Limbaugh addiction

Maybe we should expect Limbaugh to be the target of comments and jokes because he's a massive hypocrite on the subject and has, in the past, called for users to be punished as harshly as dealers.

When?

If Rush was a left winger, then liberals would be saying "oh poor Rush, he has an illness and needs help...", but instead they are glad to see him get in trouble for something.

When Rush announced the problem he was having on the air I was kind of jolted by his admission. Rush is only human and this type of thing happens to millions of people, after surgery you get injected with Demerol and Morphine and I can tell you from experience that pain meds are extremely addictive. I was addicted to pain meds for a few months until I quit taking the pills, it wasn’t easy to do, but I didn’t want to live my life dependant on pills like a “junkie.” The problem for Rush is that on top of his pain med problem, he is Rush Limbaugh; therefore he isn’t allowed to mention race or have any type of human failing because he is a conservative. I think this shows a side of rush that makes him even more interesting than before, I wish him good luck in his recovery and hope he gets back to the microphone with his incredibly insightful and witty political observations soon.

I do not believe this story has received nearly the amount of attention it deserves. Here you have a right wing talk show host that bashes anyone that uses drugs when he himself is an adict. He has held himself to a higher standard than the rest of the population and should be revealed to be the hypocrit he is. The EIB acronym should now be Excellence In Bulls***.

The current event concerning Limbaugh’s drug habit does raise the question of hypocrisy. How can Limbaugh engage in the bashing of Ted Kennedy for his drunkenness, when Rush is using pills? We certainly have the pot calling the kettle black. I am willing to forgive Rush for his shortcomings because his ideology and way of thinking is much like mine. If the Clintonistas can stand by their guy when he’s too busy raping people and playing with gullible interns to address matters of national security then I can stand by Rush in his much more innocuous pain killer dilemma.
As for all the liberals who are taking pleasure in bashing Rush for this pill problem I say this, you guys are experts on drug addiction so why not come with advice for conservatives about Rush’s problem? Why not explain to conservatives how this happens and make yourselves useful in sharing some of the life experience that you actually do have.

"We're going to let you destroy your life. We're going to make it easy and then all of us who accept the responsibilities of life and don't destroy our lives on drugs, we'll pay for whatever messes you get into."
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec. 9, 1993

"I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say people are going to do drugs anyway let's legalize it. It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea and those who are for it are purely 100 percent selfish."
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"If (Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders) wants to legalize drugs, send the people who want to do drugs to London and Zurich, and let's be rid of them.
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. 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.

"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."
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995

Here are the Liberals, so full of compassion for all of these issues such as drug and alcohol dependence, until a conservative becomes a casualty of the problem, then they become pit bulls.

Millions of people that you would never associate with drug addiction become addicted to pain meds after surgery, it is not uncommon. Brett Farve, one of the greatest quarterbacks had a back injury and became hopelessly addicted to the pain meds; did I lose respect for him or start digging up ten year old quotes of his? I was glad that he took personal responsibility for his problem and got treatment, that’s how I feel about anyone in that circumstance.

So Ted Kennedy and Rush did have something in common, the difference between them is that Rush is going for treatment.

For cryin' out loud!!! This isn't an issue about liberal v. conservative. It's not about who's going for treatment and who's not. It's about the fact that Rush is a humongous, fat pig of a lying, selfish, self-serving hypocrite.

I feel better now......

It makes you feel good that a conservative is addicted to a drug he originally got hooked on from treatment for medical problems he does have? So much for bleeding hear liberalism. Liberals are just as cold hearted as they accuse conservatives to being when it comes to conservatives like Rush Limbaugh.

Rush is a massive hypocrite and his "chronic back pain" excuse doesn't wash when you think back to all of the golf outings he's talked about.
I think all drugs should be legalized...and I think hyporcites like Limbaugh ought to be shot at dawn.
Here's an idea Limbaugh...you do your thing and shut up about what other people do. Mind your own business. It's hard to have sympathy for a loud-mouthed shill for the neocons...it'd be easier if the guy was a little more humble and frankly a little more conservative.

>> a loud-mouthed shill for the neocons>>


I don't know when exactly this became the favorite buzz word of the liberals. Obviously it is a derisive term, but what does it mean?

NEO: Means new.
CON: Short for conservative? Short for conserves? Who knows?

Conserves are like preserves, so are they calling us "new jelly"? If so, that's the best insult you can come up with?

A synonym for conservative is traditional. Aren't new and traditional antonyms? So that makes no sense either.

Maybe they mean it like neo-nazi; the old nazis disappeared and after an absence of a couple generations another group took on the name. If that's that's the case, what happened to the old conservatives? As far as I know, there has been a continuous string of conservatives throughout the years.

Maybe they mean that we were just recently converted to conservatism, hence "new conservative". But I've been a conservative my whole life, so that makes no sense either.

So in other words, how does throwing that particular prefix on our label even make any sense, let alone come off as an insult? Apparently there was nothing inherently offensive about being a conservative, so they had to find some way to spice it up. Personally, I don't need to come up with a nifty new prefix, calling someone a liberal is insulting enough all by itself.

TonyO you seem to be the sort who overuses/misuses the word "liberal"...a dime a dozen (and even cheaper amongst the Ditto-Idiots. If I'm a "liberal" I'm a liberal who opposes affirmative action, wants to deport illegals, favors gun rights and owns several handguns, supports the REAL conservative foreign policy of Buchanan and Ron Paul, and believes in real free-market capitalism and opposes overregulation...

What is a neocon? If you are incapable of finding that out on your own...I see why you entrust Limbaugh to simplify for you. A neocon tends to buy into the PNAC/AEI brand of neoliberalism/neoconservatism. He tends to put Israeli interests before American, tends to be in favor of globalism and of selling American sovereignty out. A neocon is a traitor. You very likely are indeed one of them.

And by the way, young Tony...a neocon is NOT a conservative.

Anthony: You know, from time to time, you should try to take off your bipolar glasses. If I follow your argument, you would be trashing Limbaugh if he was not right wing. Does this mean that the facts do not matter, just the political orientation ?

Seriously, take off the glasses. The world will look more complex, and you won't be able to so easily assign responsability of things you think are wrong, but you might see some real causes to what is wrong.

And I cannot help but smile when I read "liberal" in politic discussion in the US, as in France a "liberal" is very right wing (not that the whole political spectrum is shifted in France, it's just that the words mean different things).

Buchanan Is a kook, he shares a lot of the isolationist views of General Washington, that was great for the colonists but this is the year 2003. Buchanan and Pat Robertson are part of an extreme fundamentalist wing that I dont subscribe to.

Tony, your labelling Buchanan and Washington "kooks" is very telling. Thanks for your openness.
The "isolationism" of Washington served us very well from the inception of our nation until our entry in WW I and saw us grow from 13 colonies into a massive nation of unified states from coast to coast. Seems pretty solid to me.
We need to stop meddling where we're not wanted and start worrying more about our land and people.
Your do-gooder globalism is a lot of things...but conservative it ain't.

Isn't Buchanan a Nazi? I know one thing for a fact, he does not like young people. I had a conservative friend that liked Buchanan but changed his mind about him when Buchanan refused to shake his hand. I agree with Anthony R that Buchanan is a kook. Buchanan is not a conservative. I consider myself a conservative and if my line of thinking makes me a nonconservative neocon then I am a proud neocon.

Clearly "Tech Cat" you're no conservative...and frankly, who gives a crap if Buchanan "likes young people" anyway. He didn't shake your friends hand so you've concluded that he is opposed to young people? How old are you anyway? With your piss poor logic I'd guess that you're not legally able to drink, and therefore ought to layoff the hootch right this minute before you hurt yourself any further. I've met Pat on several occasions and though I'm in my mid-30's I can tell you that he was friendly and polite. Maybe it was your pal and not Pat that was at issue here. So yeah, the pimpleboy calls Pat a "Nazi" and considers himself a "conservative"...he's dead wrong on both counts.

Please do not resort to personal attacks. For your information I am 24 years old. I am a conservative. Here are some things I believe:

1. welfare should be cut and only used to help those that will help themselves
2. people have a right to own guns
3. abortion is wrong and should be illegal
4. Ronald Reagan is the greatest US President in recent years
5. terrorists cannot be negotiated with, they must be dealt with using force

TechCat, you're no conservative. What is a "terrorist" to you? I'd guess you'd conclude that a terrorist is anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies and does something about it. I'd guess that you're more than happy about Bush and Ashcroft's utter contempt for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I suppose you feel Iraq had something, anything, to do with the events of 9/11. That you're so short-sighted that you're comfortable poking the Middle East hornet's nest with sticks and will act outraged when the hornet's strike back. That you feel the United States is an empire and not a republic. It's pathetic and sad what young "conservatives" stand for today. Proof positive that public education and media propaganda are very dangerous indeed...

First of all let me start by saying that I never called General George Washington a Kook, I said Washington’s policies were outdated for the needs of the American people and the world. I called Pat Buchanan a kook and my reasons for this assertion lies is his extreme policies pertaining to a return to isolationist views of American relations with the world, as well as his anti-Semitic stance that Israel, our only strategic ally, and the only western style democracy in the region, should be sacrificed to appease the Arab world.


We cannot hope to remain secure if we allow despots and dictators to enslave and subjugate world populations. The Marshall plan for the rebuilding of Europe after World War II set the tone for American intervention and assistance in countries that are in peril of falling under communist or tyranny rule. If we listen to Buchanan (or the Democrats these days) we should suppress American dynamism, we should not use our good fortune to work to free populations enslaved by tyranny. We should relinquish all of our interests in our national security to the UN, a council that gives voice to terrorist nations. As the leaders of the free world it is incumbent upon Americans to lead in building successfully functioning political and economic systems across the world. We must lead this struggle for democracy abroad as well as at home. America must build a stable global environment so that we can preserve our own integrity, especially in a post Sept. 11th world in which oceans no longer protect us from attack.

The fundamental purpose of the United States was clear in the preamble of the constitution, but for a free and democratic system prosper, how can we defend our way of life if we live in a world that is surrounding us with malignant forces, whose sole design and purpose is destroying democracy and the United States?

There are some citizens consumed by a fear of John Ashcroft. When was the last time you saw John Ashcroft turn a little house in Florida into a hornets nest to Extract little Elian Gonzales? When was the last time you saw John Ashcroft do away with a little Clause in the constitution called the Posse Commitatus act, which generally prohibits the use of military force on American citizens within our own borders. Janet Reno’s DOJ was extremely dangerous and unconstitutional, where was your fear of her?

Anthony,

Thanks for your lenghty reply.
I believe it's full of errors and slander but I didn't expect much less.

Your irrational and factually incorrect attack on Buchanan is almost pathological. I find it amazing that any reasoned and rational criticism of the terrorist state of Israel now labels the critic "anti-Semitic." How convienent for the Amen Corner to be able to tar opponents with a label that is sure to make everyone raise their brows and shudder in fear. It's a cowardly tactic but obviously one that is effective amongst the Dittidiots. Style over substance to the nth.

Israel is anything but an ally to the family of the 34 slaughtered seamen onboard the USS Liberty. Or the 3000+ dead on 9/11. Israel is the reason 9/11 happened and Israel had foreknowledge of the attack and did nothing...so as to co-opt America in their war on Islam. Jon Pollard stole our nuclear secrets for Israel and Israel then SOLD THESE SECRETS to Red China! Some ally. We're in Iraq now, not to fight terror or avenge 9/11, but to make the world safe for the most hated nation on earth, Israel. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya and Egypt may well be next in this neocon/Zionazi wet dream. It's explicitly un-American to run foreign policy this way. What Bush has done is to hand over the entire foreign policy apparatus to a cabal of Zionist scum who put Israeli interests first and foremost and American interests dead last.

Janet Reno was the worst AG this nation had ever seen until the advent of Ashcroft. Ashcroft is doing things that you phony conservative (GOP shills) would have (correctly) cruicified Reno had she attempted them. Oddly you remain dead silent and in lockstep when the Constitution and Bill of Rights are decimated by a Republican. Amazing.

Likely you are fully supportive of this administrations intentions to turn America into a police state, to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and do away with our sovereignty...I am not. I take the truly conservative approach...you, the neo.

It looks like there are two different factions of conservatives or what appears to be two different groups claiming to be conservative battling each other much like two different factions of a religion fighing each other and calling each other infidels. I am a conservative and have been for most of my life. No populist is going to tell me any different. Yes, Pat Buchanan and his followers are not conservatives, but they are populist. I feel that Pat Buchanan is an anti-semetic and a racist. He dislikes Israel, thinks Europe would have been better off under Hitler, and dislikes all immigrants even if they come here legally. I don't think we should be closing our borders off from immigration. We are a nation of immigrants. Illegal immigration should not be tolerated.