KT,

Its Nice To Be Remembered )

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 )

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


..

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

A vindictive mentality just drags everybody down in the mud shouting and
slugging it out. When a "winner" ultimately emerges, it won't settle which
position is right or superior, just who has the bigger fists. That's fine for
troops of baboons, but not so good for civilized humans.

Yes, Rush's "get tough on drug users" stand is infinitely hypocritical, and
speaks for itself. You want to harm Rush? Dig out those quotes and trot them
out. However, aside from whatever damage this does to Rush's credibility, I
thought the classic liberal position was that this drug addiction is a medical
and rehabilitation problem, rather than a law enforcement one. 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.

This whole business of digging into his medical records and violating his
privacy rights disgusts me, and quite frankly, those who are driving this ought
to be ashamed of themselves if they're acting this way out of political motives.

I sickens me to see this kind of mentality amongst supposedly evolved people.
I'm not just saying this. You guys - get a grip and play the game by the rules.

My 0.02.

-- Ross

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?

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

Regards.

In article ,
says...
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?

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

Regards.


Equating sex offenders with drug addiction is just plain nuts.

The drug laws are totally out of whack.


BDK

You're missing the point stupid. The sex offender part is not the key
here. Substitute any crime you'd like. What I'm trying to get across
is that a law is a law - the dude broke it whether he went to rehab or
maybe it's not a deterrent, etc... Intentions don't mean a damn
thing.



On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 22:59:45 -0500, BDK
wrote:

In article ,
says...
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?

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

Regards.


Equating sex offenders with drug addiction is just plain nuts.

The drug laws are totally out of whack.


BDK

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.

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.

"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: (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

ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
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.

What other jobs does he have the authority to send overseas?

OK, diplomats to countries that we have relations with and a few UN
appointments.

What others?

That's BS.

Of course it isn't.

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.

Then talk to their shareholders. BTW, do you have a 401K or an IRA?
Hmmmm?

He's even encouraged the RNC to do this
with telemarketers to gather Republican funds.

Encouraging something is different than having the authority to make
it happen. Personally, I think he ought to ask those Chinese Nuns and
Arms Merchants for a few bucks while he's out there "encouraging"
donations.

You're confusing Bush policy
with others.

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

Will post proof when I get off work, but it's Monday for us
Americans that still have jobs.

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.