Rush gets himself in trouble...damn liberals!

Quote from dgabriel:



So let Jimmy operate legally.

And it's not true that people would choose the most potent version available. Andean Indians have been chewing Coca leaves for Millenia, and still do today.

Some peole drink beer, some drink whiskey, but I don't know anyone who chugs grain alcohol.

Mav, Rush did not take the most potent drug available. Some snort heroin and don't shoot it. Rush consumed pills, he did not smoke opium and he did not mainline narcotics. He could have knocked himself out every day had he chosen to (but he chose to remain sober enough to knock out his lies and bullshit every day to the 20 million strong members of the Amalgamated Morons of America).

And for Canyonman, DUI is DUI. It's the operation under the influence that is illegal. But by your standard, alcohol should be illegal because people drive drunk.
More...

Well, Jimmy would be operating legally. If you made drugs legal then Jimmy would not be committing a crime. However, that would not get rid of the black market in which Jimmy operates. Jimmy will continue to sell harder, stronger drugs, and at a cheaper price. So if the black market still exists then crime still exists does it not?

As far what people choosing stronger drugs, look, we all know that for the most part 12 year olds don't just start shooting up heroine. They start with pot. Then after pot so many out of a hundred will move to ecstasy, then to maybe on to harder drugs like cocaine and heroine. Now I am not saying everyone, but a certain percentage out of a 100 will continue to move to harder drugs. Why? Because most people's bodies will become immune to the effects of the drug. Why spend all that money if your not going to get high right? Comparing India to this country is a bad example.

Again with the beer, its a numbers game, but so many out of a 100 will gravitate towards harder alcohol.

As far as Rush goes, I think it's sad that you are attacking the victim here. Rush has a problem and he needs help. Maybe he will recover from it, maybe he won't. Just because you don't agree with his opinions doesn't give you the right to stomp all over his personal life. Attack the issue not the person.

I stand by my statement that legalizing drugs will not stop or lower crime period.
 
Quote from Maverick74:



As far as Rush goes, I think it's sad that you are attacking the victim here. Rush has a problem and he needs help. Maybe he will recover from it, maybe he won't. Just because you don't agree with his opinions doesn't give you the right to stomp all over his personal life. Attack the issue not the person.
More...

As Rush is a public opinionater he is subject to attack for his behavior and ideas and where they clash. It is valid. And we cannot give Rush a free pass because he is a self confessed drug addict. It is sad you are trying to shield the conservative agenda from criticism by invoking Rush's personal problems. Rush is the embodyment of the conservative agenda, and as such his behavior will be measured against his opinions.

You sound like a reformed drug user?

 
Quote from aphexcoil:

I heard a story recently about a guy who decided to sleep it off after partying all night in his car. It was very cold outside, so the keys were in the ignition and the car was running (so he could keep warm). The police came by and arrested him for drunk driving. Now, I'm not a rocket scientist, but I always thought that drunk driving required that the car be in motion (hence the "driving" part of drunk driving). Well, apparently that isn't true. The law states in many states that if you are drunk and have the keys to your car with you and you are within X distance from your car, you can be nailed for drunk driving.

How asinine is that? The law is assuming that I'm going to break the law at some future point. This guy knew he was too screwed up to drive, so he slept it off in his car. He still got busted by the police and was ticketed and convicted. What kind of message is that sending out to society? He may as well have just tried to drive home anyhow given those circumstances.
More...

Alright let me respond to that statement although this is straying a little off topic as it doesn't really pertain to drug crime.

Aphie, listen you and I both know that out of 100 guys drunk behind the wheel of a car maybe one or two out of a hundred have the intention of taking a nap and driving home in the morning. The other 98 will drive home. Of those 98, 90 will make it home successfully. Another 3 or so will be pulled over and given a ticket. Maybe 4 will be involved in a minor accident where nobody really gets hurt. And one, maybe just one, will take someone's life. If that person's life happens to be your wife, your girlfriend, your parents, your friends, then you will care. It's a numbers game. The police officer does not have the gift of foresight in this case. He has to assume what every other rational person would assume that if you are intoxicated and the keys are in the car and you are behind the wheel, you are going to drive.

Now let me add something else here. You do know that just because someone decides to sleep it off a little does not mean they will be sober when they wake. I know many people that think they can wait a couple of hours or take a nap and then drive but they are still completely drunk. They just don't think they are.

Again this was off topic but I just wanted to get my two cents in.
 
Quote from dgabriel:



As Rush is a public opinionater he is subject to attack for his behavior and ideas and where they clash. It is valid. And we cannot give Rush a free pass because he is a self confessed drug addict. It is sad you are trying to shield the conservative agenda from criticism by invoking Rush's personal problems. Rush is the embodyment of the conservative agenda, and as such his behavior will be measured against his opinions.

You sound like a reformed drug user?
More...

LOL. No, I am not a reformed drug user. I don't know how you got that idea. Look, what Rush did was wrong, he knows it, I know it, you know it, the conservatives and everyone else knows it OK. If you want to attack the issue fine, but don't attack the man. Yes, it's hypocritical of him to denounce drugs one minute and go home and pop pills the next. But come on man, 98% of this country is guilty of hypocrisy somewhere. And everyone, yes everyone has skeletons in their closet. Is your closet door locked? I wouldn't want anything to fall out. The fact is most public officials and political commentators for that matter are guilty of hypocrisy somewhere. But to attack a man that has at least admitted his guilt, and is seeking help, and doesn't blame anybody but himself, come on, you have to respect that. I mean everyone else in society has an excuse, they live in a poor neighborhood, their friends made them do it, I'm under a lot of stress, it's a way of life on the streets, blah blah blah. He took the responsibility on himself and is taking action. He did the right thing. Let the man recover and if he does, you can attack him all you want on his ideas and commentary. Just don't step on a man when he is on the ground and helpless. Have some respect. Oh and by the way, I'm not a big Rush fan.
 
Quote from aphexcoil:



I'd like to know how Don knows so much about "High Times."
More...
That rag is certainly not "genx" specific, aphster. It was founded in 1974.
 
Quote from aphexcoil:



Oh ... My bad, I thought my generation invented drugs.
More...
Back to your inquiry, I looked at DB's picture on the BT ad blurb and didn't see a halo.
 
Quote from Maverick74:



LOL. No, I am not a reformed drug user. I don't know how you got that idea. Look, what Rush did was wrong, he knows it, I know it, you know it, the conservatives and everyone else knows it OK. If you want to attack the issue fine, but don't attack the man. Yes, it's hypocritical of him to denounce drugs one minute and go home and pop pills the next. But come on man, 98% of this country is guilty of hypocrisy somewhere. And everyone, yes everyone has skeletons in their closet. Is your closet door locked? I wouldn't want anything to fall out. The fact is most public officials and political commentators for that matter are guilty of hypocrisy somewhere. But to attack a man that has at least admitted his guilt, and is seeking help, and doesn't blame anybody but himself, come on, you have to respect that. I mean everyone else in society has an excuse, they live in a poor neighborhood, their friends made them do it, I'm under a lot of stress, it's a way of life on the streets, blah blah blah. He took the responsibility on himself and is taking action. He did the right thing. Let the man recover and if he does, you can attack him all you want on his ideas and commentary. Just don't step on a man when he is on the ground and helpless. Have some respect. Oh and by the way, I'm not a big Rush fan.
More...

I do not nor have I ever denounced him for having a drug problem. I don't have any personal interest in the man per se.

Rush in my opinion is a bad guy, a liar, and a mean spirited, manipulative demagogue. I said that before he admitted his drug problem, and I will say it now.

Why do you say he is on the ground and helpless? He has been addicted to drugs for 10 years but managed his life and business and public persona with his customary gusto. And why can't I attack Rush the commentator just because he is in rehab?

You are trying to give Rush a free pass because you are sympathetic to his politics. If a highly visible liberal were to be outed for addiction I am sure the conservative media machine would go into overdrive to attack liberal positions and link them to drug addiction.

Rush has spent years lampooning and deriding drug users, and calling for fierce drug enforcement. Aphexcoil has called up a few of the hundreds of quotes available from the big mouth on this issue.

And your downplaying hypocrisy is miserable. If you cannot practice what you preach shut the fuck up and get off the air.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top