Limbaugh Detained At Airport

[underbear1]

These ditto heads rallying around Limbaugh seem to conveniently forget he's on probation for narcotic doctor shopping, and using his maid as a mule. He is forced to pee in a cup when ever the court decides that is needed. His probation is based on his actions to keep his nose, and any other apendage clean.If you were on probation for narcotics would you risk carrying a Rx internationally that wasn't in your name?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: underbear1 These ditto heads rallying around Limbaugh seem to conveniently forget he's on probation for narcotic doctor shopping, and using his maid as a mule. He is forced to pee in a cup when ever the court decides that is needed. His probation is based on his actions to keep his nose, and any other apendage clean.If you were on probation for narcotics would you risk carrying a Rx internationally that wasn't in your name?

And of course, Viagra is LEGAL. The cops would have seen that and if it was in his name it probably wouldn't have made the news at all.

And why should he even feel the need to hide it. If it was good enough for Bob Dole it shouldn't be a big deal for Limbaugh.

The question should be, what are those other, unidentified drugs?

[Mia]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Dont forget it was your hero, our retard in chief, who ran the UN out of Iraq when they were coming back with the wrong answer. NO WMDs! You forget it was "The Librulls" who were saying let the inspectors finish. They were almost done. But the wrong answer would deny bush their last excuse for war and profiteering. That is the point of several of my posts. The news story I posted in Post #1 of this thread, was scrubbed. I sent a letter to the Reporter and to the news station (See post #67). I posted those letters and their response (see post #74) on this page.

I hadn't read that far when I posted that. But that doesn't mean it's a cover-up. The media is often so anxious to get a story out, they do so before getting all the facts straight.

I would like to know if there were other drugs, though.

[gr8fuldaniel]

The email from CBS News confirmed there were other drugs. They just arent saying what. Something tells me, if it were anyone else we would know what those other drugs were. He could have gotten his stash of Oxy-Contin from over there. (I admit, that part is speculation).

[gr8fuldaniel]

Just in:
Limbaugh Will Not Be Charged Over Viagra

ABC continues to lie about Rushs case...

Charges in the Viagra case could have nullified a deal Limbaugh reached with prosecutors last month in which a single "doctor shopping" charge was deferred for 18 months, so long as Limbaugh does not get arrested for any reason.

If they will lie about the conditions of Limpys Deferrment, why wouldnt they lie about the contraband in his possession that sunny day?AGAIN.... The condition numero uno for el rushbo is that he NOT BREAK ANY LAWS. Period. The mainstream continues the lie that he: "does not get arrested for any reason" . Godammit! That means no jaywalking, no failure to signal a lane change.

[brien]

Quote by: underbear1 Saying someone is gay who is gay, is just a fact, and carries no shame. Saying because someone is detestable, and since gay is the slur du jour, therefore there's no harm in an insinuation is BULLSH*T! The fact that Limbaugh is demonstrably heterosexual by evidence of three het marriages, only adds insult to injury. btw. YOU were the one who brought "GAY" into this debate, not I, and not anyone else.

How do you know which way Limbaugh goes? You been in his bedroom with his partners? Oh, yeah, right, you know because you are gay. :rolleyes:

As Wailer wrote in his post, he was poking fun in a situation that has probably been blown out of proportion because of Limbaugh's high profile. No pun intended. I don't see the harm in a little humor. If you can't take the heat, well, you know what to do. No one was smearing anyone here.

That aside, give it up underbear. You constantly raise the issue of sexual preference in your posts. Anyone can go back and look at any of your posts and clearly see that you usually reference "queers" and the gay lifestyle you lead. There are other gay members here who do nothing of the kind. They make occasional references to their sexual preferences when appropriate, but no where near the volume that you do here. Perhaps you would do well to take example from them and tone down your activist demeanor when it is irrelevant. You are preaching to the choir around here. We all respect the gay lifestyle and our gay members here, so quit trying to smear me with your activist rhetoric. I'm not buying it, so sell it somewhere else, please. You may just get more mileage from it elsewhere.

You wrote:Saying because someone is detestable, and since gay is the slur du jour, therefore there's no harm in an insinuation is BULLSH*T!

I say: J Edgar Hoover was detestable and he was a closet gay, is this one of your, what was that phrase you used, "slurs du jour"? No, it isn't. But in 1950, by your logic, this would have been a slur? You can't say with absolute certainty, Limbaugh's sexual preferences, so your speculation is merely that, speculation. Maybe he is "bi", maybe he is hetero, maybe he is a closet gay, WHO IN THE HELL CARES ? Certainly not me. No one really knows except Limbaugh. So, I will poke fun at anyone I wish to without a care to whether you judge it moral or immoral, right or wrong, or humorous or boring. Your judgements, not withstanding here, do not make my day. Thank you.

[underbear1]

Be patient he's addicted to powerful pain killers, and he's unlikely to break that habit..........they'll nail him soon enough

Brien........whatev..., Guess I'm mistaken that faggot is the most common derogatory word used,(from pre-schoolers to adults), and that's when they aren't stating something is SO GAY. :rolleyes:

[gr8fuldaniel]

I just sent ABC an email, I am sure they are not aware of the typo:

I keep seeing the same lie repeated over and over in the media. Its like all the reporters are copy/pasting the wrong information. Your story: "Limbaugh Will Not Be Charged Over Viagra" includes the line: Charges in the Viagra case could have nullified a deal Limbaugh reached with prosecutors last month in which a single "doctor shopping" charge was deferred for 18 months, so long as Limbaugh does not get arrested for any reason." The RED (Edit to add: in the letter I used red. Here they are bold and underlined) words are wrong. The conditions of Limbaughs Deferrment are that he not break any laws....NOT that he "does not get arrested". Big difference. Heres the part of the actual document in question: I sent it as an attatchment. Heres a link to the document on the web: Limbaugh Detained At Airport Thank you for your honesty in the future

[Mia]

Well, they wouldn't know if he broke any laws if he didn't get arrested. I might be breaking laws right now but no one will know if I don't get caught! (I'm not, I'm just saying...)

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Mia Well, they wouldn't know if he broke any laws if he didn't get arrested. I might be breaking laws right now but no one will know if I don't get caught! (I'm not, I'm just saying...)

Most laws are not arrestable. There are white collar crimes. For instance if he let a "Shit" or "fuck" slip out on the air, he would be cited for it. He would go to prison for it. He is on probation....that means NO LENIENCY!
Misdemeanors are not arrestable, unless you are on probation. If he thumbs his nose at ANY law, no matter how trite it may seem, he should go to prison because thats exactly what happens to everyone else. Thats how we would know if he broke any law. He would get arrested.

Except maybe in Jeb Bush World. Where criminals are catered to.

[brien]

Quote by: underbear1 Be patient he's addicted to powerful pain killers, and he's unlikely to break that habit..........they'll nail him soon enough Brien........whatev..., Guess I'm mistaken that faggot is the most common derogatory word used,(from pre-schoolers to adults), and that's when they aren't stating something is SO GAY. :rolleyes:

underbear, I have heard every derogatory word for sexual preferences, and probably even have forgot some. I don't recall using the word that is interchangable with the common reference for a cigarette in Grt Britain. In any event, people who live "alternative" lifestyles in the good ol USA are all too well aware of of the baggage they carry. We don't really need to beat it up here. :)

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Most laws are not arrestable. There are white collar crimes. For instance if he let a "Shit" or "fuck" slip out on the air, he would be cited for it. He would go to prison for it. He is on probation....that means NO LENIENCY! Misdemeanors are not arrestable, unless you are on probation. If he thumbs his nose at ANY law, no matter how trite it may seem, he should go to prison because thats exactly what happens to everyone else. Thats how we would know if he broke any law. He would get arrested. Except maybe in Jeb Bush World. Where criminals are catered to.

Dan: I think you are overlooking one small detail. Mr Limbaugh is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers.

I guess I missed his trial. It seems to me that the authorities are overlooking the incident as they often do with high profile people of any political persuasion.

And to address your reference to Jeb Bush on crime statistics and causation see the link below.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-toughcrime.htm

Fromthe link:

Hiring more police officers and throwing more people into prison does not reduce crime -- in fact, those states which pursue this strategy tend to have the highest crime rates. And this is true internationally as well; the nations with the toughest approach to crime have the most of it. What are the real causes crime? Scholars lately have been drawn to two particular explanations: media violence and income inequality.

Conclusions from the charts in the link:

So crime is significantly correlated to police and corrections spending, incarceration rates and high-school dropout rates. Surprisingly enough, the correlation between poverty and crime is not too significant. However, as mentioned above, Harvard and Berkeley have found that income inequality correlates much more strongly with crime than poverty. In fact, these studies find that income inequality correlates with most of the nation's social problems.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Dan: I think you are overlooking one small detail. Mr Limbaugh is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers.

Then why didnt Drug Rush insist on a trial to clear his name, rather than "Donating" $30,000.00 to the justice system and agreeing to severe probation terms? And then when it reached sentencing stage he could stand proud and demand the same maximum sentence that he invoked on other drug addicts (who are exactly like him, sans the sizable stash and cash) ???

So now that he has accepted these terms, I think we can "Presume" guilt.

[lsbskins1]

Brien-

I find it interesting that you would quote a study that seems to illustrate a point that I have been trying to make to right-wingers and libertarians for a long time: That income inequlity is bad,bad,bad. If all those CEO's who have been creating greater and greater income disparity in the country are just doing what the market wants them to do and the market will correct for any harm and no regulation is necessary, how is it that this very bad result comes of what both of the groups I mentioned would claim to be simply the right and natural result of a properly opperating and rightly unregulated market?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Congradulations lsbskins!!

A 73 word sentence, Yee Haw!!!

Thats gotta be a record.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Quote by: gr8fuldaniel How do we find out what other drugs the fornicator was caught with? Anyone else have the feeling the 3 1/2 hour detainment was more about cutting a deal (bribery)?? Heres a replacement when drug addled Limpdick is sent up the river: Wow, you are lost, over the edge, and irrelevent. Are you Gr8, capable of anything other then vile? Are you so looney now you are reduced to wild speculation and juvenille humor? You once were capable of so much more... intelligent, if IMHO readical ideas, now you're nothing more then Hate-Bot. Nothing but the same old lameness, the same hate, the same desperation that your wild claims could be made real if you just say them with enough venom....

Were you referring to something in particular? Or just engaging in hate-speak yourself? Is that part of your daily 2 minute hate speak demanded by your Indictment Party?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Congradulations lsbskins!! A 73 word sentence, Yee Haw!!! Thats gotta be a record.

Well ! That would be the very definition of an ad hominem attack. No issue with the point of the sentence? Does it's structure negate it's validity?

Ever read Aristotle? His sentences are waaaaaaayyyyyy longer than mine and most people think he made some pretty valid points. Care to comment on the issue? Or would that take more words than you think are "acceptable" for expressing an idea?

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Then why didnt Drug Rush insist on a trial to clear his name, rather than "Donating" $30,000.00 to the justice system and agreeing to severe probation terms? And then when it reached sentencing stage he could stand proud and demand the same maximum sentence that he invoked on other drug addicts (who are exactly like him, sans the sizable stash and cash) ??? So now that he has accepted these terms, I think we can "Presume" guilt.

You misunderstand me. I meant his most recent brush with customs.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Well ! That would be the very definition of an ad hominem attack.

Thats not an attack at all. I was sincerely awestruck. Peace.

No issue with the point of the sentence? Does it's structure negate it's validity?

I agree with your point. I guess I should have mentioned that. I guess I was just overwhelmed at the moment. :) BTW, Aristotle had nothing on Charles Dickens and William James. Check out the THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE by William James (Full Text)

Quote by: brien You misunderstand me. I meant his most recent brush with customs.

My bad.

[brien]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Brien- I find it interesting that you would quote a study that seems to illustrate a point that I have been trying to make to right-wingers and libertarians for a long time: That income inequlity is bad,bad,bad. If all those CEO's who have been creating greater and greater income disparity in the country are just doing what the market wants them to do and the market will correct for any harm and no regulation is necessary, how is it that this very bad result comes of what both of the groups I mentioned would claim to be simply the right and natural result of a properly opperating and rightly unregulated market?

I am not sure I understand your point. The study states:


The second is income inequality. Although absolute poverty levels do not correlate too significantly with the crime rate (see chart below), income inequality does, strangely enough. Two separate studies, one from Harvard, the other from Berkeley, compared state crime rates to their income inequality rates, and[i] found that the states with the most inequality had the highest rates of homicide, violent crime and incarceration. The reason why is still being explored, but potential explanations include psychological reasons, and the fact that prices of needed goods and services are relative too, even in a rich country.

Please note the last sentence it states:The reason why is still being explored. . The study specifically states that psychological reasons are factors. Also, if inequality in income promotes a greater crime rate, it does not necessarily mean governmnent can solve the problem.

The fact that a small number of citizens, like CEO's are disproportionate in their income probably doesn't have much of an impact upon crime. I think the study is suggesting the income disparity is in general populations. And neither does the study suggest that government will provide, or even should provide, the solution.

The study states:

if the many social differences of these nations contribute to a lower crime rate, Americans should consider adopting these social policies for themselves.

It says nothing about government imposing these social policies upon its citizens.. This is my take on the study. Obviously you see it differently and probably would suggest that government impose controls on income in order to reduce crime. As you know, I would be opposed to such "solutions."

But this is a diversion in the thread. You point is duly noted.