Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Archae

(46,364 posts)
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 12:09 PM Sep 2012

I used to know a guy who was heavy into prescription narcotics.

Eventually I read about him in the paper, he died of an overdose of Vicodin.

But he acted a lot like Rush Limbaugh is acting like right now.
Memory loss, strange things he'd say out of the blue, mood swings, the works.


Rush Limbaugh peddled three conspiracy theories surrounding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi during his radio program, claiming that the Obama administration is "engag[ing] in a cover-up" of the attack, is forbidding the FBI to investigate in Benghazi, and is jailing the maker of an anti-Muslim movie as punishment for creating the film.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/28/one-limbaugh-show-three-conspiracy-theories-abo/190213

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I used to know a guy who was heavy into prescription narcotics. (Original Post) Archae Sep 2012 OP
Apparently there is a cohort that does not believe that people have a right not to be harmed patrice Sep 2012 #1

patrice

(47,992 posts)
1. Apparently there is a cohort that does not believe that people have a right not to be harmed
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 12:35 PM
Sep 2012

by Limbaugh's speech.

I can understand their point that those who would do the harm are not the same group as those who would be harmed and therefore those who would be harmed are being held hostage by fascists who will harm innocent others in the pursuit of power, in this case, the power to control what is said and what is not said. This fascism is especially galling as it increases oppression when the whole reason for freedom of speech, in the first place, is to maximize the most freedom for the most people. Defeat of that principle should be regarded, amongst the proponents of free speech, in terms of what, exactly and precisely, they can do to maximize the salutary effects of free speech, i.e. free more people with free speech, rather than say that the pathological effects of free speech, i.e. more oppression through violence or other means, do not matter.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I used to know a guy who ...