Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-13-2004, 11:19 AM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Rush Limbaugh and the ACLU

This is a transcript from countdown last night

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3947807/

[/QUOTE]
Sample items taken from Mr. Limbaugh‘s own Web site.

September 12, 2003: “If this guy had burned that flag,” Limbaugh said, “the ACLU and countless other groups would be down there supporting this guy‘s right to desecrate Old Glory. But because he‘s flying the American flag respectfully, none of the so-called civil libertarians makes a peep.”

September 23, 2003: “The ACLU has decided they‘re not going to appeal the 9th Circuit‘s decision to reinstate the California recall election. They must not really care all that must about you stupid—their term, not mine—minorities and poor people.”

December 23, 2003: “Where have all these so-called civil libertarians gone, the ACLU and the rest of them, claiming our government is overreaching?”

Maybe I am overreaching, but I do not think Mr. Limbaugh likes the ACLU. And something else he has shown an antipathy to, the right to privacy.

Again, from his own Web site. August 22, 2003: “I warned you about this ever-broadening interpretation of the so-called right to privacy. It‘s not a right specifically enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights,” a quote that made an odd preface to this next one from December 23, 2003: “Now they need my medical records, my private medical records, to find out if I‘ve committed a crime called doctor shopping? They now have to invade my privacy to learn whether I have broken the law?”

Today, the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Mr. Limbaugh‘s argument that the seizure of his private medical records was illegal. And Limbaugh gratefully accepted the ACLU‘s help.

His attorney, Roy Black, said he and Limbaugh—quote—“are pleased

that the ACLU has filed a motion” and added that the seizure was—quote -

· “also a threat to everyone‘s fundamental right to privacy”—unquote.

To say nothing of, as Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Clemens might tell you, if they were talking about somebody besides themselves, everyone‘s fundamental right to change their opinions on a dime and contradict months and even years of their own conduct and beliefs, everyone‘s fundamental right, the ungenerous among us might call it, to hypocrisy. Check, please.

[/QUOTE]

Anyone else see the hypocracy and irony?
Rekna is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 11:35 AM   #2 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Not really.

The ACLU has a mixed record supporting civil rights.

This is one of the relatively few times I agree with Limbaugh.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 11:35 AM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Yes, I do see the hypocrisy. At least that which is displayed by the ACLU in selectively filing against violations which fit their political agenda while promoting themselves as the champion of all the people and ignoring those issues which don't fit their beliefs.

Limbaugh makes use of his right to free speech to criticize an organization which he typically disagrees with. Is that wrong? Nope.

Is one of the ACLU's hot topics individual privacy? Yep. They should be filing suit as this records seizure has smelled since it first occured.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 11:46 AM   #4 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
Wow I bet that Liberals are red in the face over this one... who'd a thunk that the ACLU would help Rush.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 11:52 AM   #5 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Yes, I do see the hypocrisy. At least that which is displayed by the ACLU in selectively filing against violations which fit their political agenda while promoting themselves as the champion of all the people and ignoring those issues which don't fit their beliefs.
Every "issue" organization does this. Substitute NRA for ACLU in your quote, and you'll see what I mean.

Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Is one of the ACLU's hot topics individual privacy? Yep. They should be filing suit as this records seizure has smelled since it first occured.
I think the point here is that Rush Limbaugh's newfound embrace of the right to privacy stinks. The fact that the ACLU is helping his defense simply confirms that their beliefs are genuine and aren't politically motivated.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 11:53 AM   #6 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
I'm lad they're helping him. Nobody, even people who I don't like, should have their private medical records illegally siezed. Maybe this will show him that the ACLU isn't all that bad, and that they really do care about civil liberties.

I hope that this whole situation of his opens his eyes a little bit and shows him that people sometimes need help, not just punishment.
MSD is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 11:56 AM   #7 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Wow I bet that Liberals are red in the face over this one... who'd a thunk that the ACLU would help Rush.
I don't see why, the ACLU takes

Quote:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
very literally. Too bad conservatives always assume that just because they defend some very disreputable people, the ACLU agrees and espouses the beliefs of those people.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 12:07 PM   #8 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
I personally view them as a bunch of Liberal-oppurtunistic Christo-phobes. They sure as hell don't defend my right tp say what I want, in fact they've gone out of there way many times to curb it. If you don't think that their are other motivations to helping Rush Limbaugh, you are nieve.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 12:14 PM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
Every "issue" organization does this. Substitute NRA for ACLU in your quote, and you'll see what I mean.



I think the point here is that Rush Limbaugh's newfound embrace of the right to privacy stinks. The fact that the ACLU is helping his defense simply confirms that their beliefs are genuine and aren't politically motivated.

The NRA doesn't claim to represent everyone (including those for gun laws). The ACLU does.

The ACLU's politics go hand in hand with the cases they bring.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 12:18 PM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
Too bad conservatives always assume that just because they defend some very disreputable people, the ACLU agrees and espouses the beliefs of those people.
Yeah that's it. Broad brush & ridiculous assertion all wrapped into one.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 12:23 PM   #11 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Memphis
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Yeah that's it. Broad brush & ridiculous assertion all wrapped into one.
True...better and more accurate phrase would've been

Too bad many conservatives often assume that just because they defend some very disreputable people, the ACLU agrees and espouses the beliefs of those people.
__________________
When life hands you a lemon, say "Oh yeah, I like lemons. What else you got?"

Henry Rollins
sipsake is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 12:25 PM   #12 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Memphis
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
The NRA doesn't claim to represent everyone (including those for gun laws). The ACLU does.
Not true...the NRA often characterizes itself as the defender of 2nd amendment rights of ALL americans.
__________________
When life hands you a lemon, say "Oh yeah, I like lemons. What else you got?"

Henry Rollins
sipsake is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 12:28 PM   #13 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
You've got to be dillusional if you think the ACLU does a better job and is more representative in their quest to "defend and uphold" the bill of rights, then the NRA and the 2nd amendment.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 12:34 PM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by sipsake
Not true...the NRA often characterizes itself as the defender of 2nd amendment rights of ALL americans.
True enough. My mistake. I guess my badly communicated point was that the NRA takes on all legislation and actions which restrict the use and ownership of guns.

The ACLU does not take on all issues of free speech, just the ones that fit their agendas. The one pointed to at the start of this thread is a prime example. Should the right to display a flag not be defended just as enthusiastically as the right to burn one?

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Last edited by onetime2; 01-13-2004 at 12:42 PM..
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 12:55 PM   #15 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Memphis
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
You've got to be dillusional if you think the ACLU does a better job and is more representative in their quest to "defend and uphold" the bill of rights, then the NRA and the 2nd amendment.
Wow..."dillusional" (sic)...I'm not sure what that word means but it looks like it might mean the opposite of illusion which means I'm seeing the topic clearly?

You may have meant delusional, in which case you can relax...I'm not suffering from any delusions.

I'm sure many people who don't share your fanatically conservative point of view would disagree with your assessment of the ACLU vs. NRA.
__________________
When life hands you a lemon, say "Oh yeah, I like lemons. What else you got?"

Henry Rollins
sipsake is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 01:06 PM   #16 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Memphis
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Should the right to display a flag not be defended just as enthusiastically as the right to burn one?
While I may not always agree with the ACLU and what they choose to defend or not defend, I do consider them to be an important and worthy organization and one that I will continue to support.

I know of at least 2 cases where the ACLU has defended an individuals right to fly a flag. I'm not aware of a case where they've not supported an individuals right to fly a flag. I'm not saying they haven't, I'm just not aware of one.

As for flag burning...the ACLU may have defended the practice, but it was the courts that ultimately decided that flag-burning was a protected form of free speech.
__________________
When life hands you a lemon, say "Oh yeah, I like lemons. What else you got?"

Henry Rollins
sipsake is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 01:08 PM   #17 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
I hate both groups. The ACLU refuses to address the second amendment, and the NRA rolls over when it is politically expedient.
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
debaser is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 01:09 PM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
My point was Rush at one time was saying how there is no "Right to privacy" then all the sudden he is claiming there is a right to privacy. I think the ACLU is doing the right thing by helping someone who obviously dislikes them. Rush is the hypocrite here.
Rekna is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 03:48 PM   #19 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I personally view them as a bunch of Liberal-oppurtunistic Christo-phobes. They sure as hell don't defend my right to say what I want, in fact they've gone out of there way many times to curb it. If you don't think that their are other motivations to helping Rush Limbaugh, you are nieve.
They would defend to the death your right to call them Liberal-opportunistic Christo-phobes. I'd like to know when the ACLU has "gone out of their way many times to curb [your right to say what you want]". I'd love to hear examples.

/goes off to check his dictionary for Liberal-opportunistic Christo-phobes...
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 04:10 PM   #20 (permalink)
Insane
 
madp's Avatar
 
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Quote:
goes off to check his dictionary for Liberal-opportunistic Christo-phobes...
LOL! Now that's a $5 phrase if I ever heard one!



Rush Limbaugh and the ACLU? Makes me think that maybe there IS a God, and he's a very funny Guy.
__________________
why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
madp is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 04:50 PM   #21 (permalink)
Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe.
 
Location: UCSB
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
You've got to be dillusional if you think the ACLU does a better job and is more representative in their quest to "defend and uphold" the bill of rights, then the NRA and the 2nd amendment.
1. A gun is tangable it can be felt, seen, tasted, heard and often times has a smell. Civil liberties are intangable you can't hear, taste, see or smell a civil. This makes their causes intrisincly different when in comes to legal matters, such as defending gun use and civil liberties use, and a comparison of their track records in the legal arena is flawed for the same reason.

2. If you'r going to make claimes like this provide a source or warrants, a statement like this is absurd and only provokes ridicule from other TFPers.

3. A comparison of the two organizations is rather flawed considering that civil liberties don't kill thousands of people every year. I mean you never hear "my friend and I were walking around downtown last night when a thug pulled-out his right to petition with an illegal freedom of assembly mod and killed my friend" now try that sentence with a tec-9 replacing the phrase "right to petition" and silencer replacing "freedom of assembly".
__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."
nanofever is offline  
Old 01-14-2004, 08:40 AM   #22 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Quote:
Originally posted by nanofever
2. If you'r going to make claimes like this provide a source or warrants, a statement like this is absurd and only provokes ridicule from other TFPers.

3. A comparison of the two organizations is rather flawed considering that civil liberties don't kill thousands of people every year. I mean you never hear "my friend and I were walking around downtown last night when a thug pulled-out his right to petition with an illegal freedom of assembly mod and killed my friend" now try that sentence with a tec-9 replacing the phrase "right to petition" and silencer replacing "freedom of assembly".

Well, if you are complaining about sources, accuracy, etc, then you should know that Tec 9's are illegal, there is no such thing as a "Silencer" (it's a suppressor) and there have been no cases where a suppressed weapon has been used in a crime.

"Hyperbole, thy name is man..."
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 01-14-2004, 08:58 AM   #23 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I personally view them as a bunch of Liberal-oppurtunistic Christo-phobes. They sure as hell don't defend my right to say what I want, in fact they've gone out of there way many times to curb it. If you don't think that their are other motivations to helping Rush Limbaugh, you are nieve.
I don't think there are any motivations in helping Rush Limbaugh out specifically.
The ACLU takes on the high profile cases that have the potential to decide decisions for many smaller cases around the nation. This one case, if they win will cast a wide net for many other people who are having the same problem. The ACLU can't take every case so they take the specialty ones and the high profiles because there is more bang for your buck there.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 01-14-2004, 09:23 AM   #24 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: Calgary, Alberta
This thread is frustrating. Both (or more accurately, all) sides of this argument seem to be missing some very important points, and perhaps a bit of the big picture:


The ACLU, while flawed, mostly does the right thing. Like any large and old organization, there are politics and personal agendas that get in the way. But mostly, they fight the good fight.

Rush Limbaugh does not necessarily believe anything he says or writes in his media spewing. His only consistent agenda (indeed, the agenda of all "hot talk" broadcasters) is to get as many people to pay attention to him as possible. Maybe he does believe what he says, but I suspect not: he is a smart man, and his purported politics share some ground with the ACLU - controlling the size and power of the state. He has simply never mentioned this; indeed he has pretty much stated the opposite. Hypocrite or huckster? I'll go with the latter.

BTW - I am a newbie, and I really like the quality of the thought behind these posts. I'm glad to be here.
Candide is offline  
Old 01-14-2004, 10:23 AM   #25 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Welcome to the boards, Candide
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 01-14-2004, 11:15 AM   #26 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
The ACLU's motivations are obvious.

First, it IS an issue for them, the ACLU believes in a right to privacy (which isn't a right by the constitution), so this case does fit their agenda there.

Second, its Rush. This gives them a high profile case where they can claim the high road they haven't seen since they defended the Illinois Nazi's (I hate Illinois Nazi's). Everyone knows Rush doesn't like the ACLU so now they can pretend to be above the issue.

Third, the ACLU had taken it on the chin lately for being to liberal. This is something they can' point to as a big 'no we arn't' even though its one case, and not really a liberal/conservative issue.

Now to me this has nothing to do with privacy but confidentiality. There is a difference.

The day the ACLU defends someones right to own a firearm I’ll rethink my opinion of them.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 01-14-2004, 03:45 PM   #27 (permalink)
Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe.
 
Location: UCSB
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
Well, if you are complaining about sources, accuracy, etc, then you should know that Tec 9's are illegal, there is no such thing as a "Silencer" (it's a suppressor) and there have been no cases where a suppressed weapon has been used in a crime.

"Hyperbole, thy name is man..."
Regardless, the point that civil liberties don't kill people and guns do is a rather large difference.
__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."
nanofever is offline  
Old 01-19-2004, 03:43 AM   #28 (permalink)
Insane
 
This should not be surprising... The ACLU has always been a non-profit, non-partisan organization fighting "civil liberties violations wherever and whenever they occur." In the past, they have also defended Sean Hannity and Jerry Falwell.
hammer4all is offline  
Old 01-19-2004, 09:15 AM   #29 (permalink)
Junkie
 
The suprising part (or not really) is how fast Rush changed his tune once it was affecting him. He sounds like he is saying "No one has a right to privacy, except me of course"
Rekna is offline  
Old 01-19-2004, 10:01 PM   #30 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
It seems like the only thing left for rush to do is convert to islam and start speaking out against the "man" and his racist institutions. Seems consistent with his level of integrity.
filtherton is offline  
Old 01-19-2004, 10:43 PM   #31 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
I don't see how Limbaughs head keeps from just exploding on his shoulders.

First the man says:
Quote:
I agree with the view, best articulated by Judge Robert Bork, that there is no basis in the Constitution for the privacy right which was announced as the foundational basis for the constitutional right to abortion.
---Rush Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought To Be, p. 56 Jul 2, 1992
Then he says:
Quote:
There is no right to privacy specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
---Rush Limbaugh, Radio Broadcast- June 27, 2003
Now he says:
Quote:
Limbaugh argued that he has a constitutional right to privacy over the records, and that the seizure of the records by the State Attorney's Office was making it difficult for him to obtain treatment from his doctors.
---Through his attorney Roy Black, Dec. 16, 2003
I don't see how our constitution changed in those scant months. I guess when it was young women getting abortions, and being videotaped and harassed over it, it wasn't important. But when it comes to his medical records which would help put him in jail for most of what remains of his natural life, the right is important and needs to be a factor.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 09:14 AM   #32 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4037128/

Quote:
Prosecutors say no to Limbaugh Plea Pitch
Deal would have put host in rehab
in exchange for dropping charges

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Prosecutors rejected a proposed deal offered by Rush Limbaugh’s attorney that would have seen the radio commentator enter a court-sponsored drug intervention program rather than face charges, according to records.
Instead, Palm Beach County prosecutors wanted Limbaugh to plead guilty to the third-degree felony of “doctor shopping” — visiting several doctors to receive duplicate prescriptions of a controlled narcotic.
According to records of exchanges between prosecutors and Limbaugh’s attorney, the prosecutors’ offer included three years’ probation, participation in a drug treatment program and random drug testing.
Limbaugh, who has admitted that he became addicted to prescription painkillers while being treated for a back injury, has not been arrested and no charges have been filed.
The records were first obtained by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel through a public records request and disclosed in a story the newspaper published Friday.
In an attempt to head off charges, Limbaugh’s attorney, Roy Black, wrote prosecutors on Dec. 11 to suggest that his client enter a court-sponsored drug intervention program without a guilty plea.
“I believe this proposal would be in keeping with the public interest,” Black wrote. “The public is better served by treating addicts as patients rather than criminals.”

Treatment program not enough
Prosecutor James Martz wrote back on Dec. 15 that an intervention program alone was not sufficient. He wrote that prosecutors had enough evidence to support more than 10 felony counts.
“This proposed resolution is offered as an alternative to unsealing your client’s medical records and in an effort to bring this case to a swift and just resolution,” Martz wrote.
Black said in a statement Thursday to the Sun-Sentinel that his request “was for the same treatment anyone else in this situation would receive,” and called the state’s response “preposterous.”
Black criticized the letters’ release, saying he had expected prosecutors to keep his communications with them private. In the letter, he listed Florida statutes that showed why it should not be released.
Prosecutors said they consulted the Florida Attorney General’s office and other experts before releasing the letter and were told that Florida’s public records law takes precedence.
Prosecutors began their investigation of Limbaugh, 53, last year, after his former maid told them she was Limbaugh’s longtime supplier of prescription painkillers.
Limbaugh spent five weeks in rehabilitation after announcing on his radio show in October his addiction to painkillers.
Limbaugh’s lawyers denied their client was considering a plea bargain on Dec. 22 after news reports that he was seeking a deal with prosecutors.
It was unclear whether the prosecution offer was still on the table Friday.
Palm Beach County State Attorney spokesman Mike Edmondson declined comment. Black did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Ten felony charges. Geez.

“The public is better served by treating addicts as patients rather than criminals.”
I guess Mr. Black doesn't subscrible to Rush's political views. Amazing Rush would go along with it.....

Last edited by Superbelt; 01-23-2004 at 09:18 AM..
Superbelt is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 10:36 AM   #33 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4037128/


Ten felony charges. Geez.

“The public is better served by treating addicts as patients rather than criminals.”
I guess Mr. Black doesn't subscrible to Rush's political views. Amazing Rush would go along with it.....
“This proposed resolution is offered as an alternative to unsealing your client’s medical records and in an effort to bring this case to a swift and just resolution,” Martz wrote.

It's disturbing that the prosecutor is using the release of private medical records as a bargaining chip and that he chooses to share communications between the two sides with the public.

Further, "supporting 10 felony counts" is far from gaining convictions on them. Seems to just be more evidence that this case is being brought for reasons other than the public good. Is Rush really a threat to the public for doctor shopping? Probation, random drug checks, and treatment would probably be more than acceptable for another less prominent person with no other criminal record facing the same charges.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 10:45 AM   #34 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Nope, distributor volumes carry mandatory prison sentencing.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 10:47 AM   #35 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Nope, distributor volumes carry mandatory prison sentencing.
Huh? They still haven't proved the case. Bringing charges is far from getting a conviction. And, as far as I know, they didn't catch him with all the pills did they?
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 11:19 AM   #36 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
I assume that will be one of the charges as that is the one that has been discussed about most.
They do have proof of distributor volumes. I saw documents made available on The Smoking Gun showing the extreme events he went to for doctor shopping. Dozens of the same prescription in one month. Several hundred pills a prescription easily puts him up to the dealer volumes. Plus testimony from the various people such as his maid, and pharmacists and any of his dealers that they may be able to track down.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 11:27 AM   #37 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
I assume that will be one of the charges as that is the one that has been discussed about most.
They do have proof of distributor volumes. I saw documents made available on The Smoking Gun showing the extreme events he went to for doctor shopping. Dozens of the same prescription in one month. Several hundred pills a prescription easily puts him up to the dealer volumes. Plus testimony from the various people such as his maid, and pharmacists and any of his dealers that they may be able to track down.
It still doesn't put him in material possession of the drugs and it doesn't guarantee a conviction.

But anyway, what about the fact that the prosecutor is using the release of medical records as an implied threat? Or that he's publicizing communications between lawyers? It certainly seems to go beyond the bounds of a "normal" case.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 11:52 AM   #38 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
I think that's wrong and I hope he and the ACLU beat that back.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 12:26 PM   #39 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
I think that's wrong and I hope he and the ACLU beat that back.
See, if we argue long enough, we can find common ground.

I honestly have no problem with Rush going to jail if that's the norm for the crime(s) he's convicted of. The only thing that has bothered me from the beginning about this is that the case seemed beyond the "norms" of prosecution.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 04:23 PM   #40 (permalink)
follower of the child's crusade?
 
Does anyone actually listen to Rush Limbaugh?
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas
Strange Famous is offline  
 

Tags
aclu, limbaugh, rush

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:57 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360