismissed, not "not guilty", just plain dropped.
He should not be willing to "pay" one dime or second more than that.

35 posted on 12/24/2003 9:07:19 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Shoot, even Lanny Davis is saying that this case should not be prosecuted.

On Hardball last night, Davis said that it sounded to him that the prosecutor was going to indict Rush.

36 posted on 12/24/2003 9:13:22 AM PST by Howlin (Bush has stolen two things which Democrats believe they own by right: the presidency & the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
It is unheard of that a prosecutor would do this, and the only explanations can be the prosecutor is seeking personal gain from this case or is on some political vendetta.

Which will take him farther in his liberal Democrat circle and benefit more his liberal Democrat party:

1. I prosecuted Rush's maid and her husband for blackmailing him over his addiction to prescription drugs.
2. I put Rush behind bars and destroyed his position as the leading conservative Republican media spokesman.
37 posted on 12/24/2003 9:20:27 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zencat
That said, he's already admitted it was wrong to continue to use it, particularly in the quantity he was using which constitutes abuse.

Not really. Abuse of a drug lies entirely in taking it for pleasure for no medically valid reason (sort of like enjoying a glass of wine or a good single malt whiskey). Having to take increasing quantities of a drug to provide the same level of pain relief is simply a physiological reality, not abuse or misuse. I speak as a post-doctoral fellow in the field of neurobiology/pharmacology.
38 posted on 12/24/2003 9:25:46 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
It has never been a question of indictment. It has alway been a question of what he will inict rush with.

The fishing expedition is to give a non-drug court charge.

Rush's opening did make the prosecutor look like a slime. (nothing surprising there. Prosecutors have the same reputation as police officers.)
39 posted on 12/24/2003 9:42:05 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
If a criminal IS finally found guilty after time- and money-wasting appeals and contestations then he SHOULD have to reimburse the prosecution/court for the wasted resources when telling the truth in the beginning would have saved the taxpayers all that $$$.

No - and I'm surprised that you would think so - telling the complete truth when questioned IS NOT equal to giving up one's 5th ammendment rights. It's what you're supposed to do whether or not you're under oath. Do you teahc your kids to tell the truth or to contest everything every step of the way?

5th ammendment

How do you define "compelled to be a witness against oneself". Forced? Threatened? Tortured? Under Oath?

IMO: your name may match your attitude; it seems in direct opposition to reality.

40 posted on 12/24/2003 9:51:34 AM PST by solitas (it only LOOKS like I'm pí$$íng on the First Church of 'pillhead'...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: solitas
upon conviction or plea, the course generally asses court costs in addition to a fine. It is SOP. (The state also seeks reimbursement for Public Defenders too.)
41 posted on 12/24/2003 10:01:56 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
I for one can see how going to four doctors is "doctor shopping". Actually I am surprised that the number is so low considering his condition.

A friend of mine recently had cancer surgery and saw his GP,a specialist, a second specialist for a second opinion, a surgeon and finally a chemo specialist.

I think of "doctor shopping" in terms of ten or more.
42 posted on 12/24/2003 10:02:47 AM PST by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
course=courts
43 posted on 12/24/2003 10:03:11 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
"Not really. Abuse of a drug lies entirely in taking it for pleasure for no medically valid reason (sort of like enjoying a glass of wine or a good single malt whiskey). Having to take increasing quantities of a drug to provide the same level of pain relief is simply a physiological reality, not abuse or misuse."

Not quite. Personally, I have no problem with what Rush was doing. To treat anyone in pain or even taking them for fun as a "criminal" just seems strange to me. However, Rush himself said he KNEW what he was doing was wrong from a personal perspective, which leads me to believe he was taking them not only for pain but in large enough quantities to induce euphoria.
44 posted on 12/24/2003 10:03:13 AM PST by zencat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
He should shut up (about the case) and take it like a man.
45 posted on 12/24/2003 10:04:45 AM PST by ChadGore (http://www.howard-dean-sucks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert
It also involves people getting drugs as a dealer.

I hope roy black goes to court for an accounting of all copies made of rush's records. It is obvious the prosecutor will only respect an order of the judge. (if that)
46 posted on 12/24/2003 10:05:44 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert
Aw #$^_+@#

I for one can't see

47 posted on 12/24/2003 10:05:49 AM PST by razorback-bert (Q: What job function does a blonde have in an M&M factory? A: Proofreading)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
However, for every dollar the prosecutor spends from now on this over-zealous prosecution, I would reduce that pledge.

So you would suggest that Rush show the world that he is suffering from a case of sour grapes should the prosecutor seek a trial?

How would that help Rush or anyone else?

48 posted on 12/24/2003 10:09:28 AM PST by A2J (Oh, I wish I was in Dixie...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A2J
In essence, Rush would be bribing Floridians.

How silly is that?

49 posted on 12/24/2003 10:10:23 AM PST by A2J (Oh, I wish I was in Dixie...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert
I think of "doctor shopping" in terms of ten or more.

Doctor shopping is a little more specfic. It evolves getting overlapping prescriptions from different doctors for the same ailment within a 30 day period and not disclosing the previous prescription to the other doctor. It is not certain that Rush is guilty of this.

50 posted on 12/24/2003 10:18:09 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson