Nope, he's just being indicted for doctor shopping, money laundering and narcotis possession.

Sorry Karen but the last 2 are plain old bs! They have no facts to back up those claims. And as to the first one....if he lived in "ANY" other state besides FL this would not be a problem.

Isn't it amusing how many different meanings Rush Limbaugh manages to put into things...he must be a much deeper individual than, oh i don't know, Dick Durbin, who if I recall correctly...couldn't have possibly been taken out of context...if memory serves me correctly, we were calling for Durbin to be put to death, were we not?

"Sorry Karen but the last 2 are plain old bs! They have no facts to back up those claims. And as to the first one....if he lived in "ANY" other state besides FL this would not be a problem."

Yeah, and in certain places he could shack up with a 15 year old and have it not be a problem. That doesn't make it right.

Sorry, Philomedy, but the comparison to Durbin's comments is a bit of a stretch, to be generous.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Guys like drmiler are exactly what I'm talking about. From Rush, nothing can be wrong, because nothing from the right can ever be wrong. I don't understand such black and white reasoning at all. The same statement, from a liberal, would immediately be taken as an insult to Londoners simply because it came from the left. Labels are really beginning to bore me.

The best example of this is defense budget cuts. When Bush I cut defense programs, he was "modernising the military." When Clinton did it, he was "weakening the country." On the other hand, liberals would say the opposite -- Bush "bad," Clinton "good." Which makes me a bit sick of both sides.

I'm glad to see a few of the more conservative posters (including Dharma) giving Rush the old eye roll for this comment. It's comments like this from the right and propaganda like "Embedded" from the left that just make me want to throw up my hands and be like most Americans -- apathetic of politics all together.

Apparently what began as an article about Dharma's feelings about what Rush Limbaugh said (and how he said it) has become a Rush Rocks vs Rush Rots series of rants.

For me, I didn't make my replies in defense of Rush Limbaugh or in offense to Dharma's feelings or interpretation, I simply shared my point of view about the statement.

It's ironic how people can't seem to get passed their opinion of Rush in order to speak to what he said. It's equally entertaining to see how people defend others who said the same thing, but take shots at Rush, simply because he is Rush. ;~D

((((And yes, I am entertained when the target happens to be Michael Moore or Al Franken also))).

Make up our minds, are we discussing Rush Limbagh himself, or are we discussing whether or not we considered his words to be offensive?

(((((btw, to Shitzu. Yes, I will refer to the terrorist scum as "bacteria". Yes, biologically they are human but like rapists, child molestors and other such oxygen thieves there is no reason to think of them as anything more than brainless single-celled organisms that, when left unchecked cause death to the healthy life around them.)))))

Sorry, Philomedy, but the comparison to Durbin's comments is a bit of a stretch, to be generous. Cheers, Daiwa

I didn't compare them. I was just pointing out that when a someone from the right says something wrong, its out of context. When someone from the left does it, he must be killed.

Certainly Durbin was taken out of context over something that was a lot more sensitive to Americans, but out of context is out of context, regardless of your emotional attachments to the subject.

 [

If this sort of thing had come from Al Franken or Mike Moore, you guys would be chomping at the bit and wanting blood.

Like I said earlier, had this comment come from some left of center people would have been all over it like stink on poo.

 

It's possible to be both insensitive, in a personal tragedy context, and correct, in a political/societal context, which I think is the case here

I agree completely.  For an experienced broadcaster, he sure used an inappropriate set of words.

And as to the first one....if he lived in "ANY" other state besides FL this would not be a problem.

 

Yes, it would be a problem.  Maybe not legally, but it's deceitful, drug seeking behaviour that he KNEW was wrong.  Going from one physician to another, not telling any of them about each other, collecting presciptions for narcotics...can you not see somehting wrong with that behaviour?

[quote

Yeah, and in certain places he could shack up with a 15 year old and have it not be a problem. That doesn't make it right

Exactly.  See my previous comment for further explanation.

WTF! Why do articles like this end up dissolving into a left vs. right argument? It is really bloody tiring.

How about this? Both sides are wrong. Both sides are also right. Both sides have as many nuts sprouting ill-informed opinions as they have genuine, dedicated, caring folk who are trying to make the world a better place.

Either way, an insensitive comment deserves some response but it should not be according to which side of the f(#king political fence the commentator is standing.

(((((btw, to Shitzu. Yes, I will refer to the terrorist scum as "bacteria". Yes, biologically they are human but like rapists, child molestors and other such oxygen thieves there is no reason to think of them as anything more than brainless single-celled organisms that, when left unchecked cause death to the healthy life around them.)))))

Those are people too. Albeit people who made horrible decisions, not unlike the terrorists.

But, because it's Rush, I'm taking what he said out of context.

--So...essentially biased...

Now, have they got Londoners running for cover, too afraid to walk the streets? No, but was that really their goal? I don't think so.

--I think that, along with murder, is their intent, to weaken the US "Devils" by forcing its allies to flee for cover..and ultimatley "abandon" the US (as in militarily), forcing the US to stretch its military even further...

Those are people too. Albeit people who made horrible decisions, not unlike the terrorists.

So I guess you'll be having a few rapists, murderers and terrorists over for dinner? Maybe you can discuss some of their life chioices over dessert. That will help you "understand" them better, then maybe you can enlighten us? ;~D

Sorry Karen but the last 2 are plain old bs! They have no facts to back up those claims. And as to the first one....if he lived in "ANY" other state besides FL this would not be a problem." Yeah, and in certain places he could shack up with a 15 year old and have it not be a problem. That doesn't make it right.

Sorry dude but it's only illegal in EXACTLY "1" state! And that's FL!

Yes, it would be a problem. Maybe not legally, but it's deceitful, drug seeking behaviour that he KNEW was wrong. Going from one physician to another, not telling any of them about each other, collecting presciptions for narcotics...can you not see somehting wrong with that behaviour

Nope. If it's wrong then make it illegal.

uh, "doctor shopping" *is* illegal, man

on the same note, I don't approve of releasing private medical records without the patient's permission.

Nope. If it's wrong then make it illegal.

You don't see anything wrong with a person who's addicted to narcotics lying to multiple physicians, collecting prescriptions from narcotics from each of them and not telling any of them that he's being treated by another doctor?  You really can't see anything wrong with that?  Then you're more blinkered than I thought.

Doctor shopping is nothing better than prescription fraud, and I'm gobsmacked that you don't see anything wrong with that.

Uh, there IS a law on the books in Palm Beach county that makes "doctor shopping" illegal.

Of course, I'm sure drmiler thinks that Republican pundits should be above the law because of their politics.

They saw something wrong with it, they passed a law against it in 1984. That crime became a felony in 2002.

Yup. Hung yourself on this one, friend.

Nope. If it's wrong then make it illegal.

Of course, by this rationale, there's nothing at all wrong with abortion because it is not illegal.

*evil grin*

sorry dharma, i couldn't resist.

After reading the first half of these comments, I got disgusted and actually felt forced into replying. I'm not necessarily a fan of Rush, but generally if I listen to him for long enough, I don't get the impression that he is stupid, nor do I get the impression that he is a vicodin-addicted bigot who would only make a statement to offend people (without it trying to make a point). I'm utterly in amazement that so many of you people interpret Rush's statement, "It's like I said -- 40 people dead, 150 seriously wounded, 1,000 wounded, out of over 1 million people in that transit tube. It's not a successful terrorist attack, folks," to be Rush trying to say that 40 lives were nothing; that's VERY OBVIOUSLY not what the man is trying to say.

Rush was very evidently making the point that there are a lot of people completely up in arms about the death of 40 Britains, and this is a good thing, but why aren't people as equally outraged (still) about the death of 3,000+ Americans from 9/11?! Is the the necessary scale? 75 Americans need to die for us to be as outraged as one Britain dying? Where was the outrage and support for the "fight on terror" for the last three years? After 9/11, Americans were bloodthirsty as a nation, we were united under Bush, we could even be said as wanting revenge. And now that 40 Britains died in this attack, people are starting to get the same feeling again.

Rush is making the point that this was not a successful attack - a successful attack would have been far worse; yet there are a number of people condeming Bush every day about this "useless war;" but... where have the attacks on American soil been since this war started?

uh, "doctor shopping" *is* illegal, man

ONLY in FL!

Uh, there IS a law on the books in Palm Beach county that makes "doctor shopping" illegal. Of course, I'm sure drmiler thinks that Republican pundits should be above the law because of their politics. They saw something wrong with it, they passed a law against it in 1984. That crime became a felony in 2002. Yup. Hung yourself on this one, friend.

Nope. Because you didn't bother to read my posts. That much is obvious. Let me help you:

#63 by drmiler Tuesday, July 12, 2005 Sorry Karen but the last 2 are plain old bs! They have no facts to back up those claims. And as to the first one....if he lived in "ANY" other state besides FL this would not be a problem." Yeah, and in certain places he could shack up with a 15 year old and have it not be a problem. That doesn't make it right. Sorry dude but it's only illegal in EXACTLY "1" state! And that's FL!

And for the record, I NEVER said he should be above the law. What I DID say was, "if he lived in "ANY" other state besides FL this would not be a problem".

"if he lived in "ANY" other state besides FL this would not be a problem".

So, you're cool with him being underhanded and deceitful in obtaining prescriptions for narcotics?  You're okay with him having multiple prescriptions from multiple physicians, none of whom knew about each other? 

Anti 'Doctor Shopping' laws will end up on the books in a lot more states soon.....and then what?  Will it suddenly not be okay after that, simply because it's become illegal?

There are similiar laws elsewhere...Winona Ryder got busted on one a few years back...

dumb de dumb dumb

But I'm all for Rush eating OxyContin like Skittles. Drug laws in the country are insane. You, however, are the most self-righteouss prick I've ever met, so I like to yank your chain.

Cheers.

Reply By: MyrranderPosted: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 There are similiar laws elsewhere...Winona Ryder got busted on one a few years back...

Yes, there are.  Let me ask you this, Drmiler...you know I have back problems, right?  Ok, so what would you think of me if I went to my family doctor and asked him for a prescription of narcotics for my back..and he gave me one. No problem, right?  but what if I then went to my neurosurgeon and asked him for the same, not telling him that I already had some from my family doc?  What if I asked the general surgeon for the same thing, and didn't tell him about it either?  How about if I went to another clinic, to a doctor that I'd never met before, and told him that I had messed up discs that were causing me pain and that I needed some pain relief, and again failed to tell him about the three other prescriptions that I had gotten from other physicians for the same thing?  What if that doctor referred me to a specialist for my back, and I asked the specialist for pain meds too?  That would make a total of 5 prescriptions, and none of the docs who wrote them would know that I already had a prescription from 4 other physicians.  If they did, they'd have refused to write a prescription for me.

So, what would you think of me if I did that?   I know what I'd think of myself if I did that, and I also know that I'd think of someone else who did that - that they were addicted, and that they were using deceit and lies to get their drugs.

Doctor shopping may not be illegal, but it's underhanded, deceitful, manipulative and just plain wrong.

People who are addicted do things that are underhanded, deceitful, manipulative and just plain wrong. Happens every day. And Winona got very sympathetic treatment by the mainstream press at the time (as opposed to the tabloids). The debate about whether such behavior should be considered criminal is another topic, and not pertinent to the subject matter of this article.

Cheers,
Daiwa

The debate about whether such behavior should be considered criminal is another topic, and not pertinent to the subject matter of this article.

Not really, no, but it's my thread, my article, and if I think it's worth discussing I'll leave it here.

Thanks for stopping by!