SD on 28/4/2006 at 23:55
I shouldn't laugh at drug addiction, but it's unavoidable in this instance.
ROFLMAO
These kind of people are always the bigest hypocrites.
TBE on 29/4/2006 at 01:57
This really happen?
Jennie&Tim on 29/4/2006 at 15:53
Oh yes, it's true. I can't get all het up about it though, anyone can get addicted to pain killers after surgery, which is how I heard it happened to Rush. His show is tripe, and boring at that; I haven't listened to it for years.
jstnomega on 30/4/2006 at 03:32
Best commentary I've encountered re all of this: "I only had to listen to him for ten minutes to know he was on drugs."
Aerothorn on 30/4/2006 at 04:43
"The news that Limbaugh, a savage critics of others' moral behavior, was addicted to drugs was taken as a sign of hypocrisy by his detractors. His friends and staunchest fans, however, said Limbaugh was merely working through the kinds of challenges that can affect anyone."
This is the kind of 'attempted neutral point of view' reporting that is both good and bad journalism...I mean yes, I guess it's good to show both sides...but 'taken as a sign of hypocrisy by his detractors'? A SIGN? It's the dictionary definition of hypocrisy. You say that everyone who is addicted to drugs should burn in hell/get a job/whatever, than you are revealed as a drug addict but somehow do not commit suicide. Bleh.
Yes, addiction to painkillers can happen, and it sucks, and normally I'd have sympathy, but his is just karma.
aguywhoplaysthief on 30/4/2006 at 20:27
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
You say that everyone who is addicted to drugs should burn in hell/get a job/
whatever, than you are revealed as a drug addict but somehow do not commit suicide. Bleh.
While it pains me to come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh, I just have to do it.
You clearly have no idea what Rush has said about drug addiction in the past (and frankly neither do I).
This reminds me of that Bill Bennett thing with gambling. Bill was criticized for being a moralizer and a hypocrit, but he hadn't ever condemned gambling as immoral if you had the money to do it - which he did; people just associated him with a point of view that they wanted to believe he held just so they could criticize him and feel better about themselves.
That's exactly what you're doing, unless you plan to show some things he has said about drug addicts (in context btw) that you knew of when you wrote that.
Oh, and he had/has a job while on drugs.
D'Juhn Keep on 30/4/2006 at 23:54
"And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. 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."
"Too many whites are getting away with drug use...Too many whites are getting away with drug sales...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."
From Wikipedia, so not too much research there.
TheGreatGodPan on 1/5/2006 at 00:01
As I've stated before, I don't think any substance should be illegal. However, I think we can still make a distinction between drugs that are prescribed medically and recreational stuff.
I've never heard Rush's show and don't really know what he has said in the past.
aguywhoplaysthief on 1/5/2006 at 03:19
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
"And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. 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."
"Too many whites are getting away with drug use...Too many whites are getting away with drug sales...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."
Great context there.
If you had ever listened to talk radio, you'd know that many hosts will often say one outrageous thing, and then spend the next five minutes clarifying what they've said. In fact, sometimes five minutes later they'll say something completely on the other end of what they've originally said.
The critics of talk radio clearly don't understand the purpose of the medium. It
is entertainment. The best talk radio
is hyberbole - that's it. It isn't something where you can just pull out a quote, and understand what it is about.
They aren't politicians, they aren't intellectuals, they aren't reporters, and they don't claim to be. How did most of them start out? Doing those goofy morning shows on FM music channels. They're entertainers.
Now, there are some hosts who do things differently, but not many, and they don't have nearly the audience that Limbaugh, Savage, etc. do.
