Limbaugh arrested

Nice post, Snood. You usually lace a complete sentence with half a dozen anti-Bushisms. The anger management must be working.

0 Replies

Pick and spin away, folks.

As stated earlier, Kennedy's no role model for anyone suffering from bipolar disorder. His comments show the level of his denial. At best, he's delusional, and more likely, he's hypocritical to the letter of the definition in the Blatham/Parados traveling dictionary.

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

parados wrote:
Blatham,

It certainly didn't appear like Whooda was going to bother to look up the word "hypocrisy."

Maybe supplying the definition here will help him understand how coming out for gun control doesn't make Kennedy hypocritical if he drives under the influence of a drug.

Actually I was ignoring your schoolmarm-ish post.

No sense sticking to the definitions. That might mean you actually have to make sense. It so much easier when you just use words without caring if they apply or not.

I guess it makes me school marmish or maybe an elitist to expect people to use a word correctly. Oh wait.. I guess I haven't asked what supposed meaning you are using for schoolmarmish. Do you mean you are wrong for your usage of "hypocrisy"? It does make it impossible to communicate when you can decide what words mean without telling us. Of course you can't communicate what the words mean without using words and we can't tell what any of your definitions are since you don't want to rely on any accepted usage.

0 Replies

Pffffft .... Razz

0 Replies

Speaking of comments showing a level of denial....

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Pffffft ....

0 Replies

Actually, whooda's catching me out on the spelling of "privilege" was pretty funny.

But as regards care in the use of language and carefulness in thinking, there's no law which says Whooda has to bother with that stuff. He does have the option of red-faced yelling and spitting.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Actually, whooda's catching me out on the spelling of "privilege" was pretty funny.

But as regards care in the use of language and carefulness in thinking, there's no law which says Whooda has to bother with that stuff. He does have the option of red-faced yelling and spitting.

And he can even do both at once!

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
So I wonder, now that Patrick Kennedy is entering rehab for an addiction to painkillers, will those who have been all over Limbaugh's case about his addiction show the same vehemence toward Kennedy? Just a thought.

And before anyone misunderstands, I hope he gets the help he needs to kick his dependency. Just as I hope Limbaugh got the help he needed to kick his dependency also.

The point, CR, is hypocrisy and lack of integrity. Were it the case that Kennedy had made the sort of statements (re drug use) that Limbaugh had made then your comparison would be valid.

Again, I have no ax to grind here (I am not a Rush listener so I have little to base my opinion on re his comments and their context), but you claim he is a hypocrit since he was so anti-drug use yet became addicted to prescription painkillers. Hmmm, so since you evidently don't think P. Kennedy is a hypocrite in this area, then you are saying that he fully supports and believes it is ok to use illegal drugs? After all, if he does not, then he too is a hypocrite. Right?

At least, this is only logical if you follow your reasoning out to its logical conclusion. But, heck, it matters little to me one way or the other. Hopefully both will kick their addiction and be able to get past this part of their lives.

0 Replies

One difference you're failing to acknowledge here, CR, is that Lamebrain made a big public stink about drug users on his broadcasts--so that's how we know he's a hypocrit. Kennedy may or may not be a hypocrit in that regard--it's hard to say as he is not know for loudly condemning drug use publicly.

0 Replies

But that brings up an interesting debate. Just because someone has no radio show and is not on record numerous times as being against drug use, does that make them less of a hypocrit than someone who does have a show/forum to make their views known? Of course, I am assuming Mr. Kennedy is against illegal drug use. Maybe he is not against it and thus is no hypocrit at all. But I would hope otherwise.
Secondly, can we really call either one a hypocrit. After all, both became addicted to prescribed painkillers, something that happens to many people who probably are just as vehemently against illegal drug use as Limbaugh (and probably Kennedy). Why is being vocal about illegal drug use and then becoming addicted to a prescribed painkiller make one a hypocrit?

I don't know, maybe I've spent too much time questioning this anyway. Personally, I can see how easily someone can become dependent on painkillers, regardless of their view on illegal drugs and drug addicts.

0 Replies

No, the point is that someone who broadcasts his loudmouthed condemnation of others for doing what he is secretly doing himself just sets himself up as a painfully obvious hypocrit if he does get busted. You seem to go out of your way to defend this scumbag--i find your possible motives suspect.

0 Replies

I'm really not trying to defend him at all. Just trying to understand the difference between the outrage over his addiction and the apparent acceptance of Kennedy's addiction. The hypocrit excuse just doesn't fly with me since by definition Kennedy is a hypocrit if he has ever voiced an opinion that drug abuse is wrong. The fact that he does not do so on a national radio show is in my opinion, no defense of his hypocrisy.

I'm left then with the only difference being that Limbaugh has earned his hatred because many disagree with his political beliefs while Kennedy gets a pass by those on the left because of his. That in itself seems a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Personally, I don't think this is a big enough deal to spend much time on, whether the drug addict's name is Kennedy or Limbaugh. Seems it is a personal issue that they need to get help for. Kennedy at least has recognized that he needs the help and is getting it. I have no idea whether Limbaugh has gotten himself any help or not. I don't follow him so I just don't know. I would assume he has, but maybe not.

0 Replies

Upon what basis do you assert that Kennedy "gets a pass?" Your assumption reeks of partisanship.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

But that brings up an interesting debate. Just because someone has no radio show and is not on record numerous times as being against drug use, does that make them less of a hypocrit than someone who does have a show/forum to make their views known? Of course, I am assuming Mr. Kennedy is against illegal drug use. Maybe he is not against it and thus is no hypocrit at all. But I would hope otherwise.
Secondly, can we really call either one a hypocrit. After all, both became addicted to prescribed painkillers, something that happens to many people who probably are just as vehemently against illegal drug use as Limbaugh (and probably Kennedy). Why is being vocal about illegal drug use and then becoming addicted to a prescribed painkiller make one a hypocrit?

I don't know, maybe I've spent too much time questioning this anyway. Personally, I can see how easily someone can become dependent on painkillers, regardless of their view on illegal drugs and drug addicts.

It makes one a hypocrite if one has fiercely espoused harsh penalties for drug use while being an addict oneself, and has used all one's power to avoid such penalties oneself.

For me, the only importance of such private matters is if one has made a point of condemning in others what one is doing oneself, and has used one's power to campaign about the issue.

This is what sets it apart from ordinary hypocrisy.

I agree that Limbaugh's addiction is a personal tragedy, and, much as I am sickened by his positions (and expression of them) on things, I would be defending him re this IF he had not used his position to rail against drugs.

It seems he and Kennedy may both be guilty of using power and money to avoid legal consequences.

Unless Kennedy has made a campaign of opposing this, or promoting sobriety, he is not a hypocrite.

So, I would see them as equal re one issue, but only Limbaugh guilty of censurable hypocrisy.

BTW, I consider those raising Ted Kennedy's history in relation to this Kennedy's issue as very untoward.

0 Replies

I might remind you that this thread is about Rush--it's not about Kennedy. If you can't see that dragging Kennedy into this (and there are other threads about Kennedy, as well as about a claim of a dichotomous view of hypocricy) is irrelevant to a discussion of Limbaugh, than i am certain your remarks here are motivated by partisanship.

Limbaugh's remarks have been loud, and consistently condemnatory of entire classes of people because of alleged drug abuse. They border on racism, and they definitely have an air of elitism. They have also suggested that his partisan opponents are sympthatetic to drug use, and morally bankrupt as a result. The flagrant nature of his attacks on drug users, and his attempts to smear his political opponents referentially, make his hypocricy the more pungent.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Upon what basis do you assert that Kennedy "gets a pass?" Your assumption reeks of partisanship.

I don't mean it to reek of partisanship. Frankly, in the way I am using the term "pass", I am more than willing to give him a pass myself. I'm quite willing to give anyone a pass for becoming addicted to prescribed painkillers. I'm told it really is rather easy to happen.

When I say gets a pass, I mean only in the respect that so many here have vehemently attacked one person's addiction while saying nary a word about another's.

Dlowan: I can somewhat understand what you are saying. The only thing I find difficult is the assigning of degrees of hypocrisy. You seem to say there is "normal" hypocrisy and what? The definition of hypocrisy as posted earlier seems to not say anything about "norma" hypocrisy and some other type.

As I said, I do not know for certain if Kennedy is a hypocrit in this matter. He may well be in favor of illegal drug use. But if asked, I somehow bet he is against it. Thus any way you cut it, he would be a hypocrit, by definition. And I have never heard of degrees of hypocrisy.

Oh well. As far as I'm concerned, I really couldn't care less since I don't listen to Limbaugh and Kennedy is not my congressman. I think I'll leave things for those who care passionately about either one to debate and discuss.

Oh, one more thing. I agree Dlowan that Ted Kennedy has no bearing in this discussion and it is silly to drag him into it. No accounting for some people though.

Take care y'all

0 Replies

CR, this thread is about Limbaugh. Small wonder that the people here weren't discussing Kennedy. Except of course, for the rightwingnutjobs who delight in the "oh yeah, well what about this guy?" tactic.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I might remind you that this thread is about Rush--it's not about Kennedy. If you can't see that dragging Kennedy into this (and there are other threads about Kennedy, as well as about a claim of a dichotomous view of hypocricy) is irrelevant to a discussion of Limbaugh, than i am certain your remarks here are motivated by partisanship.

Limbaugh's remarks have been loud, and consistently condemnatory of entire classes of people because of alleged drug abuse. They border on racism, and they definitely have an air of elitism. They have also suggested that his partisan opponents are sympthatetic to drug use, and morally bankrupt as a result. The flagrant nature of his attacks on drug users, and his attempts to smear his political opponents referentially, make his hypocricy the more pungent.

You obviously seem to know more about Limbaugh than I do. So I won't argue the points you are making cause I just don't know. As I said, I have only been trying to understand the difference in the rhetoric between the two cases.

Oh, and sorry if I have somehow gotten the thread off-track by bringing up Kennedy. It is true that this thread was simply about Limbaugh, but I thought my questions regarding the way another case of drug addiction was viewed was a legitimate question.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Upon what basis do you assert that Kennedy "gets a pass?" Your assumption reeks of partisanship.

I don't mean it to reek of partisanship. Frankly, in the way I am using the term "pass", I am more than willing to give him a pass myself. I'm quite willing to give anyone a pass for becoming addicted to prescribed painkillers. I'm told it really is rather easy to happen.

When I say gets a pass, I mean only in the respect that so many here have vehemently attacked one person's addiction while saying nary a word about another's.

Dlowan: I can somewhat understand what you are saying. The only thing I find difficult is the assigning of degrees of hypocrisy. You seem to say there is "normal" hypocrisy and what? The definition of hypocrisy as posted earlier seems to not say anything about "norma" hypocrisy and some other type.

As I said, I do not know for certain if Kennedy is a hypocrit in this matter. He may well be in favor of illegal drug use. But if asked, I somehow bet he is against it. Thus any way you cut it, he would be a hypocrit, by definition. And I have never heard of degrees of hypocrisy.

Oh well. As far as I'm concerned, I really couldn't care less since I don't listen to Limbaugh and Kennedy is not my congressman. I think I'll leave things for those who care passionately about either one to debate and discuss.

Oh, one more thing. I agree Dlowan that Ted Kennedy has no bearing in this discussion and it is silly to drag him into it. No accounting for some people though.

Take care y'all

Yes, I agree it is a woolly definition.

I think that publicly campaigning for a particular thing...like harsh penalties for drug abuse....makes the difference. This is where we are attempting to have effects on other people's lives.

Generally blowing your mouth off about your kids' drug use, while sipping your whisky and puffing on your cigarette, would not call for any media notice, (just a calling by your nearest and dearest, hopefully).

Demanding harsh imprisonment for drug use from a public media pulpit makes for a different standard of PUBLIC accountability....like a holy roller condemning adultery and homosexuality from some TV mass hysteria show, and getting caught having a torrid affair with his male secretary, would be a case where there was a legitimate public interest in what is normally purely a personal and private, I think...if giving examples helps at all.

While Kennedy would probably feel the need, as a polly, to say he was against drugs and whatever, if asked publicly, because of the attitude to such things in your country, unless he has campaigned that users should have harsh penalties, I do not think that he is a hypocrite in a manner that should be of legitimate public interest.

Actually, I think he has been public about his problems?

As I say, this is quite distinct from the question of whether he has, or hasn't, misused money and position to avoid prosecution.

0 Replies

As we have had quite a few references to Limbaugh's "railing against drug abuse" and citing such as proof of his hypocrisy, could we get some actual documentation (links? transcripts?) containing Mr. Limbaugh's comments on painkiller addiction and/or doctor shopping as opposed to his garden variety comments on illegal drug abuse/trafficking which most everyone in the general population opposes?

0 Replies

Limbaugh arrested

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know