TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- My Challenge ... You Liberals vs Rush Limbaugh - Have What It Takes?
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »

No, not at all! It's not at all un-common for agreements like this to carry stipulations that neither side be able to speak about the case........quite often, as in civil cases, they can NEVER speak about them again.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco No, not at all! It's not at all un-common for agreements like this to carry stipulations that neither side be able to speak about the case........quite often, as in civil cases, they can NEVER speak about them again.

um, its pretty rare for confidentiality clauses to be included in a criminal matter...

Oh, so now this is a civil court case?

You don't really know much about the legal system, do you? Just admit it now and get that out in the open cause if you think you're doing a good job of hiding that you aren't. I'm willing to walk you through this, but you admitting ignorance(It's totally okay, not a whole lot of people know what really goes on. I'm not claiming any sort of expertise either.) first will make me be a little more civil.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN um, its pretty rare for confidentiality clauses to be included in a criminal matter...

You're Australian. How do you know American Law?

Perhaps there is still an on-going investigation in to others who may or may not be involved in this particular case (like his Doctors, etc.)...we have no idea now, do we?

Either way, even if it's not written in that he isn't supposed to talk about it by agreement, it's also not uncommon for the accused to be advised by Council to keep their yaps shut until the matter is resolved.

WM2; I don't know why you think he's never going to talk about it? He'd be an ass not to. He clearly has a lot to say about it, but he can't right now.

This isn't so hard to understand.

Problem #1. As far as Rush is concerned, the issue is resolved. He's already agreed to the plea bargain. He already admitted fault in doing so. He already agreed to and is carrying out whatever form of punishment the DA's office saw fit in turn for agreeing to plea instead of going to court. That's like the third time I've said that now.

Problem #2. His legal council is not going to advise him to keep his mouth shut about anything after he already admitted guilt. His legal council was probably the reason why he admitted to anything in the first place. He already admitted fault, agreed to accepting that fault outside of court, and is carrying out his sentence for this matter. Why should he stay quite now? If he were really interested in coming clean he would have already done so bringing me to.....

Problem #3. If he were going to come clean, he would have already done it. It's that simple. He first announced this on air in October of 2003. We're quickly apporaching three years. I have yet to hear about this again. Why? It's not because he's not allowed to talk. If it were that simple he would just say so, show the line in the absurd document that says this, and be done with it. Being required not to talk also implies that the DA's office has something to hide and Rush is seeking action against them which is entirely not true.

Instead, he's spend quite a considerable amount of effort claiming he's an addict, but innocent(which is an absurd notion devised to shift blame onto a pill instead of the person putting the pill in their mouth)of any wrong doing. Yet, three years later he still hasn't given a full disclosure on the events leading up to this. If he's not required by law to stay quiet(which I can assure you he isn't) about his peronsal involvement in this case, and he's admitted that he broke the law and is now facing the consequences, what reason is there to wait any longer to explain yourself? The shortest and most obvious answer to that being reputation and ratings. Making excuses for him only adds to the problem, and I doubt his listener base has enough collective brain to question him about the issue otherwise it would have already come to a head on his show.

Now, I ask you, why is that so hard to understand? Is your loyalty to an over blown political pundit you've never met and shouldn't look up to so deep that you would unquestioningly take his side of the story as truth and ignore anything else?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You're Australian. How do you know American Law?

christ donny, how dumb are you?

the LAWS between the US & australia might differ, but the LEGAL SYSTEMS are virtually identical, coming, as they do, from the british. there are obviously differences across all 3 countries, but the basic operations, design & implementation are the same.

so, how you like those apples?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Haha no you see Rush settled: In case the irony was missed by you, that's exactly what he described in his preaching

... are you trying to say *gasp* that Rush is a flip-flopper?!?!


that's crazy talk

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Problem #1. As far as Rush is concerned, the issue is resolved. He's already agreed to the plea bargain. He already admitted fault in doing so. He already agreed to and is carrying out whatever form of punishment the DA's office saw fit in turn for agreeing to plea instead of going to court. That's like the third time I've said that now.

Rush's Attorney, as posted by OCC:~"...[T]he State Attorney's Office and Mr. Limbaugh have reached an agreement whereby a single count charge of doctor shopping filed today by the State Attorney will be dismissed in 18 months. As a primary condition of the dismissal, Mr. Limbaugh must continue to seek treatment from the doctor he has seen for the past two and one half years."

Like I said, for the THIRD TIME; The agreement isn't binding until he up-holds his end...which he can't do until he completes another 18 months of treatment. So until then, the matter is NOT resolved, and he can't talk about it! EOM!!

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Problem #3.Being required not to talk also implies that the DA's office has something to hide and Rush is seeking action against them which is entirely not true.

I never said I thought Rush was seeking any legal action against the D.A. I don't know where you're getting that from? All I'm saying is that it could be any number of reasons as to why he can't talk about it, one of which would be a possible on-going investigation that the Police and the D.A. don't want Rush to screw up by talking about it. Police and D.A.'s are often very tight-lipped during on-going investigations, for good reason; To keep the integrity of the evidence they do have intact. This is all assuming that this is the reaosn...but like I said before, it's also entirely possible that his Attorney asked him not to say anything until the agreement becomes binding (legal) and that won't happen until 18 months from now.

And maybe you didn't hear anything more about this untill now because the statute of limitations to bring this charge is probably near running out. Often they wait on a charge if their evidence is weak in the hopes that they will get more before the limitations are up. Looks like they ran out of time, IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Now, I ask you, why is that so hard to understand? Is your loyalty to an over blown political pundit you've never met and shouldn't look up to so deep that you would unquestioningly take his side of the story as truth and ignore anything else?

I actually almost never listen to Rush. I haven't heard a full show of his in years. I don't think I nearly qualify as a fan, let alone a casual listener. But let me ask you this; Are you willing to afford him the same consideration when it comes to drug abuse that you are to Kennedy who just crashed his car?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN christ donny, how dumb are you? the LAWS between the US & australia might differ, but the LEGAL SYSTEMS are virtually identical, coming, as they do, from the british. there are obviously differences across all 3 countries, but the basic operations, design & implementation are the same. so, how you like those apples?

Cool. So if you know our laws so well, you're one less person that I need bother explaining what I know of them too.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Cool. So if you know our laws so well, you're one less person that I need bother explaining what I know of them too.

well actually, id like to hear more about criminal trials & confidentiality. as my understanding is that if the criminal proceedings are open (as opposed to closed to the public) then everything and anything is also open, and so-called non-disclosure arrangements do not exist. i would be very interested to hear how & why it might be otherwise. so please enlighten me

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well actually, id like to hear more about criminal trials & confidentiality. as my understanding is that if the criminal proceedings are open (as opposed to closed to the public) then everything and anything is also open, and so-called non-disclosure arrangements do not exist. i would be very interested to hear how & why it might be otherwise. so please enlighten me

That's my understanding too. But this matter is technically still not closed until Rush completes his 18 months. So until then, would it really be that much of a stretch to believe that he may be bound by law or by legal council to STFU about any possible on-going related investigations, so as not to further implicate himself or to interfer with an official investigation? I think not.






Either way, something is keeping him bound to silence until the 18 months is up. I think either of the two scenarios are the most likely reasons. So wait 18 months. What's the big edal? We've waited this long for this settlement to be announced, and it's not even over yet still, so how can you demand that he talk during an un-resolved case?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I'm not reading between any lines. I'm telling you that it doesn't look to me like they have enough evidence to even bring charges (un-like OJ and Michael Jackson, or even Robert Blake)...that's a loooooong way from these other more severe cases you're comparing him to where charges were at least brought.

Allow me to simplify this if possible. The argument on hand is whether Rush is being a hypocrite with respect to his ideology. So that being said, let me pose a few yes/no questions to you ... please respond with either yes or no and explain your reasoning:

Irrespective of whether the DA chooses to prosecute rush, and irrespective of whatever agreement both parties came to, did Rush procure his drugs in a legitimate and legal manner ... would it be acceptable for everyone in society to do exactly what he did?

Did Rush take these drugs without a proper prescription ... would it be acceptable for everyone in society to do exactly what he did?

Is Rush a drug abuser?

Did Rush not call for harsher punishments against drug abusers?

quote:

As for his hard-line stance on durg-users, I don't happen to agree with it, but I think there's a difference between getting hooked on pain medication because you are in physical pain versus getting high because you like to smoke crack.

I don't agree with his stance either. But we're not comparing Rush to your or my beliefs, we're comparing him to his beliefs. The fact that he believes in such a hard-line stance against drug users makes him the hypocrite when you take into account his drug abuse.

OCC:

I don't see anywhere in this agreement where's he's guilty of anything, so we have to assume that he was getting his meds legally, under perscription, and using them as perscribed.

He got hooked on pain killers. But that doesn't mean he did anything illegal in the eyes of the law, he just got hooked!

I don't know why they're making him pay for the investigation, but the re-hab stint doesn't mean guilt, it just means he was addicted to a drug which apparently, he was getting legally.

So you can't really compare him to an illegal drug user who uses drugs recreationally, versus a man who gets his meds legally for back pain and gets hooked.

I know you all want to see a big smoking gun here, but did you ever consider the opposite is true, and that he in fact was NOT getting this preferential treatment that you all speak so knowingly of, and that if anything, they tried to make an example out of him and it back-fired because the evidence wasn't there?

If the evidence was there, charges would have been brought. It's really quite simple.

Hehe he acquired 2000 pills legally? Rush is getting the same deal that every other first time drug offender gets ... a slap on the wrist and dismissed charges in exchange for a conditional plea agreement. But you think it's ok for everyone in society to do exactly as he did?

quote:

Limbaugh, prosecutors sign deal to end prescription fraud case By BRIAN SKOLOFF Associated Press Writer WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. � Rush Limbaugh declared victory Monday in his long-running fight to clear his name after signing a deal with prosecutors that will dismiss a prescription fraud charge against him in 18 months if he complies with the terms. Under the deal filed Monday, Limbaugh cannot own a gun, must submit to random drug tests and has to continue treatment for his acknowledged addiction to painkillers. But he didn't have to admit guilt and he continued to proclaim his innocence on his radio show. "From my point of view, the end result will be as if I had gone to court and won, but the matter is concluded much sooner," Limbaugh told his listeners. "I have spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars with lawyers over the past 27 months fighting this at every stage." He pleaded not guilty Friday to a charge that he sought a prescription from a physician in 2003 without revealing that he had received medications from another practitioner within 30 days. "Do you think if there was any real evidence, we would have reached a settlement?" Limbaugh said on his show. "This is a common sense resolution and the appropriate way the state should treat people who have admitted an addiction to prescription pain medication and voluntarily sought treatment," Limbaugh's attorney, Roy Black, said in a statement Monday to The Associated Press. The deal also requires that Limbaugh be available to a court officer for any questioning throughout the 18-month period. The Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office may revoke or modify the deal if he violates the terms. If he complies, he will have no criminal record at the end of 18 months. Black said Limbaugh has seen a doctor and has been drug free for 2 1/2 years. "Folks, I haven't even craved a pain pill since I got out of rehab," Limbaugh told his listeners. Black said Limbaugh has been undergoing both scheduled and random drug tests "as part of the treatment program that he entered into voluntarily, and he has passed them all, so this is nothing new for him." Prosecutors launched their investigation in 2003 after Limbaugh's housekeeper alleged he abused OxyContin and other painkillers. He entered a five-week rehabilitation program that year and publicly blamed his addiction on severe back pain. The 55-year-old commentator surrendered Friday at the Palm Beach County jail on a warrant on the charge commonly known as doctor shopping, a felony that could carry a sentence of up to 5 years in prison. Limbaugh was booked, photographed and fingerprinted before being released on $3,000 bail. The deal ends a three-year investigation that Limbaugh blasted as a "fishing" expedition. Prosecutors accused Limbaugh of illegally deceiving multiple doctors to receive overlapping prescriptions. After seizing his medical records, authorities learned Limbaugh received up to 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six months. The single charge only represents Limbaugh allegedly illegally obtaining about 40 pills, said Mike Edmondson, a state attorney's spokesman. "The information in the charging document in this particular instance was only evidence sufficient to support that sole count and that did not reflect the totality of the evidence we had in the overall investigation," Edmondson said. He would not elaborate or explain why prosecutors scaled back the case. Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney and prominent Miami defense lawyer, said the agreement is a standard deal for first-time, nonviolent drug offenders. "The essence of a pretrial diversion is that you do not acknowledge guilt," Coffey said. "It doesn't either vindicate the defendant's innocence nor does it truly vindicate the prosecution's assertion of guilt. In that sense, it's a draw." http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/...ainkillers.html

Legally he hasn't been convicted of a crime, but then again as I said before, neither are OJ Simpson or Michael Jackson. But this argument doesn't even require a conviction ... he's an self admitting drug abuser which is hypocrticial to his ideology about drug abusers.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider ... he's an self admitting drug abuser which is hypocrticial to his ideology about drug abusers.

Maybe it's not his fault. After-all, he was probably high when he made those proclamations.

who the fuck cares. someone just call already, bunch of little kids jesus

^^^That's what I'm screamin!

Ack! The whole time I've been following this thead: ACK!

And I realized I just don't want argue with idiots like donny and tiesto14... it goes no where. They offer nothing new. Just the same re-hashed spew, and indirect answers to questions! Come on people didn't you ever take debate in high school!

I'm sure they'd be fine to hang out with, and while I don't want to attack either of you personally (well not too much anyway :winnnnnk: ), since I don't know you at all in real life. I definately wouldn't get along with you in PDD! LOL!

Anyway. Seems like this topic is dead.

Shall we leave it as such?

This topic isn't dead. It's only suffered from a bad case of diversionary tactics, which Liberals are naturally quite good at...speaking of; It's interesting how you lump the conservatives together as "offering nothing new" and being bad debaters, LOL!

I'm willing to bet this is hands down the most embarassing moment in Liberal's History on PDD...........I think only rabbits may run faster than you guys did from this simple and PROFITABLE challenge.

Who said I was talking about conservatives asshat.

I'm lumping *most* of you from both sides together. Liberals are going just about as far as you are.

Congrats.

*edit: who the fuck ever said i was liberal anyway?

Eesshh....another poster who runs to profanity.

Well, you mentioned me and Tiesto only, the two biggest conservatives in this thread.

So who ever said your opinion counted more than anyone else's anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Well, you mentioned me and Tiesto only, the two biggest conservatives in this thread.

yeah, but he mentioned you two coz you both act like cretins; not coz youre "conservatives"

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco This topic isn't dead. It's only suffered from a bad case of diversionary tactics, which Liberals are naturally quite good at...speaking of; It's interesting how you lump the conservatives together as "offering nothing new" and being bad debaters, LOL! I'm willing to bet this is hands down the most embarassing moment in Liberal's History on PDD...........I think only rabbits may run faster than you guys did from this simple and PROFITABLE challenge.

You're fucking thick. Since Tito (and I) opened up for the possibility for calling from abroad tiesto14 has left the thread. He's the one that has chickened out.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Hm, and how exactly does that work? I've never used pay pal before.

Allow me to clarify on Paypal and the "Buyer Protection" program: Don't listen to brasco - he's mixing things up.

I've had to use both Paypal and (sadly) the protection program and basically here's what you want to know:

Paypal:
- You get a paypal.co.uk account by giving them your email address and your credit card details.
- They charge you $1.95 and along with the charge (on your next account statement) there is an "activation" code, that you use to verify your account. You might have to call or email your bank to get the code, though, and depending on how common eBay trading is in Croatia, this might involve talking to bank clerks who haven't got a clue as to what you're talking about.
- If you don't get the code, then there is a maximum amount that you can send to others (and maybe also one for recieving - can't remember). This limit is about $1000, I think, so if this is a one shot deal then it shouldn't be a problem.
- Now, if somebody send money to your Paypal account, you can have them deposited on your bank account, which will probably mean that you have to pay some sort of tax/customs fee. Alternatively, you can keep the money in your Paypal account and use them to buy stuff online.
- If you pay for something through Paypal (e.g. an eBay auction), then Paypal grabs 4% of the total amount in fees from the seller.

Buyer Protection program:
- This is something offered by eBay (who owns paypal) - not Paypal. When you win an auction at eBay, which is covered by the program, then you as the buyer are guaranteed to get your money back from eBay if the seller doesn't send you the merchandise. However, for the guarantee to be activated, you need to pay the auction through Paypal.
- If the stuff you bought doesn't show up, you send printouts of the auction, Paypal reciept, emails and the like to eBay HQ, and (if they side with you) they will transfer the amount minus $70 to your Paypal account.

So, if you and tiesto14 want to do this using the program, you would have to set up an eBay auction (say: "I'll call any show you want"), with a start price of $100+phone bill, and tiesto14, would buy that from you - and then he is insured by eBay. However, to set up an auction you need a credit card, and eBay will charge you some percentage of the sell price as well as a couple of cents as listing fee.
If tiesto14 feels that you have not lived up to your promise, then he will send emails and an mp3 of the show to eBay, and they will contact you looking for proof that you called Rush. If you can give this proof then tiesto14's case will fall. If not, then eBay will pay him about $30 (100-70), ban you as a seller, and maybe try to get the police on your ass (I guess not, considering the small amount).

Hope that all made some sense.

If you really want to do this, I would say that the easiest method would be for tiesto14 to Paypal-send the money to someone you both trust (like me ), and then that person would Paypal-send the money to you or him depending on whether you call Rush or not.

Donny, you really are a dumbass. Not only did you totally miss my entire point, you acted like you got it and some how proved all of it wrong while absolutely making no sense at all. Just admit you have no idea how the legal system works already and be done with it. You're not fooling anyone.

Don't use any faulty logic either, like assuming that since I think Rush is a hypocrite that I'm a liberal. I can assure you I'm not. However, in your failed reasoning anyone that doesn't instantly agree with you is against you or a liberal trying to carry out their agenda. You're starting to sound like solgrabber or whatever his name is that started the 9/11 thread.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, but he mentioned you two coz you both act like cretins; not coz youre "conservatives"

Precisely.

Remember in primary school. When you would get split into teams to play a game at recess?

It's like getting split into teams, and your side just HAPPENS to get the autistic kid.

I feel bad for ANY side (conservative or liberal) who gets Donny and Tiesto. It�s embarrassing.

*pants*

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.