On 22 Dec 10 11:41am, MARK LEWIS wrote to RICHARD HELM:



 RH>> Either there is privacy or there isn't. The "privacy" found in
 RH>> Roe v. Wade is simply a patient seeing a doctor and getting a
 RH>> professional medical opinion.  Limbaugh was seeing a doctor for
 RH>> a professional medical opinion.  The reasons for seeing a
 RH>> medical professional has no bearing on the nature of the
 RH>> professional relationship.

 ML> no, limbaugh was seeing doctors for getting controlled drugs... what 
 ML> he did broke the law, period, end of statement...

There is the rub.  You have no evidence that was happening, only an
accusation.  The hypocrisy of the left is that they are doing exactly what
they claim the right did with Clinton.

The county attorney is fishing for evidence against Limbaugh (and his
doctors) for political purposes only.  Not one bit different than what the
Limbaugh bashers claimed Ken Starr was doing with Clinton.  Simply put they
are hypocrites.

 RH>> The doctor could have and should have asked Limbaugh if he was
 RH>> taking other medications.  Limbaugh should have answered
 RH>> truthfully. That's not what we're discussing here.  If Limbaugh
 RH>> lied and the doctor believed that he was being lied to, he
 RH>> should have taken the appropiate actions to protect his
 RH>> professional integerity.

 ML> right... so limbaugh lied and the doctor believe that he was telling 
 ML> the truth... possibly... that will come out in the medical board's 
 ML> investigation if there is one... likely there will be if there hasn't 
 ML> been one already... 

Did he?  You're making the accusations without evidence.  Not any different
than the other hypocrites that bashed Ken Starr.

 ML> the medical board works closely with the DEA, BTW:

 RH>> The county attorney in Florida is on a fishing expedition to
 RH>> find some "crime" to pin on Limbaugh.  I'm sure that such a
 RH>> find will thrill many people.  What should worry everyone is
 RH>> that an elected official is using her position of trust to
 RH>> invade a citizen's privacy for political gain.

 ML> seems to me that an elected official is using their position to stop, 
 ML> prevent and punish someone for a crime they committed and admitted to 
 ML> on public radio...

Is it, or is it a political ploy to "enhance" her chances for higher
office?

 RH>> It's way too easy to forget that what happens to the rich and
 RH>> powerful is small potatoes to what can happen to the poor.

 ML> no kidding... the rich and famous aren't stuffed away to be totally 
 ML> forgotten about like poor no-name individuals...

 RH>> If, I say again, if you do believe in equal protection under
 RH>> the law, you should be rooting for Limbaugh on principle
 RH>> alone.  You may "feel good" to see Limbaugh squirm, but you
 RH>> should also want him to "win" against the big brother that
 RH>> you worry about.

 ML> no, limbaugh broke the law and admitted it... for that he should be 
 ML> punished... period... if i did the same thing, then i would also 
 ML> expect to be punished for it... its one thing to do something 
 ML> illegal... its another to stand up and take one's punishment for the 
 ML> illegal action... 

A fair and just trial.  You've already convicted him and ready to punish
without the benefit of that trial.  That's the hypocrisy of your position.

Richard 
 rlhelm{at}radiks.net
 http://rlhelm.home.radiks.net

... If you're not making waves, you're not rowing the boat
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5