|
Posted by Jeff McCann on May 10, 2006, 12:21 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> Jeff McCann wrote:
> >
> >>Gunner wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 06 May 2006 17:29:33 -0700, Stuart Grey
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>sittingduck wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Anthony wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>OT bullshit not marked OT
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>wow, they say nothing about the ongoing saga of criminal republicans,
> >
> > but the
> >
> >>>>>instant they find something on a democrat they scream for a rope....
> >>>>>Does anyone think Gunner isn't brain-damaged?
> >>>>
> >>>>I doubt Gunner is serious, but rather, was doing satire that
highlighted
> >>>>that Limbaugh and Kennedy both get special treatment.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>What special treatment did Limbaugh get? Other than THE TREATMENT.?
> >>
> >>Being singled out for a law that is almost never prosecuted, having them
> >>go to the Florida Supreme court to violate his right to privacy, and
> >>then have it blasted all over the press that he copped a "plea" when
> >>basically the DA had to give up because he couldn't get an indictment
> >>for any of the trumped up charges they tried to pin on him is pretty
> >>special.
> >
> >
> > So what? Not many drug addicts have the cash to doctor shop and
> > fraudulently obtain prescriptions for controlled drugs.
>
> "Not many drug addicts have the cash to doctor shop" - so it's the rich
> that you are denying equal protection. Just prosecute the rich people.
Stuey, you're ranting incoherently again. I merely pointed out the fraud by
doctor shopping requires money that most addicts don't have, so it isn't as
common a crime as, say, buying a few pills from a streetcorner dealer. But
its still a felony in Florida. Apparently, you think that wealth should
insulate the wealthy from having to answer for their crimes, just like
everyones else. What a good little Rightard tool you are!
> It doesn't take long for you to show your true colors and start spewing
> that communist "hate the rich" and "class warfare" propagnda.
Whenever you clowns trot out the "hate" defense, it means you've been caught
dead to rights.
> Yet, the simple fact is, all the DA was able to accuse Rush of was
> illegally getting 40 pills. He didn't have enough evidence of doctor
> shopping.
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/01/D8HB3LC05.html
> " However, the single charge only alleges that Limbaugh illegally
> obtained about 40 pills, said Mike Edmondson, a state attorney's
> spokesman. He would not elaborate or explain why prosecutors scaled back
> the case."
Obtaining 40, or 1, pill by fraud is sufficient.
> Basically, the DA is smearing him with inuendo, a propaganda practice
> that you know and use often.
Sure, Stuey, if you say so! <laughing>
> > He also had the money for an
> > interlocutory appeal to the FLSC, who's order protected Limbaugh's
privacy
> > rights, so they were not violated.
>
> There is no justice for Republicans in Florida as long as the Communist
> sit on the Florida Supreme Court. We saw that laughable bunch of idiots,
> who had their idiot decisions overtuned by the SCOTUS, doing their party
> dirty tricks back in 2000.
You know nothing about either politics or law, but that never stops you from
displaying your ignorance, does it?
> It's a silly argument that say that because a bunch of Democrat
> operatives, who have been proven to use the bench for political
> purposes, okayed violating a man's rights that the man's rights were not
> violated.
>
> The true proof that his rights were not violated is do they run counter
> to the constitution. In this case, obviously yes. There is a long
> history of closed medical files and doctor patient confidentiality that
> Limbaugh did not get because of the Democrat inquisition.
Where in the Constitution does it mention physician/patient confidentiality,
Stuart? The fact is that such restrictions are matters of state law. Some
states have them, variously, for physicians, clergy, psychologists, etc.
But the states vary and there are usually exceptions. When the crime
actually involves medical care, then the prosecutor can access the relevant
records. Otherwise, it would be impossible to prosecute, for example,
health insurance fraud. There are many exceptions in Florida, including
fraud to obtain controlled substances, gunshot wounds, etc.
> Democrats are thus once again shown to be the party that stands against
> the rights of the individual.
Sure they do, Stuey. <laughter>
> > Freedom of the press is something
> > Limbaugh relies on, so he's in no position to complain about it now.
>
> Slander is not freedom of the press.
If it were slander, he could sue. But it isn't, so he can't.
> > Lastly, you assume without any evidence whatsoever that the Prosecutor
> > "couldn't get and indictment," just because, as in about 90% of cases,
> > Limbaugh was able to negotiate a plea deal.
>
> That's because you do the "see no evil, hear no evil" when it comes to
> the proof of the DAs abuse of his office. A more polite way to put it
> would be to say that you once again have your head up your ass.
Still waiting for your supposed "proof," Stuey. It's been a long wait so
far. Is "never" too soon for you to produce it?
> > Limbaugh got fair, even generous, treatment in his felony case. Any
claim
> > to the contrary is just so much partisan whining.
> The dramaticly different treatment the Kennedy's have gotten prove that
> you're lying.
>
> Teddy should have been hung for dumping Mary Jo into the river, or at
> least do life.
> His son Patrick should have been given a breatalizer and taken to jail,
> and charged with a false police report for lying about going to a house
> vote to beat the rap. Instead, he was taken home and a nice little cover
> up started.
Different cases, different facts, different jurisdictions, different laws,
different prosecutors, different alleged crimes, but other than that, you
still don't come anywhere near having an actual point.
> That's quite a difference, a difference you ignore, because you have
> your head up your ass. ("Head up your ass" is a way to say that you
> pretend the fact are otherwise and tell an obvious lie, simply because
> you are smugly biased.)
Face it. Your boy did crimes, got caught, and took a plea deal. End of
story. Now dry your eyes, wipe off your chin, and quit blubbering like a
spoiled child who couldn't have his way.
If you think it's so unfair, I'll tell you what. Next time you get pulled
over for speeding, whine to the officer about all the other speeders he
didn't pull over, complain about how unfair it is for you to get "singled
out" for a speeding ticket, and demand that he let you go, too. Let us know
how that works for you, OK?
Jeff
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap