-->MERGED: Rush Limbaugh & Viagra + Repeat Drug Addict Buys Freedom... - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-29-2006, 06:40 PM   #31
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 05:22 AM
Rush Limbaugh should possibly be jailed just for being Rush Limbaugh but NOT for small amounts of perscription (or any non-perscription) drugs.
__________________

__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 06-30-2006, 04:12 PM   #32
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 11:22 AM
Could his presence in the Dominican Republic (along with the Viagra) have anything to do with it's flourishing sex tourism industry? Just wondering....
__________________

__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 06-30-2006, 08:11 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (June 26) - Rush Limbaugh was detained for more than three hours Monday at Palm Beach International Airport after authorities said they found a bottle of Viagra in his possession without a prescription.
Interesting how the TSA struggles to find potential weapons in our luggage (with occasional misses), yet they can tell that a pill container contains items without a prescription.

If non-prescription Viagra was really a concern, the government better start tracking anyone who follows links to their junk mail.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-05-2006, 05:37 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 06:22 AM
Sorry, I have to laugh (not in that way, hopefully the collective you of FYM knows what I mean) that he thinks Viagra would be embarrassing to him in light of some of the things he has said on the public airwaves that should be truly embarrassing


Palm Beach Post Staff Report

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

The State Attorney's Office said today that it will not file charges against conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh for possessing a bottle of Viagra prescribed to his doctor.

Limbaugh was detained for more than three hours last week at Palm Beach International Airport after customs agents found the pills in his luggage.

Chief Assistant State Attorney Paul H. Zacks wrote in memo that Dr. Steven Strumwasser agreed to have his name on the label to avoid "potentially embarrassing publicity" for Limbaugh.

"Thus, the medication contained in the subject pill bottle was legitimately prescribed to the suspect by his physician," Zacks wrote in the memo.

His office plans to turn over a copy of Limbaugh's files to officials in Miami-Dade County to investigate the mislabeling on the pill bottle.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-05-2006, 07:44 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:22 AM
I saw this news report earlier. I am surprised that medications can be issued in a third party’s name to avoid stigma. On the other hand, consider how we carefully use language to avoid creating stigmas in medical situations (like labeling a child overweight). Generally speaking, would it be reasonable to infer that a male with a prescription for Viagra might be embarrassed by the need for the drug? I know there are those who wear it like a badge of honor (look what I can do again), but at the same time there are other who would prefer to keep such a need private?

Or has Limbaugh lost all right to sensitivity? (that is a FYM softball )
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-05-2006, 09:48 PM   #36
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
OK - is his fine and rehab requirement too lenient?
Yes. Rehab is a joke in too many cases for it to be considered worthwhile. I lost my last vestige of sympathy for all drug addicts, regardless of the type, at 2.30pm yesterday. As I was driving into the hospital grounds to pick mum up from work, a man wandered down the middle of the drive and seemed to get out of the way enough so I moved on forward. I heard him then thump the side of my car. Fantastic. I had hit a pedestrian. A methodone fucked one at that. I pulled up to check my car and then figured I should go and ask if he was hurt. Instead I got abused relentlessly until I rolled my eyes and jumped back in the car to drive off. He wasn't hurt, by the way. He then came after me and launched himself at the car capsule my 6 month old baby was strapped into. Honestly, if I had a gun, I'd have shot the fucking bastard and this knowledge makes me feel physically ill. He managed to kick and dent my car before I finally drove off. Of course hospital security tapes cant find him anywhere, despite the grounds being under 24 hour surveillance. The police cannot do anything without a tape or a witness, and due to privacy laws cannot obtain his name from the methodone clinic. All drug addicts start out as users. Not all user become addicts obviously, but they all start at users. I've got no fcking sympathy left at all. I should have killed the guy. Yesterday I was distraught. Today I am knowing anger I didn't think possible.

And people continually make excuses to allow for drugs to enter our society. It is beyond a fucking joke.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 11:03 AM   #37
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:22 AM
Rush Limbaugh and Viagra

as it turns out, it wasn't such a big story, nowhere near his Oxycontin addiction issue:

[q]Limbaugh Will Not Be Charged Over Viagra

By BRIAN SKOLOFF
Associated Press Writer

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.

Rush Limbaugh will not face criminal charges in Palm Beach County after authorities found he had a bottle of Viagra that was apparently prescribed to in his doctor's name, prosecutors said Wednesday.

Limbaugh, 55, was detained for more than three hours at Palm Beach International Airport on June 26 after he returned on his private plane from a vacation in the Dominican Republic. Customs officials found Viagra in his bag, but his name wasn't on the prescription, according to the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office.

The state attorney's office said that Dr. Steve Strumwasser's name was on the Viagra bottle, not Limbaugh's. Strumwasser, who is Limbaugh's psychiatrist, told authorities he "agreed to have his name on the label in an effort to avoid potentially embarrassing publicity for the suspect," according to the state attorney's office filing. "Thus, the medication contained in the subject pill bottle was legitimately prescribed to the suspect by his physician."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/05/D8ILVL5O0.html

[/q]



however, just like the Oxycontin issue, and just like, say, Bill Bennett's issues with gambling, we can place this into the ever-growing cateogory of right wing hypocrisy, and i think anyone who's bought one of Rush's books (or however else he markets himself) should demand a refund.

why? well, let's ask the obvious question: what was Rush doing with Viagra? what would a man who wrote a column called, "Close Your Fly, You Won't Die" do with Viagra? he's on record saying that one of his 35 truths is "Abstinence protects against STDS and pregnancy - every time it's tried." how is Viagra compatible with abstinence-only-until-marriage education that claims that sex in marriage is the "expected standard of human sexual activity"?

but then, what can we expect from a man -- notorious for trashing the Clinton's marraige -- who's been divorced three times? he's single today. it must mean that, gasp!, RUSH LIMBAUGH IS HAVING SEX AND HE ISN'T EVEN MARRIED!!!!

i hope they found a number of condoms in his bag equal to the number of Viagra pills.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 01:03 PM   #38
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:22 PM
[ ^^ Since we already have a discussion (including some thoughtful posts with good questions) going on about this in melon's thread, I've merged them.]

To be fair, I do think everyone (who doesn't have a mental block against grasping it) is already well aware that Rush doesn't practice much of what he preaches. While the hypocrisy of that is galling, particularly in light of the influence he has, I don't really see stuff like this changing the minds of people who agree with him as far as their views go. No doubt they would prefer someone who has all the, uh, "panache" he does PLUS the fortitude to live by it all, but...

I'm often surprised by how many people vehemently oppose taking an "Accept (likely) realities as well as teach ideals, and prepare kids to safely manage either" stance when it comes to premarital sex...but then don't seem to care one way or another what divorced or widowed people do--as if they're "fallen" anyway, so who cares. A younger woman friend of mine (who, probably not incidentally, has not yet been married) asked her mother a little while back why her mother didn't object to her divorced brother and his "girl"friend sleeping in the same bed when they came to visit (since her mother is, in theory, deeply opposed to premarital sex). Her mother said something like, "Well I don't think he should rush into getting married again, and it's hard on you to be that lonely when you've been married before." I can appreciate this logic to a point; in some ways, it probably is harder for someone who's been living in an intimate relationship to cope with the absence of that than it is for someone who's never known one. But the message it sends to young people is not only hypocritical, but also misguided according to its own aims, IMO. If you're going to teach this principle, the point should be the necessity of the types of commitments marriage entails for an ideal and/or holy intimate relationship...not that virginity per se is some kind of magic charm that's guaranteed to start everything off on the right foot, wherefore you must nobly struggle against the evil lusts that burn within and achieve the "victory" of arriving "pure" at marriage, etc. etc. (Which, I guess, is partly what gives rise to this "they're fallen anyhow, so who cares" kind of thinking. As well as the cheapening "Close Your Fly, You Won't Die" kind of jingoism...yes, let's cultivate sacred respect towards the people we're attracted to by reducing them to potential carriers of disease.) No wonder hardly anyone listens.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 06:38 PM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:22 AM
An interesting note as usual Yolland.

Are teaching ideals and dealing with realities two separate things? The way I’ve approached these issues (premarital sex and others) is that every person has the ability to self-regulate behavior. Teaching ideals is the way to develop and fortify the control system for this self-regulating behavior – thus the ability to deal with the realities.

What often happens is that people use a failure of self-regulation (individually or generally) to diminish the value of the ideal, or as a means to redefine the ideal to some lesser component.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 06:59 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 07:22 AM
Or perhaps they are just rules for the people without influence. It's a class thing. No hypocrisy. The rules were never meant for them. They were meant for others.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 07:07 PM   #41
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
Or perhaps they are just rules for the people without influence. It's a class thing. No hypocrisy. The rules were never meant for them. They were meant for others.




bingo.

i don't think Rush is at all worried about the morality of his sexual exploits in the DR. just like i don't think Bill Bennett ever worried for a moment about his gambling addiction. or Martha Stewart and those bothersome insider trading rules.

that's for the people who buy their books -- they're giving their audience what they want to hear, and trying to make money off of passing themselves off as not just guardians, but exemplars of a very specific kind of morality.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 06:18 PM   #42
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Are teaching ideals and dealing with realities two separate things? The way I’ve approached these issues (premarital sex and others) is that every person has the ability to self-regulate behavior. Teaching ideals is the way to develop and fortify the control system for this self-regulating behavior – thus the ability to deal with the realities.

What often happens is that people use a failure of self-regulation (individually or generally) to diminish the value of the ideal, or as a means to redefine the ideal to some lesser component.
I meant to reply to this earlier and then forgot.

At the level of the individual family, I'm generally in agreement with you. At the public school level, though, I'm not. Opposition to nonmarital sex is neither universal nor universally role modelled by parents, and unfortunately plenty of parents on both sides (i.e. regarding nonmarital sex) do a poor job of, as you put it, developing and fortifying the control system needed to deal with the realities (i.e., jadedness about the cruciality of marriage, or submission to peer pressure, in the case of pro-abstinence; having the knowledge and self-confidence to insist on the use of condoms or other contraceptives, in the case of endorsing nonmarital sex). Therefore, I would prefer to have at least the skeleton of both "control systems" offered in school. I am well aware, as is any schoolkid, that the two perspectives contradict each other. But that is simply reflective of the basic social reality our kids are going to be immersed in anyway. Sooner or later, they are going to have friends and, quite possibly, romantic interests as well who do not share our views. I am far more concerned about preparing my kids for that than I am about preparing them for the likely low impact of whatever contradictions their health teacher apparently espouses. For me, the tiny risk that their values might be decisively demolished by the latter is not grave enough to trump the risk that someone else's child might get AIDS or (unintentionally) get pregnant before completing their education, because they sincerely believed that Ineffective Preventive Measure X, Y or Z would suffice to avoid that.

As far as how and what we plan to teach our own kids, yes that is different, and no we don't plan to take a "We hope you wait until you're married, but since you probably won't..." approach. They will, however, learn about contraception (which any prospective bride or groom ought to know about anyway, in our view, especially since it's relevant to observing Jewish law together), and they will learn about STDs (as a public health issue which they'll hear and read about often for years to come, and as a reason to inquire into the sexual history--or lack thereof--of their prospective future fiance[e]s). We won't present AIDS or teen single motherhood as God's just desserts for sinners (which we don't believe anyway), nor are we going to fret about teaching them how the Pill works lest they think we're subtly hinting that here is a great way to have multiple sex partners without getting pregnant.

For sure, though, the big picture is always going to be sex as part of an observant Jewish marriage and, ultimately, an observant Jewish life. And IMHO, it's that big picture--as well as the messages we'll send through our own behavior--that determines whether the value of the ideal is preserved or diminished. Not whether certain aspects of conveying it overlap at some points with all the other messages out there.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 08:15 PM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:22 AM
It sounds as if the home teachings have been or are practically identical (having covered the topics in depth with my son over the last year).

I'd say the most powerful example of values I present my children is my daily interaction with my wife.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com