Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

It's interesting to hear the stunned silence and moral relativism
being displayed by so-called "Conservatives" in the Limbaugh
crime. People who cry out about examples and moral behaviour
come up with the damndest excuse for why Rush is really
innocent, why this case isn't what it appears, why the DA
is just a dirty democrat.

I'm not sure Limbaugh deserves 25 years, but a little jail time
would be appropriate.

Posted by anonymous at May 5, 2006 08:23 AM

A first offense that involved no deling to third parties?

No sane person would suggest anyone should ever jail time under those circumstances.

The thing with the Limbaugh episode is it is by all appearances a first offence and a pretty minor one at that.

It isn't like he perjured himself under oath or sold pardons or drove drunk and almost hit a police officer or worse yet left a young woman under a bridge to drown.

In order for moral relatavinism to be in effect, the offenses must first be relative. These are not.

Rush and anyone else guilty of a similar crime should get probation at worst.

Of course the pesky fact that Rush's guilt has not been established remains. He still has not been charged with 'Doctor Shopping'.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 5, 2006 09:35 AM

"There doesn't seem to be much evidence" is a 'damndest excuse'?

He isn't on my 'favorite people' list, but I can't imagine the prosecutor agreeing to the current agreement if they had anything convincing.

Posted by Al at May 5, 2006 09:37 AM

And besides, if you are going to convict Limbaugh, how about at least holding the trial first? Oh, that's right. Even the prosecutor knew his case was so weak that he cut this deal so he could avoid looking foolish (and get reelected). But don't let that stop you from emulating the Queen of Hearts. ("Sentence first, then the verdict.")

Besides, Limbaugh shouldn't have taken the deal, because it leaves the "insensitivity to the appearance of impropriety", which it seems, is all the justification needed for some people to impose a capital sentence.

Posted by Raoul Ortega at May 5, 2006 09:40 AM

I like people who say things like,"...stunned silence and moral relativism being displayed by so-called "Conservatives" in the Limbaugh
crime."

And then like true Liberals, put their money where their mouth is by giving us their name.

Thank you Mr./Mrs./Ms. anonymous for setting my feet on the path to the truth, you gutless wonder.

I am a Conservative, I am not giving Rush a pass, he is paying out of his own pocket for the money spent to investigate him. Has Ted Kennedy payed ANYTHING for Chappaquiddick?

Rush, did appologize, to anyone who would listen, for saying one thing and doing another. Has Bill Clinton appologized TO Monica Lewinski? He should . He got her in a lot of hot water and associated her sur name with a s3x act. Not many high school kids know about Captain Charles Boycott? Not many, but surveys say getting / giving Lewinski is a common phrase.

The judge said he could find little evidence WITHOUT violating Limbaugh's medical privacy rights. We keep hearing about abuses under the Patriot Act from the left, and yet all you lefties want to violate Limbaugh's right's BECAUSE of who he is. How did that work out at 3:00 A.M. this morning for Rep. Kennedy? Was he prosecuted because of who he is, or did he get a pass? He admits driving under the influence of PRECSRIPTION DRUGS!! That's still under the influence.

The D.A. said he didn't think they'd be able to convict for lack of evidence. Which was Limbaugh's stated stand all along. Well when the D.A., who started this whole thing, says the same thing the defendant says and a deal is cut, why do you Mr./Mrs./Ms. anonymous think something more is there? Did the D.A. lie? Did Limbaugh? Did Limbaugh pay off the D.A.? What's your point?

People hate Limbaugh, so what? What does his personality have to do with his disease? Addictiion is addiction. Nobody sets out to get addicted, whether they start with crack or prescripted pain killers.

The fact that you, a LIBERAL moral relativists don't want to give Rush a break because he is RUSH, shows your hand. If Rush was a mixed race mother of 3 with no husband, father(s) of the children around you'd start a d@mned foundation with websites, walks and ribbons!

Earlier I called you gutless wonder, I now appologize to real gutless wonders, you Mr./Mrs./Ms. anonymous are lower than that.

Someone with no compassion is less than human.

Posted by Steve at May 5, 2006 12:32 PM

Rep. Kennedy to Enter Rehab for Prescription Drug Addiction

WASHINGTON — Rep. Patrick Kennedy said Friday he is going to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., to seek help for his addiction to prescription drugs after he crashed his car near the Capitol.

The Kennedys have a "compound" is south Florida, right? Does this mean that Paddy is in line for several years worth of investigation into his medical records to discover if he went "doctor shopping?"

Posted by Raoul Ortega at May 5, 2006 01:06 PM

"We keep hearing about abuses under the Patriot Act from the left, and yet all you lefties want to violate Limbaugh's right's BECAUSE of who he is."

i cant speak for all lefties, but the reason i want to violate limbaugh's rights (and i do accept that arresting him for this would violate his rights) is that it will bring attention to the absurdity/cruelty of the drug war, and it will bring attention to a needed sector. at the very least, if he were to get arrested, rush probably would no longer be a strong advocate of the drug war. of course i wouldnt think conservatives would support the drug war (at least on the grounds of state's rights) anyways so i dunno if it would change anything.

Posted by ujedujik at May 5, 2006 01:07 PM

"And then like true Liberals, put their money where their mouth is by giving us their name."

This was signed by "Steve."

"Steve" who?

So courageous...

Posted by OnTheInternetEveryoneIsADog at May 5, 2006 01:34 PM

With respect to draconian laws, the justice system today looks much like that of Prohibition days. I'm old enough to know those times acutely: My dad was a bootlegger with a clientele of many big names in the Detroit area. We also lived in the Purple Gang area. Mothers used the Gang as a boogie man. It was pretty bad.

It was with much interest that I read Paul Kaviess's book, _The Purple Gang_, (Barricade Books, NY, 2000). Right up in front he says, "The Eighteenth Amendment would prove one of the biggest errors in legislative judgement America ever made. Newfound wealth from the manufacture, importation and sale of illegal liquor helped finance organized crime in America."

So what's new? It's illegal drugs; otherwise, everything is the same.

Posted by B at May 5, 2006 03:45 PM

"In order for moral relatavinism to be in effect, the offenses must first be relative. These are not."

Mike, you are a shallow partisan. Essentially your attitude is that any crime committed by a Democrat is wrong and terrible, and any crime committed by a Republican is either not a crime, or trivial, or unworthy of discussion.

I have never seen you say anything about Duke Cunningham (8 years in jail) or Jack Abramoff.

Posted by Steve Holt at May 5, 2006 04:35 PM

"Mike, you are a shallow partisan. Essentially your attitude is that any crime committed by a Democrat is wrong and terrible, and any crime committed by a Republican is either not a crime, or trivial, or unworthy of discussion."

Still humping the rectum bloody well out of your Strawman lover, eh Steve? You really, really like arguing against things I never said.

You might be suprised to find that I have several good liberal Democrat friends. However, they aren't a bunch of Kool-aid drinking, bat shit nuts sofa humpin' DU/Kos helmet heads either.

Steve, It is transparently obvious who you are. You are an egotistical, selfish, self-centered pompous ass. Spoiled as a child and mad as hell that as you got older, you discovered the universe refused to respond to your every whim and service as valid your every delusion and misconception and you have never forgiven the universe for it. Beyond being a shallow partisan, you are quite simply a shallow human being.

"I have never seen you say anything about Duke Cunningham (8 years in jail) or Jack Abramoff."

I do not remember Rand posting threads on either and I do not suffer myself to visit any inbred internet insane asylums such as DUh.

You have never seen me post about the red crested warbler either. I have also never posted on the subject of Krill or events of the year 1841. I have also never posted on the subject of the best tuna salad recipes either. I have also never posted on the subject of Godzillia versues King Kong. It might amaze you to learn there are literally millions of people and subjects I have never addressed on the internet.

Funny how I tend to stay at least mostly on topic. Perhaps my lack of your syphlus has not induced the state of dementia you seem to suffer from.

Unlike you Steve, I am able to better stay on the subject of the thread instead of using an unreleated thread as you did to attack Limbaugh on this very sight a couple of days ago. Remember, you were "just sayin'".

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 5, 2006 09:03 PM

"I have never seen you say anything about Duke Cunningham (8 years in jail) or Jack Abramoff."

In the interest of non-hypocracy, I now give you the opportunity to live up to your very own standards and comment on the Patrick Kennedy situation.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 5, 2006 09:08 PM

"Still humping the rectum bloody well out of your Strawman lover, eh Steve?"

"Perhaps my lack of your syphlus has not induced the state of dementia you seem to suffer from. "

You're a class act, you know that?

Posted by Steve Holt at May 6, 2006 08:26 AM

"You're a class act, you know that?"

Classy enough to know a weasle shen I see one.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 6, 2006 09:06 AM

Where is your commentary on Patric Kennedy Steve?

This is you big opportunity to show you are not a hypocrite weasle anyway.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 6, 2006 09:07 AM

"Where is your commentary on Patric Kennedy Steve?"

I never heard of the guy until he nearly ran down a cop. It sounds like from his own admission that he has a problem with addiction, although I'm not sure that I believe his story. I think he should go to rehab and probably get some jail time--just like Rush.

"This is you big opportunity to show you are not a hypocrite weasle anyway."

But I'm really worried about you. You seem to have a lot of anger. Why is that? Does it stem from your childhood? I bet it stems from your childhood. You know, a therapist could help with this. They could help you work on your issues and overcome this incredible anger you have to express through the Internet.

Posted by Steve Holt at May 7, 2006 06:02 AM

Methinks thou doeth protest too much Steve! It appears you are anthromorphising your own weaknesses and shortcomings onto me.

Just a low tolerance for weasle trolls. We know who you are Steve. You are the weasle in 6th grade who would kick comeone in the shins and then yell to the teacher that they had kicked YOU in the shins. You come here to troll up threads, plain and simple.

So far, in you short tenure visiting this board, you have contributed nothisng of value. All you have done is troll other threads and make evashive, weasle, strawman responses.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 7, 2006 10:26 AM

I looked closer at the story and frankly the cases look almost comparable. Paey and Limbaugh were guilty of the same thing (obtaining sufficient quantities of pain killers to qualify as a drug trafficker). Neither sold the drugs they obtained illegally.

The key differences appears to be that Paey refused to plea bargain and that Paey had legitimate reasons for wanting pain killers (it is claimed that he was suffering from "1985 car accident, failed back surgery, and multiple sclerosis" and he currently and legally uses morphine). There's a penalty associated with refusing a plea bargain, but 25 years versus none is excessive.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 7, 2006 11:03 AM

Paey and Limbaugh were guilty of the same thing (obtaining sufficient quantities of pain killers to qualify as a drug trafficker).

I would revise the above to:

Paey and Limbaugh were charged with the same thing (obtaining sufficient quantities of pain killers to qualify as a drug trafficker).

Limbaugh's not-guilty plea will stand if he completes the requirements of the plea agreement. If he doesn't, we'll see whether the DA actually has any evidence to back up the charges -- charges that were massively reduced from what the DA was claiming he could file against Limbaugh when this whole thing first blew up.

Arguably, Limbaugh accepted this agreement because his lawyers thought the DA had enough to possibly get a conviction. It's also arguable that he was advised to accept this deal to finally put an end to the whole debacle, cut the losses on his legal fees, and get on with life.

Obviously, the argument one chooses to make will be determined in advance by one's opinion of Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by McGehee at May 7, 2006 08:43 PM

Post a comment