KT,

I just did the Math and at a possible 216 Pills a Day.
Several Hundred Pills in a Weekend would be a Fair Statement.
( So You Were Right - KT :o)


KT - If you Think My Message is Scary . . .
= = = You Don't Like My Posting Style.

- - - Don't Read Them !

+ + + Don't Reply To Them [.]


Here is "Something-To-Remember":
When You are Opening a Can of Worms.
Whether they are Dead? -or- Alive?
All You are Going to Get is Worms [.]


yiosd ~ RHF
= = = Yikes, I'm One Scary Dude :o)
..
..
= = = Ken Thomas
= = = wrote in message . ..
On 25 Dec 2003 00:08:22 -0800, (RHF) wrote:

kt, Kt. KT !

"KT" Says (Writes): "Rush would take several hundred pills on a
weekend
- several hundred
- think about it."

OBTW: "KW" I like Your Style: AKA: th "-s" :o)



I just did the math. Maybe too much of an assumption so I stand
corrected on the amount per weekend.

Here's the quote helping me draw my conclusion.

"Limbaugh's former housekeeper claimed she helped the radio host buy
30,000 hydrocodone, Lorcet and OxyContin pills from black-market
suppliers between 1998 and 2002".

I assumed about an average of 150 a week. Then I figured he probably
got worse -- meaning he started out slowly and started taking ever
increasing amounts. So I was thinking he may have did 20 or so a week
in the beginning and then by the end of things was probably up to a
few hundred a week. Most likely taking those on the weekend when he
wasn't working.

No liberal spin. No conspiracy. Just a logical conclusion. Or so I
thought. Wow RHF - you're message is scary. The kt, Kt. KT! thing
and the nose growing comment and all the dashes, quotes, arrows and
symbols. Yikes dude.


..

"RHF" wrote in message
om...
FD,

Lets Do The Math (LDTM):

Most Common "Oxycodone" Dosage is 40 mg and taken 3-6 Times a Day.
= = = Three to Six Pills a Day. (Maximum of Six Pills.)

Maximum "Oxycodone" Dosage is 160 mg and taken 3-6 Times a Day.
= = = Dosage Factor: 160 mg divided by 40 mg Equals Four Times (4X)

Using your Heron Over Dose Numbers:
= Base Dose 200 mg
= OverDose 1800 mg
= "OD" Factor: Nine Times (9X)

Resulting Conclusion: 216 @ 40 mg Pills
1. Maximum of Six Pills
2. Dosage Factor Equals Four Times (4X)
3. "OD" Factor: Nine Times (9X)
TBL: 6 X 4 X 9 = 216 Pills in a Day should produce an Over Dose.

WOW... "RUSH" YOU DA MAN !
(He Is Still Alive - Wow !)


waef... ~ RHF
= When All Else Fails...
= = Take Off Your Shoes
= = = And Count Your Toes !
.


I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough for you. I never intended to imply each
of the supposed hundreds of pills was a narcotic. My original thoughts
are in quotes. :

"The original poster didn't support his claim, but hundreds of pills in
a
weekend aren't inconceiveable."

Note the word "pills" sits bare in the sentance, without any qualifiers.
Rush certainly was taking oxycontin. He's admitted as much. I'm open
to the possiblity he was taking other pills as well. Note the weenie
words "aren't inconceiveable.". I really have no idea how many pills
Rush was taking. Well, I know he was taking more than his doctor wanted
him to.


" It would take a fistful of 10 mg
oxycontin pills to have the kick that one 160 mg pill has. "

This is speculation. I have no idea which pill doses Rush was getting
illegally. The website says 40 mg tablets are the most commonly abused,
but I don't know if drug addicts get real picky about getting a
particular dose. Anyway, if Rush really was taking hundreds of pills
over a weekend, there could have been plenty of less restricted drugs in
the mix.


"I suppose
Rush might have been managing the opiate side effects with other drugs.
Elvis did. "

Again, this is speculation. As I understand, opiates have some nasty
side effects including depressed heart rate, depressed resperation and
constipation. A drug addict may try to counter act these side effects
with other drugs. Anyway, Elvis was the first guy who crossed my mind
when Rush's drug addiction came up in the news.


"Rush might have been downing vitamins and minerals and other
stuff the way bodybuilders and the health food crowd do."

A drug addict may load up on the vitamins and minerals to help fight
liver toxicity. He might even think the more vitamins and minerals, the
better.


This is all speculation. But it's far firmer speculation than the idea
that it would be impossible for Rush to have taken hundreds of pills
over a weekend.

I never claimed that Rush took hundreds of pills over a weekend,
although it's at least possible. I certainly never implied that Rush
took hundreds of oxycontin pills over a weekend. I don't mind making
that point more clear, but I don't know how it got lost in the first
place. This was one of those times I tried to write in clear and
concise English, and I don't think I was particularly murky.

Maybe the point got lost in a language barrier. I took Spanish back in
High School, and I didn't do particularly well. Languages have been
difficult for me. There must be a dozen languages I'd like to learn as
a SWL. Then, after I master those, I might take up "Illustrated
English".

Frank Dresser

Soliloquy wrote in message . 44...

As the jobs flow overseas, (yes, yes, Mr. Bush is increasingly to blame
for this as well)

The only jobs GW has sent overseas in the US Army.

From: "Stinger"


That's what was said in the thread by you and your buddies -- you moron.
Have someone read it to you.

Could you please quote where 'I' said that one's political orientation is
directly related to their respect of "law and order"? And what "buddies" are
you speaking of, o' wordless one?

If you can't, or if you won't even give us your weird twist on how you can make
such an interpretation, I guess you could just openly admit what a moron you
are!

Explicate, sir, because you desperately need to eschew obfuscation.
Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

From: (Brian)

The only jobs GW has sent overseas in the US Army.

GW has outsourced Republican telemarketing for contributions to call centers in
India. He has refused to take a stance against any outsourcing.

Really.

Ken Thomas wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 20:57:16 GMT, "Ross Archer" wrote:

Do I
misunderstand? Is there any value in jailing someone for becoming addicted to
pain medication, after he sought rehab? Any value at all??? I thought not. No
deterrent value. No rehabilitation value. Huge negative costs.

Is there any value in throwing a confessed sex offender in jail?
After they sought help a few times? Any value at all? Can't deter a
sex offender right? Can they be rehabilitated? Costs?

That's ridiculous. Putting aside the huge difference in degree of
these two crimes -- in your example, there's a clear, unwilling VICTIM
and clear harm, and in Rush's case, whatever harm was done, he did to
himself.

There is no point in discussing such idiotically unconnected examples.

More appropriate would be discussing how to punish those who refuse to
wear seatbelts or insist on smoking. THESE are comparable examples.

Besides, there are stupid laws that violate higher principles. Until
recently, there were actually laws to dictate what consenting adults
were allowed to do in bed, if you can believe that! Wasting valuable
resources that could educate kids, vaccinate poor children, or add
cops to the beat, or incarcerate truly dangerous criminals, to
incarcerate some guy who takes some pills and harms HIMSELF is truly
idiotic, as are arguments supporting such action.

It's obvious to anyone who actually thinks it out.



It's not a question of liberal/conservative values.

No, but it may be a question of reasonable people vs. "wacko" values.

I'm absolutely certain that Barry Goldwater, no liberal by any stretch
of the imagination, would agree with me on principles of liberty.
Where you're coming from -- that laws should be enforced regardless of
whether they're wrong -- is just wacko.

It's pure wackosity to jail someone for abusing perscription drugs
unless you can prove they were driving around under their influence,
or otherwise endangering others by taking them.

Ignoring unjust laws is no vice. Enforcing unjust laws is no virtue.
;)

Who could give a
flying F about how those ideals apply to this argument. If a law was
broken - pay the consequences. If not - no problem. If anything,
he's not a victim of his politics - just a victim of being famous.

As much as Rush's politics irritate me, I beg to differ. I think it's
exactly a politically-motivated attack. When's the last time a famous
movie star was prosecuted criminally for pill abuse? It's not fame,
it's scoring political points off an opponent.

Like I said, it's not hard to take Rush down, but do so on based on
his blatant hypocrisy rather than by violating his rights.


Regards.

The only jobs GW has sent overseas in the US Army.

GW has outsourced Republican telemarketing for contributions to call
centers in
India. He has refused to take a stance against any outsourcing.

PROVE IT.

MWB,

"Only a extremist would really believe that one's desire for
law and order is determined by their political perspective."

Only an EXTREMIST would call another person an "Extremist".

A more Moderate Person would call them "Over Opinionated" :o)

Butt Hey, Thats Just My Opinion !

fditkotm ~ RHF
= = = From Deep in the Kingdom of the Mushrooms.
..
..
= = = ojunk (Michael Bryant)
= = = wrote in message ...
From: "Stinger"

Wow... "Law and Order" liberals!



Only a extremist would really believe that one's desire for law and order is
determined by their political perspective.

Stop trolling on Christmas, you moron.


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

..

"FD"

The reply was NOT met to be any implication of the any misstatement on
your part and you in fact did communicate your thoughts and ideas very
well.

When I post to a topic here that is not related to Radios and
Antennas.
I tend to treat the post as an exercise in the absurd.

Maybe, my Tag Line
waef... ~ RHF
= When All Else Fails...
= = Take Off Your Shoes
= = = And Count Your Toes !

Should have Read
waef... ~ RHF
= When All Else Fails...
= = "I" Take Off Your Shoes
= = = And Count "MY" Toes !


All the World Needs is love, Love. LOVE !
TBL: Love Me. -or- Love to Hate Me.


irs... ~ RHF
= = = I Remain Simply... A Real Happy Fella !
..
..
= = = "Frank Dresser"
= = = wrote in message ...
"RHF" wrote in message
om...
FD,

Lets Do The Math (LDTM):

Most Common "Oxycodone" Dosage is 40 mg and taken 3-6 Times a Day.
= = = Three to Six Pills a Day. (Maximum of Six Pills.)

Maximum "Oxycodone" Dosage is 160 mg and taken 3-6 Times a Day.
= = = Dosage Factor: 160 mg divided by 40 mg Equals Four Times (4X)

Using your Heron Over Dose Numbers:
= Base Dose 200 mg
= OverDose 1800 mg
= "OD" Factor: Nine Times (9X)

Resulting Conclusion: 216 @ 40 mg Pills
1. Maximum of Six Pills
2. Dosage Factor Equals Four Times (4X)
3. "OD" Factor: Nine Times (9X)
TBL: 6 X 4 X 9 = 216 Pills in a Day should produce an Over Dose.

WOW... "RUSH" YOU DA MAN !
(He Is Still Alive - Wow !)


waef... ~ RHF
= When All Else Fails...
= = Take Off Your Shoes
= = = And Count Your Toes !
.


I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough for you. I never intended to imply each
of the supposed hundreds of pills was a narcotic. My original thoughts
are in quotes. :

"The original poster didn't support his claim, but hundreds of pills in
a
weekend aren't inconceiveable."

Note the word "pills" sits bare in the sentance, without any qualifiers.
Rush certainly was taking oxycontin. He's admitted as much. I'm open
to the possiblity he was taking other pills as well. Note the weenie
words "aren't inconceiveable.". I really have no idea how many pills
Rush was taking. Well, I know he was taking more than his doctor wanted
him to.


" It would take a fistful of 10 mg
oxycontin pills to have the kick that one 160 mg pill has. "

This is speculation. I have no idea which pill doses Rush was getting
illegally. The website says 40 mg tablets are the most commonly abused,
but I don't know if drug addicts get real picky about getting a
particular dose. Anyway, if Rush really was taking hundreds of pills
over a weekend, there could have been plenty of less restricted drugs in
the mix.


"I suppose
Rush might have been managing the opiate side effects with other drugs.
Elvis did. "

Again, this is speculation. As I understand, opiates have some nasty
side effects including depressed heart rate, depressed resperation and
constipation. A drug addict may try to counter act these side effects
with other drugs. Anyway, Elvis was the first guy who crossed my mind
when Rush's drug addiction came up in the news.


"Rush might have been downing vitamins and minerals and other
stuff the way bodybuilders and the health food crowd do."

A drug addict may load up on the vitamins and minerals to help fight
liver toxicity. He might even think the more vitamins and minerals, the
better.


This is all speculation. But it's far firmer speculation than the idea
that it would be impossible for Rush to have taken hundreds of pills
over a weekend.

I never claimed that Rush took hundreds of pills over a weekend,
although it's at least possible. I certainly never implied that Rush
took hundreds of oxycontin pills over a weekend. I don't mind making
that point more clear, but I don't know how it got lost in the first
place. This was one of those times I tried to write in clear and
concise English, and I don't think I was particularly murky.

Maybe the point got lost in a language barrier. I took Spanish back in
High School, and I didn't do particularly well. Languages have been
difficult for me. There must be a dozen languages I'd like to learn as
a SWL. Then, after I master those, I might take up "Illustrated
English".

Frank Dresser

I don't think he's being charged for abusing the drugs. I think he's
getting in trouble for how he obtained them. Hey, I agree with a lot
of the things you're saying. Drug use probably can't be changed with
jail time. I hope the guy gets better. It'll be a tough habit to
kick.



On 26 Dec 2003 10:41:59 -0800, (Ross Archer) wrote:

Ken Thomas wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 20:57:16 GMT, "Ross Archer" wrote:

Do I
misunderstand? Is there any value in jailing someone for becoming addicted to
pain medication, after he sought rehab? Any value at all??? I thought not. No
deterrent value. No rehabilitation value. Huge negative costs.

Is there any value in throwing a confessed sex offender in jail?
After they sought help a few times? Any value at all? Can't deter a
sex offender right? Can they be rehabilitated? Costs?

That's ridiculous. Putting aside the huge difference in degree of
these two crimes -- in your example, there's a clear, unwilling VICTIM
and clear harm, and in Rush's case, whatever harm was done, he did to
himself.

There is no point in discussing such idiotically unconnected examples.

More appropriate would be discussing how to punish those who refuse to
wear seatbelts or insist on smoking. THESE are comparable examples.

Besides, there are stupid laws that violate higher principles. Until
recently, there were actually laws to dictate what consenting adults
were allowed to do in bed, if you can believe that! Wasting valuable
resources that could educate kids, vaccinate poor children, or add
cops to the beat, or incarcerate truly dangerous criminals, to
incarcerate some guy who takes some pills and harms HIMSELF is truly
idiotic, as are arguments supporting such action.

It's obvious to anyone who actually thinks it out.



It's not a question of liberal/conservative values.

No, but it may be a question of reasonable people vs. "wacko" values.

I'm absolutely certain that Barry Goldwater, no liberal by any stretch
of the imagination, would agree with me on principles of liberty.
Where you're coming from -- that laws should be enforced regardless of
whether they're wrong -- is just wacko.

It's pure wackosity to jail someone for abusing perscription drugs
unless you can prove they were driving around under their influence,
or otherwise endangering others by taking them.

Ignoring unjust laws is no vice. Enforcing unjust laws is no virtue.
;)

Who could give a
flying F about how those ideals apply to this argument. If a law was
broken - pay the consequences. If not - no problem. If anything,
he's not a victim of his politics - just a victim of being famous.

As much as Rush's politics irritate me, I beg to differ. I think it's
exactly a politically-motivated attack. When's the last time a famous
movie star was prosecuted criminally for pill abuse? It's not fame,
it's scoring political points off an opponent.

Like I said, it's not hard to take Rush down, but do so on based on
his blatant hypocrisy rather than by violating his rights.


Regards.

KT,

Its Nice To Be Remembered :o)

Love Me. -or- Love To Hate Me.
All the World Needs is love, Love. LOVE !

To Restate the above with 'application' to Rush Limbaugh.
= = = Love RUSH. -or- Love To Hate RUSH.
= = = All RUSH 'needs' is for "You" to listen, Listen. LISTEN !


pwlp... ~ RHF
= = = People Who Love People, Are the Happiest People In the World.
To 'paraphase' Barbara Streisand in the Song "PEOPLE"
..
People,
People who need people,
Are the luckiest people in the world
We're children, needing other children
And yet letting a grown-up pride
Hide all the need inside
Acting more like children than children
Lovers are very special people
They're the luckiest people in the world
With one person one very special person
A feeling deep in your soul
Says you were half now you're whole
No more hunger and thirst
But first be a person who needs people
People who need people
Are the luckiest people in the world
With one person one very special person
No more hunger and thirst
But first be a person who needs people
People who need people
Are the luckiest people in the world...
- - -
..
..
= = = Ken Thomas
= = = wrote in message . ..

Good to start a new thread when you've been beat up with the old one.



On 25 Dec 2003 14:47:40 -0800, (RHF) wrote:

RJ,

BASIC FACT: Rush Limbaugh 'abused' Prescription Drugs; has
admitted being a Drug Addict; has sought Drug Treatment twice
before; and recently completed a Drug Treatment Program.

POLITICAL FACT: The Basic Facts are NOT Important [.]
What Is Important is Rush Limbaugh is a Conservative Talk Show Host;
and thus can be 'categorized' as "Social Deviant"; who requires
Internment for his Out Spoken Right Wing Political Views.

SIMPLE FACT: After she left Rush Limbaugh's employment; his
former housekeeper (Wilma Cline) was caught along with her
husband (David Cline) for Drug Dealing.

LEGAL FACT: After the Clines were caught, they then 'traded'
audio tapes and eMails that they claimed were from Rush Limbaugh
to the police and was "Granted Immunity from Prosecution".
= = = GET OUT OF JAIL FREE !

RECORDED FACT: The Clines are/were in-fact Drug Dealers and
evidently had kept records and evidence on their drug dealing
business to 'trade' with the police, if and when they got caught.

NAKED FACT: Punishing Drug Dealers if NOT the Focus of the
Current Criminal Investigation. Because the Drug Dealers are
being Granted Immunity from Procsecution" for Information on the
Right Wing Polictial Criminal who is called "Rush Limbaugh".

PUBLIC FACT: Rush Limbaugh is widely known as a Major Leader
of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. This has been publicly
confirmed by President Bill Clinton.
= = = We Can Trust Him At His Word :o)

APPARENT FACT: Rush Limbaugh is a Criminal (or ought to be
a criminal) for simply being Rush Limbaugh.

UNDISPUTBLE FACT: Rush Limbaugh is Rush Limbaugh [.]
( Rush Limbaugh has Publicly Admitted to being Rush Limbaugh. )


Just "The FACTS" Man ~ RHF
.
.
= = = "RJ"
= = = wrote in message . ..
Here's a topic for discussion;

it's claimed that;
Rush's houskeeper blackmailed him,
threatening to tell of his addiction
unless he paid her $$$$$.

If you threaten to tell the truth about someone
unless they pay you, is it blackmail ?
Would it be a criminal offense ?
How is it different from extortion ?

If they can prove that she took money to keep quiet,
has she committed a criminal offense ?
further
If she took the cash, then told anyway,
would she be liable in civil court for "breach of contract" ?

????

( it's a slow SW day..... )

rj


..

From: "Brother Bill"

The only jobs GW has sent overseas in the US Army.

GW has outsourced Republican telemarketing for contributions to call
centers in
India. He has refused to take a stance against any outsourcing.

PROVE IT.


Duh. Prove he hasn't. You started the assertions.

But, just for your needed education, try the following:

http://www.casperstartribune.net/art...oming/4624eddd
c346dde0c920e515aad2129a.txt

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0301/031301p1.htm

http://www.csa-dc.org/press_shop/CSA...the%20News.htm

http://bbspot.com/politics/News/2003...tsourcing.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec18.html

Now, it's your turn, Brother Bill. Please prove that Bush has NOT sent jobs
overseas. Bet you can't!

Why no real address? Not enough courage to attach your name to your clear lies?

Try again, loser.


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

"RHF" wrote in message
om...
"FD"

The reply was NOT met to be any implication of the any misstatement on
your part and you in fact did communicate your thoughts and ideas very
well.

When I post to a topic here that is not related to Radios and
Antennas.
I tend to treat the post as an exercise in the absurd.

Maybe, my Tag Line
waef... ~ RHF
= When All Else Fails...
= = Take Off Your Shoes
= = = And Count Your Toes !

Should have Read
waef... ~ RHF
= When All Else Fails...
= = "I" Take Off Your Shoes
= = = And Count "MY" Toes !


All the World Needs is love, Love. LOVE !
TBL: Love Me. -or- Love to Hate Me.


irs... ~ RHF
= = = I Remain Simply... A Real Happy Fella !
.
.
Sorry, my reply was over the top, especially considering that it was a
trivial point. Rush might have been taking alot of pills or a few, but
I didn't notice him getting groggy and dull witted.

I also have to figure he'll have an extra burden in keeping himself
clean if he still has chronic pain.

Frank Dresser

You and I had a discourse when the Rush drug scandal hit the messageboard.
You were fussing about hypocrisy and wanting to throw the book at him. Do
your own research, Michael. Seriously, you are not worth my time.

But then you felt you needed to come to the aid of the twits posting the
"get Rush" garbage above, when I pointed out the hypocrisy of the "law and
order" liberals. The first post in this thread's entire message was "It's
payback time!" It was followed by others in a similar vein -- which makes
my point.

As is the usual case with people of your persuasion and mental capacity,
rather than debate this point, you went for the personal attack, namecalling
(troll, moron, and extremist).

Basically, you just prove that that someone can have a call sign and own 14
radios, but still be a Marxist idiot. (Oh yes, the Marxist comment is a
self-description from one of your own posts as well, and no -- I won't do
your research on that one either. Google it yourself.

Oh, one more thing.... We're not laughing WITH you.

PLONK!

-- Stinger

"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: "Stinger"


That's what was said in the thread by you and your buddies -- you moron.
Have someone read it to you.

Could you please quote where 'I' said that one's political orientation is
directly related to their respect of "law and order"? And what "buddies"
are
you speaking of, o' wordless one?

If you can't, or if you won't even give us your weird twist on how you can
make
such an interpretation, I guess you could just openly admit what a moron
you
are!

Explicate, sir, because you desperately need to eschew obfuscation.
Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

Maybe so, Frank, but you're absolutely right that he must have been taking
SERIOUS amounts of these painkillers, given the side-effect of hearing loss
that these drugs caused.

I just got off of a year's duty as the foreman on our county Grand Jury.
Having eaten lunch most days with the District Attorney and various police
(state, local, and county), I'll repeat what they told me. "Methamphetamine
addicts are the most dangerous to others. Oxycontin addicts are the most
dangerous to themselves -- they usually end up dead of overdoses."

Rush is lucky to be alive.

-- Stinger

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"RHF" wrote in message
om...
"FD"

The reply was NOT met to be any implication of the any misstatement on
your part and you in fact did communicate your thoughts and ideas very
well.

When I post to a topic here that is not related to Radios and
Antennas.
I tend to treat the post as an exercise in the absurd.

Maybe, my Tag Line
waef... ~ RHF
= When All Else Fails...
= = Take Off Your Shoes
= = = And Count Your Toes !

Should have Read
waef... ~ RHF
= When All Else Fails...
= = "I" Take Off Your Shoes
= = = And Count "MY" Toes !


All the World Needs is love, Love. LOVE !
TBL: Love Me. -or- Love to Hate Me.


irs... ~ RHF
= = = I Remain Simply... A Real Happy Fella !
.
.
Sorry, my reply was over the top, especially considering that it was a
trivial point. Rush might have been taking alot of pills or a few, but
I didn't notice him getting groggy and dull witted.

I also have to figure he'll have an extra burden in keeping himself
clean if he still has chronic pain.

Frank Dresser

From: "Stinger"

You and I had a discourse when the Rush drug scandal hit the messageboard.
You were fussing about hypocrisy and wanting to throw the book at him. Do
your own research, Michael. Seriously, you are not worth my time.

Your memory sucks as much as your mental capacity. I said it was wrong to not
attempt to prosecute him as much as any other citizen. Painkiller abuse is
rampant in Kentucky and people go to prison everyday. Rush deserves no special
dispensation due to his celebrity.

But then you felt you needed to come to the aid of the twits posting the
"get Rush" garbage above, when I pointed out the hypocrisy of the "law and
order" liberals. The first post in this thread's entire message was "It's
payback time!" It was followed by others in a similar vein -- which makes mt
point.

You really need a logic class because your reasoning skills seem negligible. I
was attacking the very thesis of your convoluted reasoning, ie, that any
liberal favoring fair application of the law is a hypocrite. That's the missing
warrant to your non-argument. Understand?



As is the usual case with people of your persuasion and mental capacity,
rather than debate this point, you went for the personal attack, namecalling
(troll, moron, and extremist).


I pointed that your attitude was not fitting the Christmas holiday. I stand by
that assessment. I guarantee you that my background in both persuasion and
debate makes your assessment an obvious joke. You do the Google research,
troll.

Basically, you just prove that that someone can have a call sign and own 14
radios, but still be a Marxist idiot. (Oh yes, the Marxist comment is a
self-description from one of your own posts as well, and no -- I won't do
your research on that one either. Google it yourself.

Oh, please quote me saying I'm a Marxist. You lying bag of crap. I can point to
dozens of places on the internet where I've fought with academic Marxist
philosophers. Let's see you prove that I've advocated Marxism.

Oh, one more thing.... We're not laughing WITH you.

You sound more like a nervous giggler.

FU

STINGER,

Yes Rush is Lucky to be Alive - Amen.

Rush is also an 'example' of the FACT that even with:

Public Fame, Personal Fortune, and High Social Esteem.

NO One is beyond the Sicknesses of Our Society - NO One [.]


~ RHF
..
..
= = = "Stinger"
= = = wrote in message ...
Maybe so, Frank, but you're absolutely right that he must have been taking
SERIOUS amounts of these painkillers, given the side-effect of hearing loss
that these drugs caused.

I just got off of a year's duty as the foreman on our county Grand Jury.
Having eaten lunch most days with the District Attorney and various police
(state, local, and county), I'll repeat what they told me. "Methamphetamine
addicts are the most dangerous to others. Oxycontin addicts are the most
dangerous to themselves -- they usually end up dead of overdoses."

Rush is lucky to be alive.

-- Stinger


- - - S N I P - - -

..

"RHF" wrote in message
om...
STINGER,

Yes Rush is Lucky to be Alive - Amen.

Rush is also an 'example' of the FACT that even with:

Public Fame, Personal Fortune, and High Social Esteem.

NO One is beyond the Sicknesses of Our Society - NO One [.]


~ RHF
.
.
Rush the talk show host won't be mentioning the sickness of our society.
The real Rush Limbaugh probably won't make a public statement.

Life still has risks. People who go into traffic might get injured.
Some people who get infected by the flu get killed. Most of us can
drink without becoming alcoholics, but some of us can't. There are some
very powerful drugs out there, and some people who take them will get
addicted to them. I don't know all the factors involved in drug
addiction, but I suspect the biggest factors are exposure and chance.

Frank Dresser

"Stinger" wrote in message
.. .
Maybe so, Frank, but you're absolutely right that he must have been
taking
SERIOUS amounts of these painkillers, given the side-effect of hearing
loss
that these drugs caused.


Well, Rush is claiming the hearing loss was caused by an autoimmune
disorder. He says it's just a coincidence that he was taking the drugs
at the time. Dunno about that, though.


I just got off of a year's duty as the foreman on our county Grand
Jury.
Having eaten lunch most days with the District Attorney and various
police
(state, local, and county), I'll repeat what they told me.
"Methamphetamine
addicts are the most dangerous to others. Oxycontin addicts are the
most
dangerous to themselves -- they usually end up dead of overdoses."

Rush is lucky to be alive.

-- Stinger

And Rush wasn't breaking into people's homes to support his habit. I
guess the average addict buys about as much of a drug as they can
afford, and they risk an overdose after lean period.

Frank Dresser

ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
From: "Brother Bill"

The only jobs GW has sent overseas in the US Army.

GW has outsourced Republican telemarketing for contributions to call
centers in
India. He has refused to take a stance against any outsourcing.

PROVE IT.


Duh. Prove he hasn't. You started the assertions.

But, just for your needed education, try the following:

http://www.casperstartribune.net/art...oming/4624eddd
c346dde0c920e515aad2129a.txt

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0301/031301p1.htm

http://www.csa-dc.org/press_shop/CSA...the%20News.htm

http://bbspot.com/politics/News/2003...tsourcing.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec18.html

Now, it's your turn, Brother Bill. Please prove that Bush has NOT sent jobs
overseas. Bet you can't!

Why no real address? Not enough courage to attach your name to your clear lies?

Try again, loser.


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

From the Washington Post link:

"John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government
Employees, is gearing up for a long, difficult battle with the Bush
administration.

The union plans to spend $1 million on an advertising campaign"

BREAK

Isn't spending $1,000,000 of union members money on advertising called
"outsourcing?" Maybe it would be cheaper for them to use that money
in some other way than hiring Madison Avenue to lease time on Ted
Turner Network to talk to the People.

continue...

"in key presidential campaign states to argue that taxpayer money is
being wasted on government contractors and that the administration's
outsourcing efforts make it more difficult to deliver health care to
military veterans."

BREAK

Military Members are NOT unionized and are not part of the Federal
Employees Union. I wonder why this union has decided to pick up the
cause of Veterans?

continue...

"The goal, Gage said, "is not so much to saturate the voters with our
message. We're trying to get our message out to the people who follow
politics closely and to encourage the candidates to pick up our
issues."

The union also plans to spend at least $700,000 lobbying on Capitol
Hill in coming months, and AFGE legislative director Beth Moten and
her staff will focus on outsourcing, pay, overtime, labor rights and
employee rights."

BREAK

Hmmm. More outsourcing. I wonder who will receive the $700,000 lobby
fee. Why can't the union just send over Beth and a couple of their
reps to talk to government members on Capitol Hill? I'm sure a few
first class plane tickets, a few nights in a luxury suite and an open
bar tab would cost far less than $700,000.

So in the end, no matter who they are, they're pretty free with the
money as long as its not coming out of their own pockets.

From: (Brian)

So in the end, no matter who they are, they're pretty free with the
money as long as its not coming out of their own pockets.



Well, I guess you don't like labor unions. Is that why you think it's good for
Bush to send US jobs overseas?

So, YOUR complaint is that labor unions are spending their members' money to
protest outsourcing? So you grant that Bush is sending US jobs overseas, right?
I'll be honest, sir - your reply is one of the worst attempts I've ever seen at
refutation by attempting to shift the focus of an argument.

Let me know when you can actually refute any of the data about Bush
deliberately supporting sending US jobs abroad.

Bryant

MW Bryant wrote:
Why no real address? Not enough courage to attach your name to your clear
lies?

Try again, loser.


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76

If anyone posting a message in this or any other newsgroup is "hiding"
their true identities by using a fictious or non-existent email address, it
is most likely because they very wisely choose not to have their inbox
flooded with unwanted spam - NOT because they are "losers".
Grow up Bryant, for chrissakes.
UJ

From: (Brian)

I only had time to look at one of your links. Unfortunately, I don't
have unlimited time to follow all of your links, so I would suggest in
the future that you be more specific before wasting everyones time
with useless, vector links. I.E., get to the point sooner.


Bull****. The combination of multiple links indicate that the unions are
protesting an official Clinton policy. The fact that you can't (more likely
won't) realize that the official Clinton policy encourages outsourcing is
clearly more a product of your non-objectivity than your shortage of time.

But what evidence is there to the contrary?I've provided evidence, and you've
chosen to ignore the bulk of it. Prove my facts wrong. Come on, try to prove
something you assert.

MW Bryant wrote:
Why no real address? Not enough courage to attach your name to your clear
lies?

Try again, loser.


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76

If anyone posting a message in this or any other newsgroup is "hiding"
their true identities by using a fictious or non-existent email address, it
is most likely because they very wisely choose not to have their inbox
flooded with unwanted spam - NOT because they are "losers".
Grow up Bryant, for chrissakes.
UJ

From: (RHF

Most of these websites are by and for Government Employees Unions
and the Reduction of Government Jobs. This has little or nothing
to do with the LOSS of "Real" Jobs by American Workers to Overseas.

RHF,

The poster said that the only jobs Bush had sent overseas were military jobs.
That's BS. Bush supports companies being allowed to "outsource" jobs to the
Caribbean and India to maximize their profits. He's always supported companies
profits over keeping jobs in the US. He's even encouraged the RNC to do this
with telemarketers to gather Republican funds. You're confusing Bush policy
with others. Will post proof when I get off work, but it's Monday for us
Americans that still have jobs.

Bryant

In article ,
(LW) wrote:

"JC" wrote ...
It's payback time!


Soooo .. what did you have in mind?

He admitted the problem .. he went through treatment .. his ratings
are up a few points .. he's putting a few more million in the bank ..
hasn't he suffered enough already?

Come on JC it's Christmas .. try to have peace on earth and good will
toward your fellow man just for a few days. OK?

I don't listen to Rush, but the impression is that he advocates hard
time for all drug abusers, which would include him. Shouldn't he be
lining up at the prison door with all of the other folks who have harmed
no one but themselves?

Dave

Oui, it was a Klinton policy!

What a putz you are M. Bryant.
--
Ce message a ete poste via la plateforme Web club-Internet.fr
This message has been posted by the Web platform club-Internet.fr

http://forums.club-internet.fr/

"Ken Thomas" wrote in message
...
I don't think he's being charged for abusing the drugs. I think he's
getting in trouble for how he obtained them. Hey, I agree with a lot
of the things you're saying. Drug use probably can't be changed with
jail time. I hope the guy gets better. It'll be a tough habit to
kick.

Hope so. No sense in wishing ill will even on someone I don't particularly care
for.

I bet it is tough to quit, else why do so many famous people have run-ins with
them, *despite* the risks?

Imagine being a millionaire and still risking jail-time. Must be powerful
stuff.

And I see your point about how they're obtained vs. "punishing" him for using
them. Yes, a law is a law. But some laws are kind of stupid, which is why we
have jury nullification in case someone gets too literal and mis-apply them, and
I thought you were saying that drug use was comparable with child molestation --
and I don't think very many people would agree with that idea at all.

To my way of thinking, he did something stupid which will probably cause lasting
harm to his health, if any of the rumors are true. I'm trying to understand, in
general, why people equate totally and vastly different sorts of crimes. To my
thinking, you ought to get more time for assaulting someone in a bar than
shooting up heroin. In the latter case, you're killing yourself (most heroin
users will eventually die from it if they don't quit), but it's your life to
ruin. In the former case, you're hurting an innocent victim. At least the
addict knows what he's doing, and chooses to do it. Not to be cold, but I'd
rather honor his freedom to **** his life away, than trust government to decide
what is or is not okay and make everybody conform to that.

"We're from the government, and we're here to help you!" :)

Run! :)






On 26 Dec 2003 10:41:59 -0800, (Ross Archer) wrote:

Ken Thomas wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 20:57:16 GMT, "Ross Archer" wrote:

Do I
misunderstand? Is there any value in jailing someone for becoming
addicted to
pain medication, after he sought rehab? Any value at all??? I thought
not. No
deterrent value. No rehabilitation value. Huge negative costs.

Is there any value in throwing a confessed sex offender in jail?
After they sought help a few times? Any value at all? Can't deter a
sex offender right? Can they be rehabilitated? Costs?

That's ridiculous. Putting aside the huge difference in degree of
these two crimes -- in your example, there's a clear, unwilling VICTIM
and clear harm, and in Rush's case, whatever harm was done, he did to
himself.

There is no point in discussing such idiotically unconnected examples.

More appropriate would be discussing how to punish those who refuse to
wear seatbelts or insist on smoking. THESE are comparable examples.

Besides, there are stupid laws that violate higher principles. Until
recently, there were actually laws to dictate what consenting adults
were allowed to do in bed, if you can believe that! Wasting valuable
resources that could educate kids, vaccinate poor children, or add
cops to the beat, or incarcerate truly dangerous criminals, to
incarcerate some guy who takes some pills and harms HIMSELF is truly
idiotic, as are arguments supporting such action.

It's obvious to anyone who actually thinks it out.



It's not a question of liberal/conservative values.

No, but it may be a question of reasonable people vs. "wacko" values.

I'm absolutely certain that Barry Goldwater, no liberal by any stretch
of the imagination, would agree with me on principles of liberty.
Where you're coming from -- that laws should be enforced regardless of
whether they're wrong -- is just wacko.

It's pure wackosity to jail someone for abusing perscription drugs
unless you can prove they were driving around under their influence,
or otherwise endangering others by taking them.

Ignoring unjust laws is no vice. Enforcing unjust laws is no virtue.
;)

Who could give a
flying F about how those ideals apply to this argument. If a law was
broken - pay the consequences. If not - no problem. If anything,
he's not a victim of his politics - just a victim of being famous.

As much as Rush's politics irritate me, I beg to differ. I think it's
exactly a politically-motivated attack. When's the last time a famous
movie star was prosecuted criminally for pill abuse? It's not fame,
it's scoring political points off an opponent.

Like I said, it's not hard to take Rush down, but do so on based on
his blatant hypocrisy rather than by violating his rights.


Regards.

From: (Brian)

My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can bash
Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now.


Sorry, my post this early morn was mis-typed. It is Bush, not Clinton, that is
encouraging the outsourcing of US jobs.

Anyone with the minimal effort to check a URL could see that it was Bush. Check
this URL:

http://www.mcgladrey-family.us/kayne...h_permits_outs
ourcing.html

(For those with not enough time to click a link:)

Bush Permits Outsourcing

"Higher skilled jobs are going away," said Pricilla Tate, Director of the
Technology Managers Forum, a New York-based group representing IT executives at
large companies. "There are people who will not get jobs in the IT industry
again -- they just have been replaced." And the President isn't going to do a
thing about it.
ComuterWorld is running a story titled "Bush Administration Won't Impede
Offshore Outsourcing". While it's fully within the power of the President to
make it harder for companies to outsource work to offshore firms, there are no
plans to. Instead of providing a solution, Chris Israel, a deputy assistant
secretary at the U.S. Department of Commerce, said that "the answer to economic
challenges is growth and innovation."
Growth and innovation. When Detroit and Japan went toe-to-toe over auto
manufacturing, how quickly did growth and innovation help? Ten years? Twenty
years? Or how about textile manufacturing, with the United States going up
against China and other countries with poor human rights records? The truth is
that the manufacturing jobs went overseas and didn't come back. How long can
skilled workers remain unemployed?
Growth and innovation aren't standing well in the face of greed and
commoditization. Many of the IT workers in the United States created processes
and technologies that have enabled the globalization of information technology,
and they've lost their jobs as a result. They weren't rewarded for their
innovation.
The Gartner Group predicted that ten percent of all IT jobs are going offshore
in 2004. Despite the failing economy, despite all the indicators that this is a
crisis in the making, George Bush isn't doing a thing to prevent jobs going
overseas. His economic policy of tax cuts for the rich did not create jobs, and
his economic policy of tax cuts for parents did not create jobs. He's not even
attempting to set guidelines for trade agreements based on comparable workers
rights and human rights. His economic policy is a failure, and shows that he is
incapable of helping to retain the jobs we have, even as more jobs are lost."

Any evidence to the contrary? No? I wonder why not?

Bryant
Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

From: (Brian)

(RHF) wrote in message
.com...

NOTE: The "Down Sizing" (Peace Dividend) of the US Military in the
1990's was not the sole single act of the then President Clinton.
It was an ACT of Congress.

Daddy Bush got that one rolling, not Clinton. I was there.


Wow. Some hint of honesty on your part. How surprising!

Bryant
Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

From: (Brian)

There are non-Americans here who also have jobs, some of them
illegals. And they send U.S. $$$'s back to wherever instead of
spending them in our shopping malls, our pharmacies, and our
Blockbusters. But I don't hear you complaining about illegals or the
amount of money leaving America.

Wow, more stellar reasoning!

First, I've never supported illegal workers replacing US workers. Attacking
Bush outsourcing hardly means I support illegal workers. Duh.

Second, please explain, very carefully, what this has to do with Bush
outsourcing?

Third, when it comes right down to it, what has Bush done to stop illegal
workers? Nothing. It might have a negative impact on corporate profits.

You seem to enjoy being an idiot!

Bryant

From: (Brian)

Bryant, you're confused. That's why you have yet to respond to my
latest posting.

Once again, you prove that you lack basic reading capabilities. I said I would
respond as soon as I got off work. Some of us actually have to work for a
living.

My response has already been posted.

Timing your attempt as refutation,

Bryant

From: "Uncle Jizzie"

If anyone posting a message in this or any other newsgroup is "hiding"
their true identities by using a fictious or non-existent email address, it
is most likely because they very wisely choose not to have their inbox
flooded with unwanted spam - NOT because they are "losers".
Grow up Bryant, for chrissakes.
UJ

I don't but it. I've had this address on Usenet for over a decade. I'm not
buried in spam. It's a covenient excuse for people that don't want to stand
behind what they choose to say.

I think your choice of an anonymous screen name clearly tells a lot about what
type of person you are.

Bryant

Bryant

In article ,
ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote:

From: (Brian)

My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can bash
Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now.


Sorry, my post this early morn was mis-typed. It is Bush, not Clinton, that
is encouraging the outsourcing of US jobs.


Msut be why Clinton signed NAFTA.

From: nobody

Msut be why Clinton signed NAFTA.

Try again. GH Bush is the President that spent his whole term negotiating and
supporting the NAFTA treaty. Clinton signed it shortly after the 92 election.
The negotiating of the details took place under the two Republican presidents
that preceded him. Actually, the US negotiations for NAFTA were initiated and
supported by Reagan. Are you aware that GW Bush is currently pursuing a free
trade agreement to cover US trade with the entire Western Hemisphere? His
rationale:
It will protect US corporate profits.

As I said, try again.


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)