I can't believe I'm supporting Rush Limbaugh...
 

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1001269.asp?vts=120420031544

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., Dec. 4 — Investigators who raided the offices of Rush Limbaugh’s doctors said in search warrants filed Thursday that the conservative radio commentator engaged in illegal drug use and “doctor shopping” for prescription painkillers.
THE WARRANTS SHOW investigators were looking for records including prescription disbursements, appointment schedules, receipts and a medical questionnaire.
“Mr. Limbaugh’s actions violate the letter, and spirit” of the law that relates to “doctor shopping,” stated one of warrants, signed by Asim Brown, a law enforcement agent assigned to the state attorney’s office anti-money laundering task force. Doctor shopping refers to looking for a doctor willing to prescribe drugs illegally.
The warrants — which name four doctors and several prescription drugs — show investigators were looking for records including prescription disbursements, appointment schedules, receipts and a medical questionnaire when they raided the offices Nov. 25.
Limbaugh denied any wrongdoing to listeners on his radio show earlier Thursday and accused prosecutors in Palm Beach County of going on a “fishing expedition.”
Reading from a statement prepared by his attorney Roy Black, Limbaugh denied any wrongdoing and said the medical records will clear him.
“What these records show is that Mr. Limbaugh suffered extreme pain and had legitimate reasons for taking pain medication,” Limbaugh said. “Unfortunately, because of Mr. Limbaugh’s prominence and well-known political opinions, he is being subjected to an invasion of privacy no citizen of this republic should endure.”
State Attorney Barry Krischer said in a statement that Limbaugh’s rights have been “scrupulously protected.”
“Whether Mr. Limbaugh is subject to prosecution for any crimes is still under investigation. Mr. Limbaugh is presumed innocent,” Krischer said.

RECORDS SUPPORT ALLEGATIONS
The search warrants were filed at Palm Beach County Circuit Court. One was executed at Palm Beach Ear, Nose and Throat Association in Palm Beach Gardens, where investigators seized five months of records from a Palm Beach pharmacy that they say support the doctor-shopping allegations.
Two warrants were executed at the offices of Jupiter Outpatient Surgery Center. Information on the fourth warrant wasn’t immediately available.
The records seized include prescriptions for Norco, Niacin, OxyContin, Xanax, Lorcet and other medications. The physicians named in the warrants are Dr. Nathaniel Drourr, Dr. Antonio De La Cruz, Dr. Lawrence Deziel and Dr. John Murray.
Drourr and officials at both centers declined comment, citing privacy laws. Murray did not return a phone call seeking comment, and the other doctors could not be immediately reached.
Limbaugh was absent from his show for five weeks recently while spending time at a drug rehabilitation program because of his addiction to prescription painkillers.
Previously, law enforcement sources in Palm Beach County, where Limbaugh owns a $24 million oceanfront mansion, confirmed that a criminal investigation into a prescription drug ring involved Limbaugh. His former maid, Wilma Cline, reported supplying him with OxyContin and other painkillers.
Last month, a law enforcement source who spoke on condition of anonymity said authorities also were investigating whether Limbaugh illegally funneled money to buy prescription painkillers. The radio host responded with a blanket denial of the allegations during his third day back on the air.

I can't believe they can just waltz in and sieze your medical records. I know it's relevant to the case, but still, this DOES seem like a huge violation of privacy. I'm not saying he shouldn't be prosecuted - it would be a huge double-standard to jail crackheads but let the rich white guy with a designer addiction off scot free. But isn't this, like most drug cases, a fairly victimless crime? Seems to me addicts suffer their own punishment.

What do you think? Are the files fair game? How do you strike a balance between privacy and justice? Is this a victimless crime?

Not exactly waltzing.

My math shows 4 warrants to seize records. That's 4 times that the state attorney had to go before a judge and show probable cause that a crime has been committed.

Also, 3 hours a day of spewing hate-filled rants doesn't exactly sound to me like an addict's guilt at work- especially while railing against other drug users. I don't have a sympathetic bone in my body for this man.

Florida also has on it's books a law against shopping around for doctors who will write a script just because you show up.

This is an anti-addict edict which also gives doctors pause.

2Wolves

One of these days you should try to listen to his show.

i would, but my radio doesn't play jackass.

(not sure how that reads, so to clarify, jackass is referring to rush, not ustwo).

That trick must work on a lot of people.

In fact, I have a few times. He did nothing but blame every single conceivable ill in our society on "Liberals." (I quote it here, because the right-wing enjoys using this label as a negative -- our founding fathers were Liberals, don't you forget that.)

He goes on and on. It's offensive to anyone who doesn't adhere to a strict right-wing idealogy. It's also a bunch of nonsense. Do you really think that everything that is wrong with the world today is... the other half of the population that doesn't agree with you? The rabid fear and hatred of anyone who disagrees with you in any way is just astonishing to me.

In some ways he is tame compared to some other talk radio "personalities" I've checked out though, which practically froth at the mouth. They can't go 4 seconds without mentioning Clinton and his blowjob. It makes me laugh. :lol:

I've listened to his show. I think he's a jackass.

I think if he is accused of "doctor shopping" then it seems logical that his medical records would have to be reviewed. Especially if the records contain dates of prescriptions and dosages, which they undoubtedly do.

It seems like an invasion of privacy, but it also seems like a logical extension of the investigation. I think it's only causing a big stink because Mr. Limbaugh, who has an enormously large pulpit to proclaim from, is involved and not some average Joe Schmo.

(Edited because I can't read and hit the wrong button)

I spent a year suffering through it every day at work. There isn't a single problem in this country that doesn't have Liberals or Democrats (or as rush says, libs and dems- and how ridiculous does he sound when he says that?) to blame for it. I was half surprised he didn't blame his drug addiction on the evil commies...

Nizzle,

How exactly is that any different than the "liberals" arguments? I'm not defending Rush nor attacking the "liberal" idealogues who spout the exact opposite of him, just pointing out that you don't say that you are equally outraged by them. Personally, I don't like either extreme side but I occasionally listen to them because interspersed within the vitriolic rants there are some ideas on both sides which should be understood and investigated.

But anyway, the point of this thread started out to be about the seizing of medical records. While I believe that medical records should be VERY difficult for anyone other than the doctor and patient to get, I do not have a problem with lawful seizing of records. If it is shown that the seizures were politically motivated or that this is not the "norm" for this type of investigation then I think those responsible should face serious fines and possibly imprisonment. I've read about MANY arrests related to prescription drug addiction but this one is starting to seem over the top. How many man hours are being spent on Rush Limbaugh's Rx drug habit? How many are spent on the average John Smith's Rx drug habit?

has anyone heard if Wilma Cline, his housekeeper that supplied him, is being prosecuted for anything?

If the average John Smith publicly let his rather extreme drug habits known to the authorities (and on the same scale)… then Mr. Smith will face court charges too. Police hassle junkies… Sorry to bust up everyone’s day.

Rush isn't going to have any trouble with the law apart from what has already happened, he's a celebrity and he's already been through rehab.

Anyway, they were completely justified in thier search of his medical records, for the same reason they would be justified in this search if he had murdered. I don't believe drugs are bad; the laws are just fucked up.

Bullshit. There are plenty of celebrities who flaunt their drug use and this many man hours are NOT spent on them. And the average junkie does not have his medical records seized.

If you remember that Rush was busted by the National Enquirer. He was not "flaunting" his addiction to "blue babies". I can't think of one celebrity who flaunts a prescription drug habit... which would be akin to flaunting a heroin addiction...

Oh yes wasn't Keith Richards arrested for heroin or something? I wonder if you would complain about the police man-hours being spent on him?

Of course Rush Limbaugh is nowhere near as culturally important as Keith Richards and the comparison is only incidental
.

I also listened to the show for quite a long time. I assumed that he spoke for the mainstream conservatives and he would give me that balance on their point of view so I could both argue my points effectively and become better informed.

HE is CNN (Clinton News Network), he is all clinton all the time. He just can't remove his brain from Clintons cock. All he does is spew hate about liberals and democrats. Constantly till I got so sick of it I grew to have a truly visceral hatred for the man for his constant attacks on myself and people I like.

Rush is a hypocrite and a purposeful liar. Countless times he does skits or says thing that I know HE knows is wrong but he says it anyway.

Such as his little skit on hybrid SUV's.

Well, one example would be Jack Osbourne. I certainly wouldn't classify him as a celebrity, but he is on TV. Does anyone remember him going public with his addiction? Does anyone remember him being prosecuted for anything?

On another note, it's quite funny to hear the Libs complain about Rush "spewing hate" on his show when that's all the left can seem to do when it comes to our President these days.

I might, just might, be able to find you a broader brush to paint your reality with. But I doubt it.

2Wolves

The authorities tend to look the other way when someone with a drug habit steps forward of their own volition to seek therapy. Rush Limbaugh did not seek help on his own. Rush Limbaugh was busted by a newspaper. (Rather the newspaper released it's story when they found out that the police started their own investigation -There's nothing worse than getting scooped by the cops).


Was Jack Osbourne busted before he sought counseling?


THIS IS COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC
Just because someone doesn't like something that the President does -or "spews hate" against the President... It does not make that person a member of a particular group nor party. One can be completely Independent and arrive at particular opinions -especially when those feelings are blatantly obvious.

Way to dismiss the main points of the discussion. HOW MANY RUN OF THE MILL ADDICTS DO THE POLICE INVESTIGATE TO THIS EXTENT? I could care less about Keith Richards' arrest a quarter of a century ago. If the police took resources away from other investigations simply to "get" him, then I am absolutely against it. Additionally, I never said Rush flaunted it I said there are plenty of celebs that DO flaunt their drug use and the police do not go into large scale investigations.

The other point, was that medical records should be difficult to get because they are so personal. How long until the information within them becomes public? How long before you start hearing about the hang nail he had treated or the wart he had removed or whatever? Fishing expeditions into medical records should not be the norm. I'm not saying that this is a "fishing expedition" but it certainly seems out of the ordinary for a prescription drug case. There have been plenty of cases in my local area of people abusing prescription drugs and not once were medical records examined. And many of these cases involved far greater crimes than doctor shopping or abuse of the drug. These included defrauding clients, vehicular manslaughter, robbery, and assault.

Then why bring it up?

The police had probable cause to investigate. Even left wing judges have approved search warrants based on probable cause. This is not a "fishing expedition". The police knew what they were looking for and had a warrant to do it. If they didn't then I suppose that Rush Limbaugh's lawyers would have that evidence dismissed.


Perhaps the police need more evidence because the 'average citizen' doesn't have an army of lawyers working for the defense. I suppose in some neo-conservative's viewpoint -the only crimes worth investigating are those that the poor commit. After all, celebrities are rich and can afford decent lawyers. Prosecuting rich people in court will cost more more money than prosecuting the poor. So why don't the police prosecute only the fiscally viable? Is it because they'll get away with murder if the police don't investigate- (doesn’t anyone remember O.J. Simpson –anyone, ANYONE?)


And O.J. Simpson was just a useful comparison. Rush Limbaugh is in no way as culturally significant or as talented as O.J. Simpson.

Keith Richards was just an example. If you don't like him perhaps Robert Downey Jr. or Scott Weiland will be appropriate comparisons -although Rush Limbaugh isn't near as talented as either. And the Keith Richards example (if you bothered to follow the link that I gave) shows that sometimes -a vigorous police prosecution can set someone on the publically accepted "right" path. In Keith's case; it was a police prosecution that made him quit the smack.

It’s completely ridiculous to speculate about Rush Limbaugh’s medical records going public and revealing things like proctology exams. I know from my own vigorous drug prosecution that good lawyers can keep such records sealed. (Although I found Rush’s medical records on Kazaa and I think he’s not getting enough corn in his diet).

Rush was purchasing drugs at dealer volumes. That is why he got and continues to recieve much attention from law enforcement.

Penalties are much greater under the dealer laws, and the necessary investigation is required by law to be much more thorough.

Plus his investigation involved blackmail, which is another felony Rush has to answer to, from the start.
Then there is the (by a legal definition) money laundering.

His is a very special case.

Just responding to Astrocloud's question around why I wasn't against that.

This isn't about neo con this or liberal that. Simply a question about politically motivated investigations that go beyond the norm of investigations and reaching into medical records. Were Scott Weilands medical records seized in his investigations? Is there any case you can point to for precedent? If not, then my point remains that it APPEARS to go beyond the bounds of a normal investigation. I would be saying the same thing no matter the target (yes even if it was your dear sweet Bill Clinton).

The only way that it is beyond the bounds of a NORMAL investigation is that normally a person's drug habit isn't made public by a newspaper. Police get warrants for evidence, normally.

In Scott Weiland's case he was caught red handed with drugs in his possesion. He later violated his probation by committing DUI.

In the drug possesion case; he was pulled over while driving with no headlights on. The police used (gasp!) reasonable cause and searched his vehicle.

If you simply read the news link here. Then you realize that Scott has had an on-again off-again problem with heroin. He "was also arrested in New York City... for heroin possession, during a police drug sweep on the Lower East Side."

Drug sweep... what!??? Police harassing Junkies!??? -The shame of it. Perhaps only celebrities that I like should be excluded from their "politically motivated" investigations.


(I would like to re-emphasize that Rush Limbaugh is in no way as talented as Scott Weiland.)

I'm very familiar with Weiland's arrests as I love STP. Too bad he's going the route he is. But anyway, finding drugs on people and doing drug sweeps in known drug areas are far different than going into people's medical records to prove a charge that likely won't even get the guy punished. As I've said before, medical records should be held in the strictest confidence no matter who that person is. I still believe that there is little chance a "normal" prosecution on these charges would include so much police time and searches of medical records.

After all, I don't believe he has a criminal record and would have probably gotten court ordered drug treatment and maybe probation. He has already done the treatment on his own so the judge will probably only have him evaluated at this point and maybe he'll get probation. In the mean time they are spending a hell of a lot of time for a relatively minor conviction with little to no prospect for punishment.

The two reasons Rush is targeted by the media for his drug use.
1. He is a celebrity
2. He is VERY much a hypocrite

They are playing gotcha.

And while I do appreciate the freedom of health privacy,
once you have a few legitimate warrants to justify it in a criminal investigation, then you've temporarily lost that right.
(and believe it or not, Rush would have said the same thing before his OWN drug case)

Rush doesn't haven anything really good to say except about his ego.
But hey, that's how he makes his gobs of money, spouting off rhetoric.

It's funny that you use the word "known". Rush Limbaugh is a "known" junkie. Just as the cops have a justified reason for conducting drug sweeps. The cops have a justified reason for sweeping through Rush Limbaugh's palaces and looking into his misconduct. Part of Rush Limbaugh's misconduct involves possession of over 2,000 pills simply from doctor swapping. But you know the charges just won’t stick without some evidence… So what should the police do? They are investigating a crime after all… Here I’ll say it


If the police have the right to investigate known criminal activity then the police have the right to search his medical records.

Please note that the above is a hotlink to a web page. If you disagree with the above statement –then by all means click on the link. It’s a harmless page, I promise.

So what are you suggesting? Come out with it please. It seems like you’re saying that there’s a conspiracy to ‘get’ Rush Limbaugh… Well are you? The police really aren’t doing anything abnormal. They are securing their case before a judge. Otherwise the charges wouldn’t stick and ole’ Rush walks.

Now wouldn’t it be sad if he got caught using again? Junkies have a tendency to return to their former habits. If taking pills was as easy as going to a few doctors and Rush got his literal slap on the wrist –Do you think he’ll really quit? Maybe he’d just cut back a little –after all his medical records ARE private –what would stop him from doing the whole thing over again?

I like Rush pretty well - and I like him more since he's gone through rehab - but I do believe the searches were entirely the right thing to do and are being properly executed.

Again, this is not a relatively minor conviction. Limbaugh bought too many drugs to be charged under the user laws. Limbaugh will be dealt with as a DEALER. That is a much more serious crime. So stop trying to trivialize what he did.

Then when you consider the money laundering, doctor shopping and harassment/threats to his maid....

This is serious shit, and if there is any justice in the world Limbaugh is looking at 10 years MINIMUM just for the Dealer charges.

Ahh yes, I'm sure he's another Cali cartel. I'm also sure he's as much a threat to the public as those Hell's Angels. Let's lock him up for good, he allegedly threatened his maid that's at least as bad as the people who tortured and killed the prosecutor near DC. Please.

This is not a response. The charges are serious. There is data to back this up. To say that he's not as bad as criminal X does not excuse his behavior or make it less of a crime.

If he does get charged as a dealer -then it would imply that he's more culpable than what the 'I'm just a junkie -gimme mercy' defense would entail. In fact, if Limbaugh was hosting parties and handing out blue babies -he would most certainly serve jail time.

But this is all speculation... just like an assertion that Rush is just a harmless junkie -we won't know until the police finish their investigation and the chips fall.

He doesn't have to actually deal the drugs to others. Simply possessing the drugs in the volumes we know he does, thousands of pills at a time qualifies him under federal law as a dealer.

That is the simple law, and Rush himself advocates punishing people to the full extent of the law for drug crimes.

What you just did onetime2, that's equivocating. Bad form.
Don't judge Rush in how he compares to California Cartels or someone who kills a prosecutor.

Judge him on the volume of pills he has, his threats to his maid, his money laundering, and his doctor shopping.

Silly me. I vacuously forgot about Mandatory Minimum Laws.

I stand corrected.

Sorry to offend your sensibilities, but I am making a statement about the relative seriousness of his offenses versus the laws the prosecutors, (and by extension, you and astrocloud) are using to justify the investigation. Even if Rush was distributing the drugs he collected, can you point to a single case where medical records were seized in a similar investigation? I'm not saying that it absolutely hasn't happened, just that I have never heard of it and this investigation SEEMS to be going beyond the bounds of most investigations. I have no interest in defending Rush Limbaugh and it won't bother me one bit if all the anti-Rush people are right and he's a menace to society. What bothers me is the fact that his opponents are willing to comprise the principles they claim to hold so dear (mandatory minimums being bad, drug users being treated rather than punished, etc) to silence an opposing voice.

As I've stated before on the Rush subject, I would take the points of the anti-Rush liberals much more seriously if they consistently applied the morals they claim to represent. I apply this standard to all who espouse political/social beliefs, it just so happens that in this case it's coming from the left.

**edit** Not being critical, just a clarification, Cali doesn't = California, it's an infamous drug cartel that operates internationally.

The relative seriousness of the offense is that he had dealer quantites. That is not small potatoes to the prosecutors.
That requires the type of thorough investigation we are seeing now. Especially because they are large quantities of prescription drugs. Prescription drug investigations are different from narcotics like marijuana and cocaine because the drugs Rush was buying have been coming from some "legitimate source" And in alarming quantities. So the feds must track this down, thus the thorough investigation. Including the seisure of his doctors records.
The reason you haven't heard of an investigation of a celebrity like this before is because most celebs don't get caught buying several thousand pills at one time, along with the additional FELONIES he seems to be racking up in this investigation.

I want the laws changed. I don't think these kinds of problems are helped by prison sentences. But until the laws are changed, there are thousands of men and women in prison right now. And until they are released, the kind of man who is supporting their incarceration while he himself is guilty of the same transgressions, he belongs there with them.

I'm not "the Left" -repeat ad nauseum.

For your query on the government seizing medical records... Try a google search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ords+-limbaugh

You make too many assumptions about the positions of "the Left" and the anti-Rush people in general. You state that they are "willing to comprise the principles they claim to hold so dear" -yet Lurkette (who started this thread) is supporting his defense precisely on principle. Do you even know who your arguing against?

I assert that drug laws in this country have been controlled by right wing interests for years. The left wing has espoused treatment and the right has pushed for harder time and mandatory sentences. Now it seems like a hero for the right is going to be locked away in prison... Am I supporting this? Yes and no.

If Rush Limbaugh supporters genuinely believe in the values that he disseminates. Values like
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1594/a01.html?178


-Then perhaps this is a chance for them (his supporters) to reconsider their own priorities. Should drug offenders be given more time than murderers? The laws in this country say yes...

Actually, I know of dozens upon dozens of cases in which people who possess drugs in dealer quantities had all manner of records seized, including medical records. You see, a good friend of the family works with the United States Attorney's Office, and I have also spent a good deal of time in the New Hampshire District Office. While I can't give any case names -- I don't remember any of them, to be honest -- I know for a fact that this friend of the family spent a good deal of his time working for the U.S. Attorney who aided in ATF and narcotics prosecution.
Trust me, more hours than you can even begin to comprehend goes in to preparing for a federal drug possession case (and remember, the quantity of drugs Limbaugh possessed may make him eligible for federal prosecution). This includes the collection of pertinent material, such as the collection of medical documents. It happens. You don't hear about it because most of the people prosecuted in this manner are not celebrities, so the media doesn't showcase the event.

Gotta love the smoking gun.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/rushsearch5.html

This kind of wacky crap is one of the reasons Rush is being investigated so thoroughly.

This doctor Deziel prescribes Rush 4-6 prescriptions a month from this page alone. Almost 500 pills of Norco a month.

Good for the prosecutors siezing these documents. It is important to get enabling doctors locked up in jail. Like these guys who are looking to make some fast cash off of weak people like Rush.

Did I say you were "left" NO, ad nauseum. You are decidedly anti-Rush so you fall into the so named category. By your posts, it's clear that you are most certainly more liberal than center, so why is it you take offense at the term liberal?

Did I group lurkette in there? Nope. Where are the groups who are against mandatory minimums for drug possession? How about those who advocate treatment versus punishment? If they were SO committed to it, why aren't they speaking about Rush's case? I have yet to hear a single

As far as your google search, they are not appropriate to this case in relation to charges against Limbaugh. Perhaps they are appropriate if the target of the investigation is the prescriber but not in the case of use by Limbaugh.

If that's the norm, then I stand corrected. As I've stated, it SEEMS that this investigation is going beyond the bounds of other publicized investigations. As far as not hearing about the seizing of medical records because the people aren't famous, I know of many cases in my local area where prescription drug use was rampant, other much more serious crimes were committed and medical records were not seized. I am still not convinced that the seizure of medical records is the "norm".

I agree about getting such doctors "off the street" so to speak but there are other ways to do it without patient's medical records becoming public. It was completely foreseeable that the seizure of Rush's medical records would end with them being available online. Could the prosecutors not have gotten the same drug information by going to the pharmacies that Rush used and getting those records? At least that would afford some semblance of medical privacy.

Hmmm. I am normally against anything that has a shadow of a hint of a shade of an iota of an inkling of a whiff of police powers about it. When I next hear a politician say "tough on crime" and see that they mean all crime, not just crime by lower and middle class people, that could change.

However, for the full force of the law and then some to descend upon a man who has consistently called for more police powers and harsher penalties to be applied to just those practices in which he admits to being engaged, how can that be anything but justice?

Oh, and I used to listen to his show three days a week between All Things Considered and Pacifica. I have determined that Rush Limbaugh is every bit as relevant a political commentator as Cheech and Chong were in their time, which is to say, as a political thinker, he's a fair entertainer.

Edit: Strange, I didn't consciously pick Cheech and Chong for their drug use. Martin and Lewis or Rowan and Martin or even Tiny Tim would have worked as well.

I can't belive I'm supporting rush either, but tho me the point is that these were prescription drugs. I feel bad for him that he was in engought pain to require them. I have a freind who is a preofessional athlete and it's unbeliveable to me how much pain he is in daily. I wish Rush the best.

The drugs were not obtained, always, from a pharmacy. Drug abuse is abuse, the illegal nature comes from getting script drugs from street vendors, doctor shopping, and aiding a continuing criminal enterprise. I do wonder how much the sainted Marta was aware of the quantities involved. A person would have to have the awareness of a book-end not to notice the full briefcase "prescriptions."

2Wolves

Maybe they are pursuing him so doggedly because they are fans of his show and agree wholeheartedly with with his stance on drug abusers.

LOL, yep that's it. :lol:

FYI:

According to a New York Daily News article with regard to the prosecutors going after Rush Limbaugh...

"The Palm Beach Post review found only one case in which the county filed charges of illegally acquiring overlapping prescriptions, but the defendant died before trial."

While there is still the possibility that this investigation isn't politically motivated, it has smelled from the beginning as being outside the norm and this only strengthens my belief.

http://www.nydailynews.com/01-04-200...p-133587c.html

At the risk of being admonished by the mods, i couldnt give a rats ass about Rush. You live by the sword....

And at one time "gay" meant "happy".

A liberal in the 18th century would be considered a libertarian today. "Liberal" as it is currently known is more or less a synonym for "socialist".

How many man hours were spent trying to find out if Clinton lied about having an affair, how many man hours are spent on the average joe to find out if they lied about having an affair?

Using public resources to prosecute drug users who are not committing crimes or harming anyone else in service of their drug use is a complete waste of tax dollars, and it could happen any one of us.

Man, this thread makes me as gay as having a cold pop on a hot summer day.

As long as conservatives continue to try to marginalize liberals by calling them communists, I'll marginalize them by calling them mean spirited right-wingers (hey, it's better than traitors).

Canada's taking a step in the right direction by lessening their penalties for users, but by U.S. law it is indeed a crime. Talk to your congressman and senator.

But they don't return my phone calls any more. ;)

Seriously, the war on drugs is a complete failure, but no politician with any amount of ambition will touch the issue bc it's tantamount to throwing oneself on a grenade in the political world: they'd be doing all of us a big favor, but they can kiss their political career goodbye.

Oh please. It's different, not completely different but still different. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer he is not an elected official. An elected official who is sworn to uphold the Constitution AND one that is supposed to be a court officer should not be committing perjury. It wasn't about sex, it wasn't about lying, it was about PERJURY. People claim that Nixon's crime was covering up the crime. It's the same as with Clinton. I could care less if he screwed the poodle in the Lincoln bedroom. It doesn't matter. When he then lies about it in court, under oath, it becomes a crime.

Was the Clinton investigation politically motivated? Of course. Should it have been investigated? Absolutely. The President committing crimes is different than the average citizen (or even a celebrity pseudo-journalist like Rush) committing them. Rush whining about being singled out is a joke, just as Clinton whining about it is. They each chose careers that could make them targets, they each understood that. The difference is, the President has more of a responsibility to the people as a leader than some self righteous radio "personality".

The comparison to Clinton does ring true, in a way. Should Clinton have been asked about his personal life at the grand jury hearing? Without a doubt, no. Should DAs be investigating into someone's personal drug use? No. If you are socially liberal (ack, scary word, SCARY WORD!!), then odds are you agree with me.

The difference is it is a conservative being prosicuted now instead of a democrat.

Clinton should have never been asked that question and even though he was he should have had no obligation to answer it. That was an issue between him and his wife not the government.

Now your saying that we should have double standards? I just want to make sure i get your side correctly. We should have double standards when prosicuting crimes?

Yes, apparently laws only apply to democrats.

(Evil, filthy, tricksy, traitorous democrats)

Without the words you're trying to force into my mouth...

WE SHOULD HOLD OUR LEADERS TO HIGHER STANDARDS THAN WE HOLD OTHERS. THOSE WHO SWEAR TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO ABIDE BY THE LAWS SET FORTH UNDER IT.

Clinton lied under oath in a sexual harrasment case. The question was not out of bounds. If it were, obviously the judge would not have allowed it. If you think he shouldn't have been obligated to answer it, as someone else recently posted, write your congressman and change the laws.

I don't think I need to use all caps for this:

''the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''

Can you prove he was intentionally trying to deceive when he opted to use that intelligence? Didn't think so. Was he under oath? Does that constitute perjury? I guess they aren't equivalent then. Oh well, better luck next time.

You backed off pretty quick from that "higher standard," I wonder why? (yeah, that was a rhetorical question)

Rhetorical or not, I didn't back off at all. You point to something that isn't a crime as compared to something that is. How about comparing apples to apples? Hell you can't even say that Bush was knowingly lying. So, in the worst case scenario (for your point of view) you're comparing being wrong with lying under oath. In the worst case scenario (for my point of view) it's comparing a lie to a crime. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect them not to commit crimes and ideally would love it if we could get them not to lie but that's a bit of pie in the sky wishing there.

I agree that there should be no committing of crimes and no lying (common ground!). If I had to pick though, I'd go with the crime that resulted in ZERO deaths over the lie that resulted in FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SIX American deaths (so far).

please both of you go back and read onetime2's post. With the exception of the part about the president sleeping with poodles, it was dead on.

One is holding political office, one is not. One individuals character is of national interest to us, the other is not, etc etc etc. And this assuming they had done the same thing. I like Rush, but I would have lost total respect for him, had he been getting BJ's by a early 20something intern behind Marta's back.

This scenario is a fuck of a lot more telling about one's character (and to reiterate, an entertainer's character is neither here nor there as far as the rest of us are concerned, but the presidents....) than one who has had back back pain for years, develops a tolerance, and becomes addicted. And the orignal posters suggestion that this is a "designer drug", might have been more on target had the motivating factor been hedonism (as was Clinton's, without regard to his wife, the intern, or the country).

He was not found in possession of 100's and 100's of pills (as some have suggested he is being come down on as a dealer) - the mother fucker was never found in possession at one time of this quantity of that. That's like telling your average college kid that you have evidence he's bought 100 1/8's of weed over the last 4 years, so your going to try him as a dealer because of the quantity involved.


You're hypocrisy's really are stunning.

......how many people died in that aspirin factory Sparhawk? Contrary to what Clinton would have you believe character does mean something, and if one of the two presidents had gone on a bombing spree for personal gain - who's proven character would you guess would be more likely to do such a thing?

I commend you, matthew330, for supporting Rush Limbaugh through this difficult time. However, I suspect your qualifyer "I would have lost total respect for him, had he been getting BJ's by a[sic] earl 20something intern behind Marta's back" is designed to give you cover to support those you are in favor of politically.

Let's do the BJ Litmus test, shall we?

What do these five politicians have in common:

Bill Clinton
Newt Gingrich
Bob Livingstone
Strom Thurmond
Henry Hyde

Somehow I doubt your lack of conviction in despising those who cheat on their wives, when they wear an elephant pin on their lapel.

Alright, first off, you still haven't proven that it was a lie on Bush's part. Regardless, we are off onto another point of contention. We would have been going into Iraq with or without the piece of intelligence about uranium in Africa. Do you honestly believe THAT is what finalized the decision and led us into Iraq? Do you think without it, Bush would have ignored the Iraq situation because the US voters were steadfastly against it (they weren't by the way)? Of course you don't because you think Bush and his advisors were just itching to take on Iraq.

It's terrible that 486 people lost their lives in Iraq but their deaths helped to give millions a chance at a better future. Their sacrifices may help to stabilize the Middle East. Now, I'm sure you will claim that it has done nothing but destabilize the region and create a thousand other Bin Laden's but only the future will determine who is right.

I agree 100% that cheating on your wife is a failure of character, matthew330, and while I wish that our politicians were angels, it is pointed out all too often that they are not.

Also, you really don't want to start up a debate on wars or military operations for personal gain - save it for another thread.

Indeed.

don't know about strom thurmond or henri hyde, but of the first three - who's the only one who didn't loose their political position

No no no, matthew330, it's my BJ Litmus Test.

Wasn't trying to start a new debate, It was directly related to what you said earlier

I think the relevance is obvious enough.

I really wish i would have left the "If Rush Limbaugh had a BJ.....". Even though it is 100% true, I should have guessed it would have been the only part of the post you saw.

"No no no, matthew330, it's my BJ Litmus Test."

....hahahaha

stupid fat democrat!

getting a blow job is worse than being a drug addict? We better rewrite our laws to match your premise. Did you know that George Washington along with many other expresidents screwed his slaves? JFK had an affair with Maralyin Monroe....

People shouldn't complain about being prosicuted for a crime unless they are arguing directly against it being a crime. Is Rush arguing that doctor shopping is not illegial or shouldn't be? No he is saying he shouldn't be prosicuted even though the law is valid.... Be careful of encuraging double standards they already exist enough the last thing we want to do is segregate the nation even more.

To argue that prosicuters are holding Rush to a double standard because he is a well known politition but then say it was ok for prosicuters to do the same thing to the president you are being hypocritical.

Clinton's problem wasn't getting a blowjob, it was lying under oath . Thats the key point so many people like to forget.

So you can argue that there is nothing wrong with getting a BJ in the oval office while talking to people on the phone, and thats fine, but thats not the issue.

Why is it that special counsels had enough time during the Clinton years to query the president about an affair, but counsels during *this* administration can't get a question in edgewise about what Bush knew when.

I submit to you again, which is more worthy of inquiry?


If the roles were reversed, and this was Clinton's war, could you say the same thing with a straight face?


And can we get *SOMETHING* else to discuss in here...

Well, for one, the special counsel provision was eliminated with bipartisan support. I submit, once again, that one is quite obviously a crime and the other is not. There is a significant difference there.

If the roles were reversed, I absolutely would be supporting Clinton's decision to go into Iraq. My belief in the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have nothing to do with George Bush. The same can't be said for most opponents to the actions. They seemed to support Clinton's military actions, but when it's Bush, it's a whole different ball game. Perhaps if Clinton, or Bush Sr, or Carter, or Reagan had reacted to the consistent terrorist actions during their administrations, there would be no Iraq invasion and there would be no Bin Laden and 9.11 would just be another day on the calendar.

As far as something new to talk about, I welcome the prospect. Any suggestions?

If there's one thing you can take away from this thread....it is a well established proven fact Bill Clinton is a liar. Liberals and Republicans alike agree on that, just read the thread.

One other thing you can take away from the thread, as much as an obvious f 'up Clinton is, a liberal in the same breath as acknowledging this fact will grasp at every angle to justify his actions that make him a f 'up.

One other thing.....Bush's motives are debatable (only in the sense that you have to be a wacko conspiracy theorist to think that he sent America to war over some sort of personal vendetta or personal oil interest, even in light of the outcome), but liberals continue to seek every angle that would suggest he's hitler reincarnanted.

If this thread proves anything, other than the fact that the new rules for the politcs board don't apply....

Once again, republicans win - democrats lose....

In the words of my friend....DEFEAT THEM.

Would somebody please lock this thread.

Off track, beating a dead horse.

Closed.