NYT Interviews Rush Limbaugh, Triggering Avalanche of Reader Hate

Photo of Clay Waters.

New York Times media reporter Jacques Steinberg interviewed conservative talk radio giant Rush Limbaugh on his strong opposition to GOP presidential front-runner John McCain for Friday's "Warring on McCain, Limbaugh Sees No Reconciliation." The interview was OK, but the response from the Times's liberal readership was vitriolic.

"Rush Limbaugh took his show on the road this week, forsaking his main broadcast studio in Palm Beach, Fla., for one in Midtown Manhattan. But the change of scenery did nothing to dampen the Republican-on-Republican smackdown he has been waging from afar against Senator John McCain, the party's likely presidential nominee, whom Mr. Limbaugh considers too moderate.

As he opened his radio program Wednesday, Mr. Limbaugh lobbed yet another grenade.

"I would like today to announce a tentative decision -- I'm still thinking about it -- to endorse Barack Obama," he said, his head cocked slightly toward his 18-karat-gold-plated microphone, his hands spread wide like the wings of his sleek G4 jet.

Mr. Limbaugh then listed nearly a dozen qualities he said he found admirable in Mr. Obama. "Barack Obama is pro-life," he began. "Barack Obama is a tax-cutter extraordinaire."

If neither statement was descriptive of Mr. Obama, a liberal Democrat, nor was there much hope for what followed. "Barack Obama will establish a college football playoff, once and for all," Mr. Limbaugh said. "Barack Obama will offer free-beer Fridays."

His point, Mr. Limbaugh said, was that Mr. Obama represented "a blank canvas upon which anyone can project their fantasies and desires."

Steinberg goes soft on McCain's endorsement of amnesty for illegal immigrants, simply saying McCain is "not being as tough as Mr. Limbaugh would like" on the issue.

But implicit in his "endorsement," however tongue-in-cheek, was this: Mr. Limbaugh, who draws more than 13.5 million listeners a week, considers Mr. McCain to have so betrayed conservative principles by voting against tax cuts and not being as tough as Mr. Limbaugh would like on illegal immigrants that the commentator was openly flirting with the enemy. (Later, Mr. Limbaugh dangled the possibility of endorsing Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.)

It's actually not that bad an interview (audio excerpts are available online, plus clips from Limbaugh's radio show). But the Times decided to open up the story to online comments, and the paper's liberal readership is indulging in an instructive "two-minute hate." The first comment (of over 750 and counting) is perfectly representative:

Limbaugh is a thrice divorced recovering drug addict and gasbag who lectures others about the sanctity of marriage and the value of the war on drugs. Why anyone would listen to his opinions about anything is a real mystery to me.

—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The MSM will never get Rush right

First, Steinberg admits Rush was being disingenuous in his "endorsements" of the Democrats, and then he says Rush was "openly flirting with the enemy".... all in the SAME sentence....

Can these "journalists" really be that dumb, or is this guy just a poor writer who can't contruct a sentence that hangs together logically? 

lol

You gotta love how Limbaugh haters always say something about "supporting the war on drugs". I've listene to the guy everyday since I was 16 and I dont remember the last time hes said anything about the war on drugs.

I have been listening to him

I have been listening to him for 17 years myself and agree with you, Dronetek.

To borrow a phrase from George Carlin

Did you ever notice...

...that liberals nearly always start by calling people names and almost never debate the merits?

"That's just my opinion. I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller

The green-eyed monster

The green-eyed monster raises it's ugly head.

According to this guy,

According to this guy, honestly discussing McCain's positions on the issues and indulging in some tongue-in-cheek humor is a "smackdown" and "bomb throwing"? The lefties are apparently sissies, as well.

They are indeed

Most liberals get surprisingly threatened when they encounter opinions different from their own. Most enjoy living in little cocoons of agreement rather than venturing out and interacting with those who think differently.

Cocooned environment

“Most liberals get surprisingly threatened when they encounter opinions different from their own.”

What you say is true; and it is the insidious effect of liberals having lived – thanks to the MSM – for more than a generation in an environment where they are essentially unaware of the existence of any serious alternative to liberal “wisdom” they have constantly received.

Notice that Liberalism prospers mostly in highly concentrated population areas, mostly on the East and West Coasts. Who in these areas changes his own car oil? Many, perhaps most, do not even routinely cook for themselves. In their extra-sophisticated environment, if their favorite “news” personality says X or Y or Z, then it must be so. If their favorite “news” personality omits mentioning A or B or C, well then, it must not be so. In other words, in their world of delegating tasks, many also delegate the task tracking down the truth and of thinking through matters. Taking the position of not accepting on faith what their trusted news source says is to be avoided, along with so many other tasks.

Ann Coulter has a point: If Democrats had any sense, they would be Republicans.

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.

Why anyone would listen to

Why anyone would listen to his opinions about anything is a real mystery to me.

I would guess this person listens every day, records, and transcribes the progam and has used it as the topic of every term paper for the last 10 years.

"Limbaugh is a thrice

"Limbaugh is a thrice divorced recovering drug addict and gasbag who lectures others about the sanctity of marriage and the value of the war on drugs. Why anyone would listen to his opinions about anything is a real mystery to me."

Exactly what part of this quote do you object to as untrue?

keith... I knew it...It

keith...

I knew it...It was your post there wasn't it?

LOL!

Here we go again...

Once again, someone needs to point out to the lefties that the conservative position is not that we think we're perfect, nor that we never do anything wrong. 

In a nutshell, we don't try to take bad behavior and make it okay by suggesting that because we were guilty of it, that we can no longer condemn it.  Or that because we did it, we must somehow find merit in the bad behavior so that we don't feel bad about having done it.

 

I've screwed up in my life, but that does not mean that I keep my mouth shut.  I may or may not have been cognizant of the error of my ways at the time, but it was still wrong.

Have you ever heard Rush defend divorce as a way to build a stable society?  Have you ever heard him suggest that recreational use of illicit drugs is good for society or for that matter, the individual?  And we won't even debate the point that he did not take drugs for recreational purposes, but a severe pain killer prescription gone too far...

Ah Keith, let me speak

Ah Keith, let me speak slowly so you can understand ...

Rush...never...talks...about...drugs...never...ever...ever... He has made it a point to never talk about the war on drugs years before his addiction to pain killers. Also, I seriously doubt his addiction to pain killers is something you would fault or use against any other person in the world other than Rush Limbaugh. The fact that you need to go there just demonstrates your moral bankruptcy when it comes to the issues Rush does actually talk about.

Beyond being just dead wrong on that point, gasbag isn't exactly factual. I do believe the last sentence as there are probably many things that are a mystery to that poster.

I honestly think these

I honestly think these Neo-Stalinist are dumber then a bag of hammers. Keith, even if Rush was what you say he is, the left STILL came to him for a major interview in a major leftist news magazine, imagine that.

Along with hypocrisy, irony is not a strong point with lefty's.

Sorry, Keith. We didn't realize that you were perfect.

So, how does it feel to live a perfect life?

Obama: Elect me and I'll lose the war AND raise your taxes! - Bryan/HotAir.com

It's not only irrelevant, as

It's not only irrelevant, as the truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it, but it's cherry-picked, like lefties always do with their personal attacks. They cannot debate him on the issues. One could make a much worse cherry-picked attack on Teddy Kennedy, or on either of the Clinton crime family.

More Fallacious Liberal Reasoning:

"Limbaugh is a thrice divorced recovering drug addict and gasbag who lectures others about the sanctity of marriage and the value of the war on drugs."

1. Divorce has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage.

2. Rush became addicted to prescription pain-killers he was taking for post-surgery pain (which can happen to anyone), he was not out 'getting high.' 

Since the premises are wrong, the conclusion is also wrong - even if it is correct to assume he lectures on these topics - which is rare at best.  But hey, what do facts, logic and reasoning matter to knee-jerk leftist haters?

Man your head is so far up

Man your head is so far up Limbaughs butt that if he sneezes you gotta wipe the brown off your nose!

1." Divorce has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage." PERHAPS YOU'RE MENTALLY CHALLENGED OR SOMETHING. This is maybe the STUPIDEST thing I've read in like YEARS! Divorce has NOTHING to do with the sanctity of marriage? How about the old, "TILL DEATH DO US PART" thing, Kool Aid?

"2. Rush became addicted to prescription pain-killers he was taking for post-surgery pain (which can happen to anyone), he was not out 'getting high.' " Another moronic statment, YOU CANNOT GET ADDICTED TO PAINKILLERS UNLESS YOU TAKE MORE THAN THE RECOMMENDED DOSAGE, duh! That's why they print how many of them you're supposed to take. At one point Limbaugh was taking THIRTY oxycontin's a day! Enough to tranquilize DUMBO! What part of "1 every six hours" is that? He's no different than a CRACK ADDICT in the ghetto who is trying to numb the pain of being poor. Or the kid who tries meth ONCE and finds herself selling her butt to get it the next day. Everybody's got an excuse for their bad behavior man, And Limbaugh was notorious in condemning others for theirs! Yes he was indeed out "getting high" except that he's so rich from morons like you that he didn't have to "go out" to get his FIX, he had a Mexican maid  for that! Man, some of you people are truly amazing in the way that you put yourself above others. Even his drug addiction has to be "different" in your silly eyes. You are pathetic. Hey, KOOL AID!

Jeez keith...settle down,

Jeez keith...settle down, take something to calm your nerves.

I have to agree with the

I have to agree with the drug addiction aspect of Keith's post. Addiction is addiction. Either way, it involves a lack of self-control and responsibility, which Rush and most conservatives preach as gospel. The only difference between Rush and the inner-city or rural drug addicts he rails against is that his wealth allows him to procure his drugs without involving himself in gang activity or pharmacy robberies.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

More fallacious liberal reasoning.

What you, Keith and the person quoted in the article are trying to do is to discredit someone with the hypocrisy argument.  The only problem is that the factual basis of the premise is wrong.

Rush doesn't rail against inner city drug addicts.  Nor does he preach on the sanctity of marriage.  The idea that you have to take more than the required dose to become addicted is irrelevant, since the motivation for taking more than the required dose is that the required dose was not sufficient to control the pain, not because of a lack of self control or some deviant behavioral trait.

Basing a conclusion on a false premise which is based on  prejudicial hatred of the person you are trying to discredit is fallacious reasoning.  And the argument that anyone who detracts from the Rush haters has their head up his butt, is just another typically insulting liberal fallacy used to avoid discussion of the actual issues based on actual facts.

the left just does not

the left just does not understand high standards

falling short does not make one a hypocrite

in one ear and out the other I'm sure

I knew that would get you.

I knew that would get you.

mattm, the people like

mattm, the people like Keith and the other guy are intellectually bankrupt. They can't argue against Rush Limbaugh, so they do personal attacks against him. You know you have won the day when they have to call him a gasbag. They also prove they are ignorant about Rush when they say that Rush talks about the war on drugs. I would challenge anyone to quote Rush talking about drugs (beyond his own situation which he did talk about) in the past several years.

Rush talks about taxes, illegal immegration, national defense, but not drugs or marriage for that matter. He does talk about marriage being between a man and a woman, but not divorce. They can't even get the personal attacks correct.

Ryan,Challenge Accepted. 

Ryan,

Challenge Accepted.  Rush is an absolute hypocrite.  Railing against addicts while being an addict himself. 

What's next, complaining about sex tourism? haha.

Read it and weep tiger.  Your fat hero is hypocritical scumbag.

1)  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

2)  "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

3)  "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

4)  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.

5)  "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

So Ryan, do you even listen to Rush?  You clearly have no idea about what you're talking about.  Like most of his listeners.

Just some answers -

1.   We're going to let you destroy your life -- Rush admitted an addiction to prescription drugs and went to rehab.  He did not let it destory his life, he overcame it (no, he is no hero for that so don't read that into it).  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.    And your point on this one is?  Rush Limbaugh show, Dec. 9, 1993

2)  "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."  It is abhorrent behavior and the people who want to throw their hands up and say let's just legalize it, well, it is a rotten idea.  And yes, those for it are selfish.  FYI, I think he is talking about the powers that be (Congress, the administration at the time -- and any administration for that matter) and not drug users.
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

3)  "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.  Ah yes, Jocelyn Elders whose claim to fame was that we should teach masturbation to kids in school.  The asnwer for this one - yeah, send them away.  Heck yeah - what's the problem with that? 
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

4)  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. Rush would admit this to this day - still not getiting the point here.  And we have laws against selling drugs - yes, illegal drugs, pushing drugs - yes, illegal drugs, using drugs - yes, illegal drugs, importing drugs, - yes, illegal drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. Yes we do know what happens to them, they get destroyed by violence and crime and no hope for the children growing up in those areas.  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. -- Absolutely, send them up, exactly what did Rush do - oh, you mean the doctor shopping that they did not prove squat on, and if they did, he got his punishment and went about his business.  But he isn't on the street corner peddling crack to 12 year olds.  Again, what is the point

5)  "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." -- Again, illegal drugs, Oxycontin is not an illegal drug but rather a prescription drug.
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995

Hey, I don't want to take up the challenge any further simply because I don't have the time as I work for a living and have a family to go home to.  Suffice it to say that you hate Rush and based on your comments describing him (hypocritical scumbag) you don't care to have a discussion even resembling something serious. 

As for pulling all those quotes from Rush -- Who has the time to do that?  Do you work at a radio station or something?

 

Leon,we can all play

Leon,

we can all play your childish game....here it is for starters...

can you please comment on the fact that Liberal Radio Host Bernie Ward was arrested and charged with distribution of child ponography?  can you also comment on the fact that this Liberal talking head as shown in the arrest report claimed to be a pedophile?  Bernie Ward is a hero to West Coast Liberals.....what do you have to say?  oh i know, you probably haven't heard about it because Thinkprogress.org, DailyKos, Democratic Underground, etc have not reported it.  But I bet you if it was a conservative radio host, the media and your Liberal bloggs would be all over it.

Now, can you please also comment on the quotes below this paragraph?...Democrats claiming long before Bush got into office and after he was elected into office that Iraq was dangerous, that regime change was necessary, that force would be used if he didn't comply? 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

while you are it, can you also please comment on John Edwards interview on CNN during his first primary where he claimed that Iraq was an imminent danger to the United States of America? 

you want to talk about hypocrisy, let's go Leon....yes, yes, I know, you will start by insulting me and attacking my grammar and spelling instead of addressing the facts. 

Before you call a Conservative a hypocrite, make sure that your house is not made out of glass.....annoying mosquito squashed. 

and let us not forget about Bernie Ward....Liberal hero, adored by millins of Liberal radio listeners, and a pedophile, child ponography owner.    

While Rush Limbaugh is far from perfect, he doesn't claim that behavior liek that of Bernie Wards is ok and should be legalized, like the Liberal ACLU which represents NAMBLA.  

the difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that while both can and will make moral mistakes....Conservatives don't try to legalize or force others to accept their amoral behavior...

Liberals want to legalize and force everyone around them to accept their amoral behavior.

A Liberal can't stand being told that their behavior is wrong and amoral, while they love telling others and actually passing laws forcing others to behave their way and to accept amoral behavior as normal because if not...it is a hate crime. 

See the difference Leon?  doubt it.

Hello, Leon!? I think

Hello, Leon!? I think futbolisgreat gave him more than he can stomach.

:applause:

Yeah.  Both responses vs. Leon were amazing.  The challenge was met.  Loved it. 

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Great points futbolisgreat1

Great points futbolisgreat1. The left are so lame.

You Have David Brock Brown on Your Nose

Shortly after Rush's addiction story broke, some blogger found a discussion board from a year or so earlier where some posters were perplexed by comments Rush had made about drugs. Rush had basically said that too much fuss had been made about drug addiction, to the point where people who legitimately needed pain killing drugs couldn't get them.

Using 20-20 hindsight it's clear Rush was talking about the pain killers he was using. And I agree with his point because I went through some hellacious pain when I was a twenty-something with long hair:

"We've pulled all four wisdom teeth -- here's a prescription for four T-3s. Don't forget to use ice."

Rush was right about the hesitantcy of doctors to properly address pain and the scourge of recreational drug abuse.

It sounds like you're okay with both, though.

"Take It Away, Leon, Take It Away!"

(Bob Wills, 1936)

Notice how Leon has to unearth quotes Limbag made 15 YEARS ago?

Please try again, Small One.

I would challenge anyone

I would challenge anyone to quote Rush talking about drugs (beyond his own situation which he did talk about) in the past several years.

 I look at my quote above and I notice the words "past several years." I see your response that cites 1993-1995. I don't know your definition of several but mine is not 13 years. You make my point well. Thank you. Since 1995 you can't name a single quote about Rush and the war on drugs.

Well appart from my other

Well appart from my other response showing how you actually made my point I need to make a few other observations.

1. Rush Limbaugh being fat helps your argument how? I guess being overweight makes you evil? How very unliberal of you.

2. "Railing against addicts while being an addict himself." Rush was not addicted to pain killers when making the quotes you used so you are not factually correct. It was not Railing while addicted.

3. Using the word "scumbag" I guess shows how you are a compasionate liberal who cares more than the rest of us.

4. Yes, I do listen to Rush regularly. That was why I knew he did not talk about drugs ever since his drug addiction and even years before. Notice the difference between Rush and liberals though. He was caught doing something wrong and went for treatment, appologized to his listeners and friends. Done. He didn't have sex with an intern, lie before a grand jury, and then blame it on the victim and the vast right wing conspiracies, Ken Star, other women. He didn't get his whole party to come out for lieing before a grand jury and say everyone does it. Funny the difference. Please don't lecture me on hypocrocy.

Why is it that the

Why is it that the "tolerance" demanding left always feels the need to call anyone they disagree with names.  Does anyone think that someone's mind will be changed because they are called, "mentally challanged" or "Kool Aid"?

The name calling causes your argument to immediatly lose any credibility it might have had.

Just thought you should know.

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

YOU CANNOT GET ADDICTED TO PAINKILLERS UNLESS YOU TAKE MORE THAN

"YOU CANNOT GET ADDICTED TO PAINKILLERS UNLESS YOU TAKE MORE THAN THE RECOMMENDED DOSAGE"

Where did you hear this? If you really believe this, then I cannot take anything else you said seriously. I've known people whom I have great respect for develop dependancies on medication that they took according to the recommended dosage.

 

 

 

 


Man is not free unless government is limited. - Ronald Reagan

exactly! what a bunch of

exactly! what a bunch of nonesense others have said. 

when it comes to medication, you DO NOT need to take more than the prescribed amount to get addicted......

please Liberals, educate yourself before you speak such great nonsense. 

Keith, anybody can become addicted to painkillers.

I have on two seperate occasions in my life, and both times I took them exactly as they had been prescribed. Body chemistry differs widely among people, and not everyone is going to react to prescription drugs in the same way.

But then, you being perfect and all, you wouldn't understand that.

Obama: Elect me and I'll lose the war AND raise your taxes! - Bryan/HotAir.com

Wrong Again, Keef

"YOU CANNOT GET ADDICTED TO PAINKILLERS UNLESS YOU TAKE MORE THAN THE RECOMMENDED DOSAGE, duh!"

Sure you can.

I was in an absolutely horrific car accident in 1974, and ended up in the hospital for 7 weeks. For 6 of those 7 weeks, I was in a room with 3 other guys, all of whom had been badly hurt in (unrelated) motorcycle accidents.

One of the guys, name of Roger, became addicted to PercoDan (which was a forerunner of today's PercoCet). He was never given more than the normal dosage, as he was under a doctors' supervision at all times.

Please try again.

Um...speaking of moronic...

"Another moronic statment, YOU CANNOT GET ADDICTED TO PAINKILLERS UNLESS YOU TAKE MORE THAN THE RECOMMENDED DOSAGE, duh! "

Your statement here is absolutely, without quesion, false. Many folks who take prescribed pain meds are addicted simply for having taken them for some time. It is a fact of life that some meds are addictive.

Dosage is not measured to assure someone does not become addicted to a med. It is to minimize negative side affects while mitigating whatever symptom the drug is there to fight.

Should any of us be surprised

Should any of us be surprised by the Left's responses? There is a Great Unpleasantness headed our way. We can count on it.

A couple of losers

“All you need is self-control and responsibility?”

Let us hope that your never in an accident where your in pain 24/7, then let’s see how much self-control you have.

Keith and JC - talk about a couple of losers.

That's for Sure


Keith and JC - talk about a couple of losers.

That's for sure. Liberals, conservatives and even apolitical people get addicted to opoids because of severe pain. Using it as a cudgle to bash Rush instead of discussing what he said in the interview is the epitome of juvenile behavior.

 "Using it as a cudgle to

 "Using it as a cudgle to bash Rush instead of discussing what he said in the interview is the epitome of juvenile behavior."

To borrow a cliche' - "here here!"*

*BTW, Keith, another tiny little fact - not that you'd be interested in facts, but... the actual phrase is "hear, hear"...

Addendum:  Sometimes Divorce is the honorable thing to do, as opposed to, say, carrying on a faux marriage just for show, while banging interns half your age.... Oh, sorry...I was using facts again...

I'm not attacking Rush.

I'm not attacking Rush. I'm only agreeing with Keith's premise that drug addiction is based on the same set of factors, whether an inner-city crack addict or an upper-class person dependent on hyper-potent pharmaceuticals.  My remarks on the topic are more or less separate from any critique on Limbaugh.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Drug addiction is almost

Drug addiction is almost always caused by a lack of discipline.

 

 

BD, I think you can drop

BD,

I think you can drop the almost.

That's all it ever is.  Lack of discipline.

No, I know of a case where

No, I know of a case where a trooper of mine was hurt in a peculiar running accident and was given regular doses of a narcotic to get him over the pain until his back mended.

Short story, the military doctors got him hooked and it took him a couple of months to kick it. 

But showing amazing discipline, he was able to do so.

The bulk of drug addiction

The bulk of drug addiction is caused by undisciplined louts seeking a "High" from illicit narcotics.  I will give a pass to those who become addicted while recovering from injury of some form.

But I Thought All Addicts Are Weaklings

...it took him a couple of months to kick it.


But showing amazing discipline, he was able to do so.

That sounds like Rush.

Pain Tolerance Varies

Have you ever had major surgery or a severe injury?

I doubt it. 

Tinian, of course Leon did. And lobotomys are painful.

Smile. It is not the end of the world. Then again.....

pain medication

Heck - a few years ago I had to have my appendix out and in since it was close to bursting, they gave me dilaudid (sp??) to control the pain.  Oh man, it was heaven on earth.  But as soon as they got me into recovery, they put me on morphine in small doses.  Why, because they knew that dilaudid was unbelievably addictive.

Another item, going out and searching for a high with illicit drugs is vastly different event than going to a doctor to get a prescription for medication due to severe pain and then becoming addicted to taht medication. 

Then, unless you're a

Then, unless you're a hypocrite, applaud Rush for dealing with the problem and staying off drugs ever since. He isn't bouncing in and out of rehab like the Hollywood lefties do...

that just shows that the

that just shows that the hollywood lefties are BETTER the Rush.....they KEEP admitting they have a problem.....unlike Rush who.....stopped.....and ...um never went back........HE'S A NAZI!!!!!!!

 

"Get off the phone you big dope!!!!!!!!!!" Mark Levin

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Classic

If that's the case, Leon...

...then please explain why the progressives always want to rehabilitate criminals who commit crimes to support their drug usage rather than penalize them to the fullest extent of the law?

Conservatives don't want rehabilitation to replace jail time.  Why do progressives want to do this?  Don't they believe, like you do, that drug abuse is a lack of discipline?  And why don't you rail against your progressive brethren for being so blindly stupid to the fact that drug abuse is a discipline problem rather than an illness?

You're Both Wrong

I'm not attacking Rush. I'm only agreeing with Keith's premise that
drug addiction is based on the same set of factors, whether an
inner-city crack addict or an upper-class person dependent on
hyper-potent pharmaceuticals.

Which makes you both wrong. Becoming addicted to heroin, a street drug, because you like the buzz it gives is not the same as becoming addicted to a prescribed medication because of chronic pain.

Can you wrap your brain around that? Is it too complicated for you to understand?

They only hate his success

Rush did a local 9-12 show in Sacramento where I grew up. I’ve listened to him ever since without a hiccup. I’ve listened to other radio host as well and just have one thing to point out. Other host will get a little nasty with some callers and sometimes go off on them (BTW most have it coming). But I’ve never seen that streak in Rush. Rush is smart, witty, and professional. Most of all he’s just a nice guy. As hateful as some of these comments are it’s as if they’re talking about someone I don’t even know.

They are dolts

As is the case with all liberals - they claim Rush or any conservative talk or radio show host said this or that (which is hard to believe because none of them listen to them) and then use the twisted logic to proclaim him an intolerant, evil, two faced bastard.  Nice - reminds me of the time Bill O'Reilly went on the Dave Letterman show and Letterman said (to a rousing ovation from the crowd-SHOCK!!) that he thought 80% of what Bill said on his (Bill's) show was crap.  Then when O'Reilly asked him if he watched the show he said he didn't watch it at all.  He then backtracked and said that he just hears what others say they heard.  That is your typical liberal thinker right there. 

Off the subject- Liberals and Democrats of today can be summed up by their inability to debate true issues and their plethora of empty platitudes.  Not to mention their anger and hatred toward anything or anyone remotely Republican (or Conservative). 

Food for thought and again, off the subject but - exactly what criteria do Obama and Hillary use to determine who is wealthy in this country and thus should be bracing for the tax increases they will face should one of those two take office?

How open minded and kind of

How open minded and kind of these haters.

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

 I can see the lefts usual

 I can see the lefts usual bull sh** is starting on ol' Rush.  Apparently the worst crime in the world is hypocrisy. Too bad lefty's.  I'll still take someone who is 99% correct on everything and has had one flaw. 

Rush sure as hell has not worried about what the left's useful idiot's have come up with.  His viewership has gone up! Apparently irony never crosses the minds of the left either.

Liberalism is a mental illness!

With liberals, the only thing they have working for themselves is hate, which means that they are closed-minded,  have no common sense, they are incapable of logical thought, and  posses a dismal outlook of life.

This being the case, a person so consumed with, and blinded by hate must be considered in the throes of mental illness.

I love the Liberals who

I love the Liberals who write, "Rush is irrelevant..."  I guess he isn’t irrelevant enough….hahaha! they had to make a comment about “irrelevant” Rush Limbaugh....Poor Liberals.... we can only pity most of them....

 

I think

I am going to go with Rush, the airhead serving the air sandwiches. He will wreck the place within a year, where it took Jimmuh Carter two years and then two more years of agony. First you got to feel pain, before the cure dawns on you.

Obama is my guy, the airhead serving the air sandwiches.

Defending your own liberal is a 100% loser, see Gov C Christ if you want to know how that works out.

Clarification Of Terms

It is important people are able to discriminate between Addiction, Tolerance, Dependence and Pseudoaddiction:

From a consensus document from the American Academy of Pain Medicine, the American Pain Society, and the American Society of Addiction Medicine:

I. Addiction

Addiction is a primary, chronic, neurobiologic disease, with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. It is characterized by behaviors that include one or more of the following: impaired control over drug use, compulsive use, continued use despite harm, and craving.

II. Physical Dependence

Physical dependence is a state of adaptation that is manifested by a drug class specific withdrawal syndrome that can be produced by abrupt cessation, rapid dose reduction, decreasing blood level of the drug, and/or administration of an antagonist.

III. Tolerance

Tolerance is a state of adaptation in which exposure to a drug induces changes that result in a diminution of one or more of the drug’s effects over time.

IV.  Psuedoaddiction

Pseudoaddiction is a term which has been used to describe patient behaviors that may occur when pain is undertreated. Patients with unrelieved pain may become focused on obtaining medications, may “clock watch,” and may otherwise seem inappropriately “drug seeking.” Even such behaviors as illicit drug use and deception can occur in the patient's efforts to obtain relief. Pseudoaddiction can be distinguished from true addiction in that the behaviors resolve when pain is effectively treated.

Anyone can become physically dependent upon narcotics given appropriate circumstances, even those that are of strong will and self discipline.  Physical Dependence means that you need the narcotic at a legally prescribed dose to control pain, not for a euphoric effect.  The patient obtains and uses the narcotic in a legal fashion.  Withdrawl symptom