's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

A Limbaugh quote for Rush fans...(48 posts)

A Limbaugh quote for Rush fans...Cory
Oct 6, 2003 10:25 AM
On his radio show on Jan. 15, 1996, Rush said this about drug addiction:
"I know every expert in the world will disagree with me, but I don't buy into the disease part of it. The first time you reach for a substance you are making a choice. Every time you go back, you are making a personal choice. I feel very strongly about that."
Wonder what he would say now?OldEdScott
Oct 6, 2003 10:30 AM
If indeed he has a problem and he talks frankly about it and declaims the above attitude, he'll do a great service. Despite my prfound disagreement with Rush on politics, that's kind of what I expect from him in a situation like this. He doesn't seem personally chickesh!t and bullheaded, however C&B he is politically.
addiction can be physical but still there is a choiceColnagoFE
Oct 6, 2003 10:51 AM
Sure an alcoholic can stop drinking--many have done it. And many a heroin user has managed to stop using. Smokers have stopped smoking. Ultimately is is a choice to stop--no matter how hard that choice is made by physical and psychological cravings for the said substance.
Sure there's choice...then there's withdrawal.PseuZQ
Oct 6, 2003 4:39 PM
It's a little more involved than "cravings," I'm afraid. Withdrawal's a b**ch. I mean really, really REALLY unpleasant. Even mild withdrawal. Addiction at that point is not about choice, it's about avoiding some serious pain, and even staying alive.

Further, almost no amount of rational thinking can persuade an addict to stop, hence "hitting bottom."
of courseColnagoFE
Oct 7, 2003 7:14 AM
totally depends on the drug and the extent of the addiction. Withdrawing from a bad opiate addiction is supposedly awful. A hardcore alcoholic going cold turkey can die. Maybe a bad addiction requires some type of intervention or medical treatment to begin but in the long run it is the individual that has to choose to not ingest that substance again.
Some on this board have had personal or first-handOldEdScott
Oct 7, 2003 7:21 AM
experience with addiction. Some have not. I'm willing to bet the take on 'choice' would be vastly different in those two camps.

Powerlessness = YOU have no choice

That's why you need God as you define God.
Do you really need god though?ColnagoFE
Oct 7, 2003 9:10 AM
I mean sticking that needle in your veins or taking a sip of whiskey when you know you can't stop after the first drink is a choice--no matter how muddled your brain has become from the drug or no matter how bad it hurts not to do it. A damn tough choice--and for some it doesn't seem possible to stop. But I'd stop short of saying it's impossible if the desire to stop is great enough and with some addictions, medical intervention may be neccesary. Some find the strength through god...others find it in themselves or through others who care about them. Point being I don't think it has to be god, though if it helps--more power to them. The god thing seems to be one of the main tenets of most 12 step programs but there are other approaches a addict could take that don't involve putting your trust in a deity.
Certainly not impossible to stop.PseuZQ
Oct 7, 2003 12:21 PM
If it *were* impossible, I probably wouldn't be writing this.

Oh, and the 12-step programs don't specify that you have to believe in capital G God, just a "higher power," or a "power greater than myself," etc.

(I was told "We don't give a sh*t if you pick the ashtray as your higher power.")
ONE of the main tenents? What are the others?Spoke Wrench
Oct 11, 2003 5:16 AM
Which one ?MR_GRUMPY
Oct 7, 2003 12:32 PM
I have a preference for female gods.
Oooh. Touchy subject.Kristin
Oct 6, 2003 10:42 AM
You know, I'm not so sure he would disagree with his statement even now. I think that his statement in 1996 over-simplifies a complex argument. Obviously, the truth lies somewhere in between, "I can't help myself," and "I can quit whenever I want to."

I disagree with the "disease" concept myself. People can't quit a disease. People can quit an addiction. Those people who can never walk into a bar or look at a photograph of a drink are not recovered addicts. They still have lots of work to do. It takes time, but it is possible to quit an addiction to the point it is no longer an issue on any level. No sh$t! I know people who fit that description. They spent years not only conquering the habit, but also worked through the underlying issues that drove them into the habit to begin with.

So addiction. Its more difficult to overcome than just making a simple choice. But one has more control over the outcome than say...cancer.
Oooh. Touchy subject.Crankist
Oct 6, 2003 12:03 PM
"It takes time, but it is possible to quit an addiction to the point it is no longer an issue on any level."

Well not quite. On a physiological level the alcoholic's cell structure is altered to favor processing the easy calories of alcohol over normal foods. No amount of resolving childhood anger issues et al is going to alter the condition.

Second, given the amazingly diverse backround of addicts of all descriptions, the idea that there are "underlying issues that drove them into the habit to begin with" is simply seriously flawed conjecture.

Touchy indeed...for those who have been through it.
Oct 6, 2003 12:18 PM
I'm no expert on alcoholism. I won't claim anything as fact here. I have 2 years undergrad in Psych/Sociology -- which is really nothing at all. And I have many more years experiece as a councilee.

Have there been studies done with long term recovered alcoholics to see if the physical effects are reversed to any degree? I would be curious to know.

I don't believe that my philosophy on addiction is flawed. My personal belief is that it is extremetly rare for healthy, well-nurtured humans to develop addictions. Now I'm not saying that addicts become addicted because they are "bad" people. Most addiction is the result of our trying to cope with the things that others have done to us. And sometimes its the result of our trying to cope with the things we've done to others. Typically, its a combination of the two.
Oct 6, 2003 12:37 PM
Well, we don't entirely disagree.
But I must point out re: "My personal belief is that it is extremetly rare for healthy, well-nurtured humans to develop addictions." that you overlook a not uncommon scenario:
Those who have been prescribed painkillers after an auto accident for example and become addicted even though they follwed Dr's. orders to the T. Viola! Prescription eventually runs out, perhaps they turn to alcohol, perhaps drugs, perhaps suicide. Betty Ford had much to say on this very topic.
Look also at a kid experimenting with a drug, maybe peer pressure. Almost instantly finds herself addicted, home life a textbook Cleaver story. So it really is not extremely rare.

Probably in the majority of cases you are correct.

I haven't seen such studies lately. Running from THC-clad memory I recall that there is significant cell recovery after several years.
Yep, you brought up the two cases I thought ofKristin
Oct 6, 2003 1:00 PM
That's why I said it was rare. I have known a few people who have been on pain pills for extended times and did not become addicted. Some hospitals actually sign patients up for a post pain pill treatment program. But doctors and hospitals should do more. I was perscribed enough Vicadin for a whole month when I broke my wrist. I really only needed 2 or 3 pills to get me through the first 36 hours. (Evil pharmasuetical scheme? I think yes.) So, I supose I could have become addicted if I'd taken all of them. But then, someone would eventually ask why I took the pills for 30 days, when I only needed them for 2. Also, in a number of pain pill addictions, there is still an underlying cause. PTSD. Many people on pain pills are recovering from a trauma.

The party scheme is true. But still, kinda rare.
Disease theoryfiltersweep
Oct 6, 2003 12:53 PM
Say what you will, but by calling an addiction a "disease" it somewhat reduces stigma and promotes people to seek some sort of help. Chalking it up to choice or a weak will and people tend to do their best to hide it out of shame.

Frankly, I'm a bit of a libertarian and darwinist about the entire matter. Calling it a disease and "forcing" the unwilling into treatment does absolutely nothing. A physician who prescribes a heavy-hitter as the first line in pain treatment is simply irresponsible (and just look at how many doctors DO lose their licenses over prescribing painkillers).
I agree to an extentKristin
Oct 6, 2003 1:03 PM
That may help to get people into treatment. But taking the "choice" out of it, doesn't really help the person recover. It is partly a choice and they do have to own some responsiblity in their condition and their recovery or they will likely play recovery roulet. Don't you agree?
I agree to an extentfiltersweep
Oct 6, 2003 6:48 PM
It all depends on where you draw the line of defining choice... even AA's most basic tenent is that the alcoholic is powerless over alcohol- the key then is to have enough insight to recognize this and make the choice while they still can, if you know what I mean...

Don't even get me started on the absurdities of recovery roullette... but again, most of those involved court-ordered treatment (your tax money at work)
What is he saying now ??MR_GRUMPY
Oct 6, 2003 11:08 AM
Is he throwing himself on the mercy of his fans, or is he telling everyone that it is all the Democrats fault.
Is he even still on the air ? Why ?
Transcript from today (partial):OldEdScott
Oct 6, 2003 11:14 AM
Now, here's the nub of it at the moment. The story in Florida is - it really is an emerging situation. I watch what's being reported on television and it changes from morning to morning, hour to hour, day to day. I don't know yet what I'm dealing with there, folks.

I really don't know the full scope of what I am dealing with. And when I get all the facts, when I get all the details of this, rest assured that I will discuss this with you and tell you how it is, tell you everything there is, maybe more than you want to know about this. You can believe me and trust me on that. I don't want to answer any questions about it now, as I say, until I know exactly what I'm dealing with, and at that point I will fill you all in. As I say, I can't tell you how much I appreciate the notes and all of the expressions of support. It means everything to me, as has your support over these many years, and nothing has changed in that regard.

I've often said throughout the 15 years that I've been here, that you people have made my life an adult Christmas every day. Every morning is an adult Christmas, and it's still the same. Still got up today, couldn't wait to get in here, couldn't wait to start the routine, couldn't wait to start the show prep. I'm a little frustrated that I haven't yet gotten to the bottom of what all this is about, and I'm very much desirous of telling you about this, but until I know exactly what this is - and I don't get - it just makes no sense to start delving into it.

I don't want to deal with hypotheticals, and I don't want to respond to what's in the press. I'm very tempted to. I'm not going to even go there. But I want to say, "Trust me," but I don't...look it, it makes no sense for me to go there. I'm not even going to tell you how you ought to look at that stuff that's in the press. I'm not going to even characterize it yet. Just trust me on this. When I find out all that this is - aside from those that are closest to me in my personal and business orb, and you all are very close on the personal orb - then you are going to be among the first to know, from me.
He sounds really high................MR_GRUMPY
Oct 6, 2003 11:20 AM
Scary high.
No. That was from Friday.moneyman
Oct 6, 2003 11:24 AM
I listened.

Why is he still on the air ?MR_GRUMPY
Oct 6, 2003 11:48 AM
It seems to me, that if one of the talking heads on network TV was accused of a serious felony, the network would pull him off until he was cleared.
But I guess talk radio is talk radio.
Because... He hasn't been charged with anything?moneyman
Oct 6, 2003 11:57 AM
Except in the court of public opinion. Other than that, there's a big "No comment" from the investigators in Florida and from Rush.

And, Oh, yeah - because people still listen to him.

Funny how you've got him accused, tried and convicted before he's even been charged.

Would Dan Rather still be on the air ?MR_GRUMPY
Oct 6, 2003 12:32 PM
You would think that the network would replace him until the charges have either been dropped or when he got out of jail (or out of rehab).
The reason is plain and simple........Money....
Because... He hasn't been charged with anything?moneyman
Oct 6, 2003 1:14 PM
If charges haven't been filed, how could they be dropped? Please explain.

I thought that Rush reported the news, as he saw it.MR_GRUMPY
Oct 6, 2003 5:05 PM
Any newscaster would be pulled at the hint of scandal. He'd be off the air until the network decided that he hadn't commited a crime.
If Rush is just an entertainer, then things are different. He can just keep on entertaining until he is convicted, unless his contract has a morals clause in it.
I wonder if Novak is still writing for the Sun Times, or if he is on paid leave.
Rush owns the show. He just syndicates it. There'sOldEdScott
Oct 7, 2003 4:40 AM
no network 'boss' to fire him. The only way he could be 'fired' is for stations to cancel their syndication agreement with him, and I really don't think that's too likely unless something genuinely hideous emerges.

He's not a 'newsman' per se like Rather.
may have sold itDougSloan
Oct 7, 2003 6:24 AM
I think he sold it a few years ago. Don't know the terms, though.

The primary way he'd be "fired" is for advertisers to pull, and that would be largely due to listeners dropping off. My bet is that the last few weeks have increased the number of listeners.

You're right -- Rush has repeatedly said that he's not in the news business. He comments on the news, among other things. News people should try to be objective. He offers no dispute about the fact that he's not. He clearly has a bias and an agenda.

Nope, TV is the sameNo_sprint
Oct 6, 2003 1:16 PM
Michael Irvin, film too, Robert Downey Jr., etc., etc.
what a load of crap.rufus
Oct 6, 2003 11:46 AM
obviously he knows what the "full scope of what he's dealing with" is . but he doesn't want to say anything until he knows just what the authorities know. if he comes out and says "this is what happened", and then the authorities or the press comes up with evidence that shows differently, then he's caught making up stories to excuse his conduct.

if there's nothing to it, then why be reluctant to say so? it's not like there's any evidence showing otherwise. if there is something to it, be a man, admit it, and face the consequences. just don't fritter around trying to figure out what everyone knows and coming up with some story that can cover your ass about it.
What's really interesting...mohair_chair
Oct 6, 2003 11:42 AM
In the light of statements like this, what if he comes clean and admits his alleged problem (not sure if he's done that yet), and then suggests that people can change, can grow, can admit failure. Where does that leave his audience, who have fed off his vitriol for years?

Could he survive a road to Damascus style conversion? Could he ever bring up the "inconsistency" of how politician X promised no new tax increases, then introduced one? All I have to do is call up and say, remember when you went off on drug afficts, and then became one? Who are you to call change a flaw?
Sure he couldKristin
Oct 6, 2003 11:59 AM
There have been lots of "road to Damascus" conversions. My former roommate was one of these Joshua Harris followers who was convinced of the evils of kissing before marraige. Whenever the subject came up in conversation, she'd assert the values of having a completely platonic dating relationship. She nearly had me convinced. Of course, once she started dating, she saw it in a different light. After a few long discussions with her boyfriend and a call to her old college advisor and mentor (also a Christian), she changed her mind and entered into much kissing. If I had believed that ideology, and refused to ever kiss a guy without a ring on my finger, would I somehow be obsolved of responsibility?

Bottom line. People are responsible for there own selves. We can't put that on others. If someone listend to Rush's BS for years and it made them what they are today and then they find out it was all wrong. Well, who's fault is that ultimately? People need to get brains and learn to think for themselves and stop blaming other people for their problems. I hope Rush does do a turn around. He's in a great position to do it too. The choice is his.
so, he may still believe that nmDougSloan
Oct 6, 2003 2:59 PM
Oct 6, 2003 3:05 PM
Lance's family troubles came out, and most people said to drop it because it was no one else's business. I guess we all want to protect the ones we like and destroy the ones we don't, regardless of how hypocritical it is, right?

not at allmohair_chair
Oct 6, 2003 3:23 PM
Lance, as far as I know, is not an ideologue or demagogue who makes his living preaching from a self-built pedestal.

How Lance makes his living is not directly tied to his personal life, and therefore, his personal life is none of our business.

Rush, on the other hand, has set and preached a standard of behavior that he cannot maintain. The man and his image are not inseparable. He has only himself to blame when his failure to meet his on standard becomes public.
so what you are sayingDougSloan
Oct 6, 2003 6:34 PM
People are better off having no standards or low standards, then if they fail miserably no one thinks much of it. Wow, if everyone thought that way, America would be a damn fine place to live.

Basically, then, you are saying to everyone, "sure, you have the right to free speech, but if you dare say anything opposing what I believe or dare to preach high standards, we'll bring you down as fast as we can."

Personal life is personal life. Lance's personal life is no more tied to his business than Rush's. There's no distinction, except more people dislike what Rush says, and would love to see him fail.

that's not what I'm sayingmohair_chair
Oct 7, 2003 6:39 AM
People should have and try to live up to high standards, but that should be a personal quest. What people shouldn't do is:

1. set a high standard
2. preach it to a large public audience as the one true standard
3. make a living loudly and publicly criticizing all those who fail to meet it
4. fail to meet the standard themself
Oh, I don't know.OldEdScott
Oct 7, 2003 7:14 AM
We all strive and fail. Part of the human condition. I think if you fail to meet the standard, admit it, and discuss the nature of your failure and attempts to transcend -- that would be salutary, I think.

Then again, I guess you could just bash Clinton.
I'm with youmohair_chair
Oct 7, 2003 7:36 AM
I couldn't agree more. God knows I have a few failures of my own, but thankfully, I'm sure I can pin at least one of them on Clinton. Unfortunately, in my case, it's DeWitt Clinton. I'm still working on a link to Bill or Hilary, or even Chelsea or Socks.

Speaking for myself (which I tend to do most of the time), I don't put myself on a pedestal and invite strangers to knock me off. My standards are high, but they are mostly personal. Except when driving, when I will scream and shout at other idiots within the closed confines of my automobile, I do not preach my standards or hold anyone else to them. If more people did that, life would be a lot more pleasant for all of us.
I took it as a criticism of typical "conservative" moralizing128
Oct 7, 2003 7:37 AM
and their apparent ignorance of the realities (difficulties) of the human condition. That he never separated the sin from the sinner.

So now Mr. Limbaugh suffers a "character flaw" will we damn him as a "liberal" with no self discipline? Failed to make the right choices? Or support him in his time of (alleged) addiction? I would choose the later. What would RL of Orin Hatch do??
you are the bigger person nmDougSloan
Oct 7, 2003 7:47 AM
See here pal128
Oct 8, 2003 5:13 AM
Bigger? Than Rush? No way. Just broader -minded.

No need to get defensive. Didn't intend to come off as judgemental, and if you keep up this attitude I just might have to drop by for a ride and we can settle this like bike geeks. Just be sure and wait for me at the top.

I was sincere nmDougSloan
Oct 8, 2003 6:31 AM
A Rush Quote for Limbaugh Fans...jtolleson
Oct 6, 2003 7:03 PM
A modern - day warrior
Mean mean stride,
Today's Tom Sawyer
Mean mean pride.

Though his mind is not for rent
Don't put him down as arrogant
His reserve, a quiet defense
Riding out the day's events
The river

It doesn't surprise anyone that I don't like the guy, and he is arrogant and his defense is neither quiet nor reserved. Which is probably the true nature of his downfall (particularly the NFL thing... I think his unrepentant follow up doomed him far more than the original remarks). But his mind is most assuredly not for rent (and his stride is, in fact, occasionally mean).
[the band] Rush...reportedly big into objectivism (nm)ColnagoFE
Oct 7, 2003 7:17 AM
Cory, wasn't that Rush quoting someone else?DougSloan
Oct 6, 2003 7:41 PM
Rush Limbaugh Show, 9-23-93

LIMBAUGH: OK. Welcome back and thank you very much. You're watching RUSH LIMBAUGH, the television show. Substance abuse--that means drug addicts. We're now going to cover their rehabilitation if this plan goes through.

Jerry Colangelo is the president of the Phoenix Suns. He's a man I've recently met this year as a guest of a friend of mine who's the coach of the Phoenix Suns, Paul Westphal. I went out during NBA finals in June--went--with them to Chicago. Had lunch with Mr. Colangelo. He's done miracles with this franchise. Six years ago, five of his players were charged with drug abuse and this kind of thing. And it--they've--they've got a wholesome operation out there--very cultured, very classy operation. Family entertainment's the way that they look at their basketball games and their team, and this re--it set them back. Colangelo vowed it's never going to happen again. He's got a player named Richard Dumas. One-time violator of the NBA drug policy. Got caught again violating the terms of his rehab. Colangelo says, I've had it. You're not playing here for this whole season. I don't care if you're clean. You've got to show me that you cannot--that you can stay clean for an entire career. I'm not going to pay you this kind of money.'

I want to let you read along with me a quote from Jerry Colangelo about substance abuse, and I think you'll find that he's very much right. Put it up, Chet, and I'll read along.

(Graphic on screen)

"I know every expert in the world will disagree with me, but I don't buy into the disease part of it. The first time you reach for a substance you are making a choice. Every time you go back, you are making a personal choice. I feel very strongly about that."

Jerry Colangelo President Phoenix Suns

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) He says that, I know every expert in the world will disagree with me, but I don't buy into the disease part of drug abuse. The first time you reach for a substance you are making a choice. Every time you go back, you're making a personal choice. I feel very strongly about that.'

What he's saying is that if there's a line of cocaine here, I have to make the choice to go down and sniff it. And I don't know how--how to do it, but if I was going to do it, I'd do it. If there were a gun here, it wouldn't fire itself. I've got to reach for it and--and pull the trigger. And his point is that we are rationalizing all this irresponsibility and all the choices people are making and we're blaming not them, but society for it. All these Hollywood celebrities say the reason they're weird and bizarre is because they were abused by their parents. So we're going to pay for that kind of rehab, too, and we shouldn't. It's not our responsibility.

And Limbaugh-ites wonder why I laughed? 'nuf said .nmKG 361
Oct 11, 2003 1:09 PM