Limbaugh lies to listeners. Will they believe him? [Archive]

hgc

5th December 2003, 06:02 AM

Do you believe him?

From this article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=499&ncid=716&e=4&u=/ap/20031205/ap_on_en_ot/limbaugh_pain_killers).
Limbaugh denied any wrongdoing to listeners on his show Thursday. Reading from a statement prepared by Black, Limbaugh said medical records will clear him.

"What these records show is that Mr. Limbaugh suffered extreme pain and had legitimate reasons for taking pain medication," Limbaugh said. "Unfortunately, because of Mr. Limbaugh's prominence and well-known political opinions, he is being subjected to an invasion of privacy no citizen of this republic should endure."

In the search warrants, investigators say they were looking for medical, insurance and appointment records for Limbaugh as well as cash receipts and prescription forms during raids made of two doctor's offices Nov. 25.

Limbaugh "alternated physicians to obtain overlapping prescriptions" and failed to tell each doctor that he was seeing others," according to the warrants, filed in Palm Beach County Circuit Court.

Limbaugh's actions violated the letter and spirit of the law related to doctor shopping, according to one of the warrants.

Chad Noles

5th December 2003, 06:10 AM

hgc wrote: Limbaugh lies to listeners. Will they believe him?

Are they still listening?:p

American

5th December 2003, 06:16 AM

Obviously you have never listened yourself. You have a total misunderstanding of who he is and what his program is about (hint- it's more about the left than it is about conservatism).

hgc

5th December 2003, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by American
Obviously you have never listened yourself. You have a total misunderstanding of who he is and what his program is about (hint- it's more about the left than it is about conservatism). I have listened. What is it I don't understand? Please explain. No need to hint around -- just tell us what you're thinking.

Are you a true believer? Does his lying about the illegal nature of acquisition and use of drugs damage his credibility in your eyes?

headscratcher4

5th December 2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by hgc
Do you believe him?

From this article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=499&ncid=716&e=4&u=/ap/20031205/ap_on_en_ot/limbaugh_pain_killers).

Sounds like the kind of "moral" relativism that he complains sustains/permiates "liberal/left" thinking. Apparently, vice when engaged in by conservatives may be forgiven and explained, but when engaged in by those Rush dislikes, it is manifestation of a deeper personality flaw.

One can only imagine the field day that Rush would be having if the same story was not about him, but about Barbara Strisesand (sp.) or either of the Clintons.

LFTKBS

5th December 2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by hgc
Are you a true believer? Does his lying about the illegal nature of acquisition and use of drugs damage his credibility in your eyes?

Yes, American, I would like to know what you think about that. Is it okay to both a) get multiple perscriptions from multiple doctors and b) obtain drugs for which you have no legal prescriptions while c) using your nationwide media soapbox to call for harsher penalties for drug use?

In addition, I find it odd that R.L. claims his privacy is being violated. If he were, say, a black man in Los Angeles, I doubt the authorities would do the investigation before locking him up.

He'll never go to jail, because he's rich and his buddy is the President.

Tmy

5th December 2003, 06:51 AM

Courtney Love is being prosecuted. Why not RUsh. She just had a few pills too.

The rumor is that Rush had distribution amounts of oxy. How dose he feel about mandatory minimum drug laws?

headscratcher4

5th December 2003, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by LFTKBS

Yes, American, I would like to know what you think about that. Is it okay to both a) get multiple perscriptions from multiple doctors and b) obtain drugs for which you have no legal prescriptions while c) using your nationwide media soapbox to call for harsher penalties for drug use?

In addition, I find it odd that R.L. claims his privacy is being violated. If he were, say, a black man in Los Angeles, I doubt the authorities would do the investigation before locking him up.

He'll never go to jail, because he's rich and his buddy is the President.

Not only that, he used his "maid" to do his buying for him...god forbid, he dirty his hands supporting his dirty little habit. The question I have about Rush, is when did he think what he was doing was ok? I mean, he had to have known that he was in pain, he had to have known that the original perscription wasn't "enough" as it were, did he talk to his doctor about it?

When he went to additional doctors for more prescriptions, did he think that was good healtcare? Did he think because he likely lied to those MDs to get the prescriptions, that it was "legal"?

Did he think because he sent his maid to do his street buys, that somehow he wasn't involved in a crime?

I feel sorry for Rush and his pain, I really do. I've known other Oxycontin addicts. It is a powerful drug. I hope he is successful getting off the stuff, and finds a way of dealing with his pain....but the man is a moral hypocrit (sp) on this issue. And, I suspect that he is totally incapable of understanding the irony of attacking people like Michael Jackson or OJ or whomever for their charges of racism of the law, selective prosecution, conspiracy what have you, and his belief that he is being singled out. Apparently what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

hgc

5th December 2003, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
Courtney Love is being prosecuted. Why not RUsh. She just had a few pills too.

The rumor is that Rush had distribution amounts of oxy. How dose he feel about mandatory minimum drug laws? I wonder if he did any of his funny stuff in NY State, and if he suddenly favors the repeal of the Rockefeller drug laws.

But I digress, and I reiterate my question to regular Rush listeners/fans: How do you feel about Rush's lies on this? Or do you believe him when he says he did nothing illegal?

corplinx

5th December 2003, 07:12 AM

Ladewig

5th December 2003, 07:35 AM

While I am no Rush Limbaugh fan, I have no problem with his reading a statement prepared by his lawyer. It is appropriate for Rush to not comment too directly on the matter as an indictment may be forthcoming. I'm prepared to wait until the prosecuters decline charges or a court verdict is reached before hearing his side of the story in its entirety.

Reason number 3 why I could never be a television interviewer:
I would bust up laughing if I heard a lawyer say, "Why is Rush Limbaugh the only person treated like this in America?"

TruthSeeker

5th December 2003, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4

I mean, he had to have known that he was in pain, he had to have known that the original perscription wasn't "enough" as it were, did he talk to his doctor about it?

When he went to additional doctors for more prescriptions, did he think that was good healtcare? Did he think because he likely lied to those MDs to get the prescriptions, that it was "legal"?

When we put patients on opioids we tell them in great detail what to do if it doesn't work. We tell them VERY CLEARLY not to doctor shop. Sometimes, depending on the patient, we even have a written contract.

I would bet that Rush knew exactly what he was doing and the implications if he were caught.

hgc

5th December 2003, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Ladewig
While I am no Rush Limbaugh fan, I have no problem with his reading a statement prepared by his lawyer. It is appropriate for Rush to not comment too directly on the matter as an indictment may be forthcoming. I'm prepared to wait until the prosecuters decline charges or a court verdict is reached before hearing his side of the story in its entirety.

Reason number 3 why I could never be a television interviewer:
I would bust up laughing if I heard a lawyer say, "Why is Rush Limbaugh the only person treated like this in America?" Rush should certainly not say anything that can be held against him. But, he can't read a quotation from his lawyer, on his show, and pretend as if that's not from him. Roy Black works for him and speaks for him. If Rush were to say on his show that he's not going to discuss it, because there is an ongoing investigation, then I'd have no criticism (on that particular point). But by quoting his lawyer, and in doing so reiterating what he knows (I believe) to be untrue, then he's actually lying to his listeners. Bad boy!

5th December 2003, 10:11 AM

Let's see:

Courtney Love and Tommy Chong went to jail.

Rush went to rehab, and back on the air.

I'd say the evidence is clear, at least some part of the law-enforcement community is guilty of aiding and abetting Rush.

Monketey Ghost

5th December 2003, 10:47 AM

jj, you sound like another member of the lieberal media. Every directional choice is "left" for you, isn't it?
Stop persecuting this poor man! You just hate him because he's rich and white. It's jealousy, that's what it is. He has a successful radio show tuned in by millions, and you do not.

Rush is the silt of the earth.

Salt, I mean.

American

5th December 2003, 12:47 PM

You think that Rush is nothing more than the Morten Downey Jr Show of the early 80s, or a male version of Dr Laura telling sluts not to behave like sluts.

You don't take him seriously, and that's why he is #1 in the country, always ahead of Howard Stern (who isn't such a bad guy himself).

shanek

5th December 2003, 01:22 PM

Here's the bit that really gets me:

"Unfortunately, because of Mr. Limbaugh's prominence and well-known political opinions, he is being subjected to an invasion of privacy no citizen of this republic should endure."

But this EXACT SAME "invasion of privacy no citizen of this republic should endure" he has advocated for years along with all of the other Republicans. And if he things that what he is going through is "an invasion of privacy no citizen of this republic should endure," he should see the invasions his political philosophy has foisted on others.

He and the Republicans who follow him want him to be a special case. In that, they are just hypocrites.

ssibal

5th December 2003, 02:11 PM

Why do people still take Rush seriously? Anyone who cannot get through a sentence without using the words 'liberal' or 'conservative' is a joke!

c0rbin

5th December 2003, 02:13 PM

That crew of "Talk" from Rush to Hannity carry themselves like a cult. The first thing any cult does when it tries to recruit is discredit any source of information but the cult's source of information.

This is exactly what they do.

cbish

5th December 2003, 02:19 PM

America

Would you please answer the question directed to you earlier in the thread.

5th December 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by No Answers
jj, you sound like another member of the lieberal media. Every directional choice is "left" for you, isn't it?
Stop persecuting this poor man! You just hate him because he's rich and white. It's jealousy, that's what it is. He has a successful radio show tuned in by millions, and you do not.

Rush is the silt of the earth.

Salt, I mean.

I think you had it right the first time, and no, I don't envy Crush Bimbo.

I think he and Michael Moore ought to fall in love and move to Haiti, but maybe not, gays have enough bad press without being saddled with that couple...

Btw, calling me a "liberal" is fighting words, but I think you were kidding here, yes?

BTox

5th December 2003, 03:08 PM

Who listens to Rush, he's always been a big blowhard. I prefer to listen to a much more moderate radio show... Savage Nation. ;)

Monketey Ghost

5th December 2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by jj

Btw, calling me a "liberal" is fighting words, but I think you were kidding here, yes?

Anyone who doesn't see the absolute, unassailable truth in what Rush brings to the table is obviously a lieberal. Lefty.

(stepping off into personal fantasy-land) But... imagine... a cyclotron that could spin Moore up to fantastic speeds, to be collided with Limbaugh. What sorts of particles might be discovered?
What would be left?

American

5th December 2003, 05:39 PM

a) yes (dumb but legal)
b) no (illegal)
c) yes (and you still have no point whatsoever)

And as long as you continue with attitude and a gross misunderstanding of life, you will never have a case nor re-capture the attenion of this country.

You need to do what Clinton did- lie and say that you're a conservative democrat. Praise Bush just as he did Bush92, and say that you're the same only better. That's a lie some Americans might believe. They will never embrace liberalism without a conservative mask.

Your other option is to re-examine your personal ideals and realize the truths you ignore, so you can keep spending others' money and live off of their work, which is the essence of the Left.

American

5th December 2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by BTox
Who listens to Rush, he's always been a big blowhard. I prefer to listen to a much more moderate radio show... Savage Nation. ;)

Red Diaper Doper Babies... There's finally a name for them you can say on the air.

Evolver

6th December 2003, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by American

You need to do what Clinton did- lie and say that you're a conservative democrat. Praise Bush just as he did Bush92, and say that you're the same only better. That's a lie some Americans might believe. They will never embrace liberalism without a conservative mask.

Didn't Bush 2 do the same (in reverse) by calling himself a "compassionate conservative"? In retrospect, his only compassion seems to be for billionaires & oil companies.

Here lies the problem with getting your info from talk radio wackos like Reich Limbaugh et al. (I suspect, living in Massachusetts, you listen to Howie Carr as well).

Lies & hypocracies on the left are inflated and ridiculed, while those on the right are ignored, or excuses are made for them if a caller is actually allowed to point them out.

American

6th December 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Evolver

Didn't Bush 2 do the same (in reverse) by calling himself a "compassionate conservative"? In retrospect, his only compassion seems to be for billionaires & oil companies.

Nonsense. Why do you say that? Iraq? If you don't know what Iraq is about by now, you never will. (It ain't oil.)

(I suspect, living in Massachusetts, you listen to Howie Carr as well).

"I'm not voting for someone who wants to screw..... ME!"

-Howie Carr, AM radio 680

clk

6th December 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by American

If you don't know what Iraq is about by now, you never will. (It ain't oil.)

Oh really? Why don't you tell us what it was about? Weapons of Mass Destruction? Oh wait, Bush lied about those, I forgot. Maybe it was saving the Iraqi people from the oppression of Saddam Hussein. If you believe Bush really gives a rat's ass about the Iraqi people, just because he "saved" them....well, doesn't he care about the North Korean people? Or how about the Syrians? Or the Iranians? No? Didn't think so.

BTW, if anyone wants to post a lengthy rebuttal to my statement, please start another thread...I just realized that this thread would be hijacked if we went on about this Iraq issue.

cbish

6th December 2003, 01:12 PM

All in all, I don't think Limbaugh's credibility is going to be affected. His loyal listeners will remain loyal and his antagonists never thought he had any credibility to begin with.

I've been listening to Rush for about 20 years now and I really don't recall him ever discussing substance abuse. It's been a political issue in a few states (i.e. Arizona, Calif.) in recent elections and he never brought it up. Perhaps, he knew it would be hypocritical.

One thing I was curious about was if this experience changed his way of thinking in anyway. Therapists say that often a personality change occurs when one "sobers up". After listening, I guess not. I found his childish diatribe in funding cuts to art therapy programs by governor Arnold to be incredibly cruel.:(

Scott

6th December 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by hgc

Do you believe him?I listen from time to time, but I haven't paid enough attention to the matter to form an opinion either way.

Originally posted by LFTKBS

He'll never go to jail, because he's rich and his buddy is the President.A lot of rich friends of Clinton went to jail, why wouldn't Rush? Especially in the Peoples Republic of Palm Beach County.

Of course Clinton pardoned a bunch of his rich friends and a couple of terrorists...

If Rush walks on this it's either because:

A) He didn't do anything wrong

B) The prosection failed to prove it's case

C) The prosecution didn't charge him to start with.

D) If he gets no jail time, it's because he's a first time offender.

Now, with respect to all of the above, for some of us here, if Rush walks, it's simply because he's a FOB. Damn the facts that Palm Beach County has, we know better! We read it in the newspaper or saw it on the news, and they couldn't print it or say it if it wasn't true.

Sounds like a good solid skeptical position to have.

Originally posted by jj
Let's see:

Courtney Love and Tommy Chong went to jail.

Rush went to rehab, and back on the air.

I'd say the evidence is clear, at least some part of the law-enforcement community is guilty of aiding and abetting Rush. Let's see, Tommy Chong was charged and convicted in court for selling bongs and stuff.

Courtney Love checked herself into rehab last weekend. She has yet to go to court on the charges. She'll keep making CDs and movies and people that like them will spend their money them.

Rush Limbaugh hasn't been charged and is still under investigation. People that like him will keep listening.

You've got Courtney and Rush convicted and off to jail before they ever have a trial?

What country do you live in that allows that?

Originally posted by cbish

I've been listening to Rush for about 20 years now and I really don't recall him ever discussing substance abuse.I recently read somewhere (I don't recall where) of an exhaustive search some group did through the Rush archives and manuscripts and could not find a solid Rush hammering on drug use after--I think--1995.

American

6th December 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by clk

Oh really? Why don't you tell us what it was about? Weapons of Mass Destruction? Oh wait, Bush lied about those, I forgot. Maybe it was saving the Iraqi people from the oppression of Saddam Hussein. If you believe Bush really gives a rat's ass about the Iraqi people, just because he "saved" them....well, doesn't he care about the North Korean people? Or how about the Syrians? Or the Iranians? No? Didn't think so.

:roll:

Good luck next November, losers. Not that it will help you.

NightG1

6th December 2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Scott
Of course Clinton pardoned a bunch of his rich friends and a couple of terrorists...

And Ford pardoned Nixon. By the way, who were those "terrorists" anyways?

cbish

6th December 2003, 03:41 PM

Scott wrote:
I recently read somewhere (I don't recall where) of an exhaustive search some group did through the Rush archives and manuscripts and could not find a solid Rush hammering on drug use after--I think--1995.

Interesting. Was there any before?

Scott also wrote:
D) If he gets no jail time, it's because he's a first time offender.

True! And the fact that he went to rehab. Going to rehab is a great "act of good faith" for substance abuse related crimes/ drunk driving etc. Doing that usually reduces the sentence.

America wrote:
Good luck next November, losers. Not that it will help you.

So do actually have anything of substance to say or are you just going to fire off one-liners:confused: Please speak!

epepke

6th December 2003, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by jj
I think he and Michael Moore ought to fall in love and move to Haiti, but maybe not, gays have enough bad press without being saddled with that couple.

I find using the names "Rush Chomsky" and "Noam Limbaugh" avoids much of the confusion, but maybe you're right. Maybe it should be "Rush Moore" and "Michael Limbaugh."

On the other hand, Michael Moore did make one intentionally funny movie, so maybe he's not so bad. It was for John Candy, what Plan 9 from Outer Space was for Bela Lugosi, though.

Ladewig

6th December 2003, 05:09 PM

I recently read somewhere (I don't recall where) of an exhaustive search some group did through the Rush archives and manuscripts and could not find a solid Rush hammering on drug use after--I think--1995.

Yes, Rush admitted not criticizing people using drugs once he bacame aware of his personal use.

One thing I was curious about was if this experience changed his way of thinking in anyway. Therapists say that often a personality change occurs when one "sobers up". After listening, I guess not. I found his childish diatribe in funding cuts to art therapy programs by governor Arnold to be incredibly cruel

In general, I find it useful to not be bothered by things said by people who have gotten out of rehab within the last 3 or 4 months. Expecting Mr. Limbaugh to go from "My talent is on loan from God," to "Maybe this humility thing might be a good idea" in 6 or 7 weeks is somewhat ambitious. I wish him well in his attempt to overcome his addiction.

I find using the names "Rush Chomsky" and "Noam Limbaugh" avoids much of the confusion,

LOL

clk

6th December 2003, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by American

:roll:

Good luck next November, losers. Not that it will help you.

Ah, you can't answer my question, huh?

BTW, good luck trying to get your GED...not that it will help you.

epepke

6th December 2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Ladewig
Yes, Rush admitted not criticizing people using drugs once he bacame aware of his personal use.

Did he ever admit that he was wrong?

Not just "I don't criticize them any more" but "I was wrong to criticize them in the first place, but I have learned"?

specious_reasons

6th December 2003, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by NightG1

And Ford pardoned Nixon. By the way, who were those "terrorists" anyways?

Puerto Rican separatists.

J Coplen

8th December 2003, 03:56 PM

Lock Rush up and throw the key out!

American

8th December 2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by J Coplen
Lock Rush up and throw the key out!

Please don't end your sentence with a preposition. It's bad language.

Regnad Kcin

8th December 2003, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by American
Please don't end your sentence with a preposition. It's bad language. Actually, it's poor grammar, but our panel of judges are giving you the point anyway.

headscratcher4

9th December 2003, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by American

Please don't end your sentence with a preposition. It's bad language.

Indeed, well met...yet, how do you cope with Geroge W. and his use of the language?

J Coplen

9th December 2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by American

Please don't end your sentence with a preposition. It's bad language.

Actually, you're wrong. A sentence can be ended with a preposition.

9th December 2003, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Actually, it's poor grammar, but our panel of judges are giving you the point anyway.

The "panel is"?

Regnad Kcin

9th December 2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Ed
The "panel is"? Ah, the clunkiness of the ol' English language. While "panel" is singular, it is comprised of "judges" - plural. Since the latter group are the ones providing the action (and not some solitary, intangible panel) that element gets the nod.

What I will concede is that within the construct "our panel of judges" the "panel of" portion is a bit redundant; "our judges" would easily suffice (and therefore solve the problem of is/are).

Oh, and the question mark is generally placed prior to the end quote mark. ;)

Upchurch

9th December 2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin

Oh, and the question mark is generally placed prior to the end quote mark. ;) Just to help totally derail this thread...

A friend of mine and I had an argument about this not too long ago. Language is a mutable beast and this is one of the rules that is starting to change with common practice. As I understand it, placing the punctuation outside of the quotation marks when the quatation marks are used to cite other's material that did not originally contain that punctuation is slowly becoming the norm. This would be as opposed to quoting the punctuation of the original quote or using quatation marks to denote dailogue (sp?).

I'm no expert, this is just what I've picked up. Also, I realize the above is not a direct quote, but it is an infered correction of a direct quote.

Tricky stuff, language.

American

9th December 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by J Coplen

Actually, you're wrong. A sentence can be ended with a preposition.

Oh no it can't. You may end it with the word "preposition", but ending it with an actual one is impossible, unless it's like a command you're barking at somebody. "OUT!" See?

J Coplen

9th December 2003, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by American

Oh no it can't. You may end it with the word "preposition", but ending it with an actual one is impossible, unless it's like a command you're barking at somebody. "OUT!" See?

No. Go look it up, bub. I don't have my college English text near me, but it says you may end a sentence with a preposition. Do a Google search for it and it'll agree with me.

hgc

9th December 2003, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by American

Oh no it can't. You may end it with the word "preposition", but ending it with an actual one is impossible, unless it's like a command you're barking at somebody. "OUT!" See? You know about as much about grammar as you do about anything other topic you discuss here. Zilch.

Some high-falutin' 19th century grammarian decided that since you can't end a sentence with a preposition IN LATIN, then you can't in English either. For some reason it stuck in a lot of feeble minds. But actually you can end a sentence with a preposition in English, and be grammatically correct.

So who told you this anyway? Rush Limbaugh? Don't listen to him -- he's a drug-addled periure, fraus populi, caenum and all-round verbero.

Learn something! (http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/drlang001.html)

American

9th December 2003, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by J Coplen

No. Go look it up, bub. I don't have my college English text near me, but it says you may end a sentence with a preposition. Do a Google search for it and it'll agree with me.

Is this Denise I'm talking to AGAIN? Sorry I keep blowing your cover....

A sentence can't end with a prep. It's just not possible.

Regnad Kcin

9th December 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by hgc
Learn something! (http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/drlang001.html) Thanks, hgc. Good stuff!

Upchurch

9th December 2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by American

A sentence can't end with a prep. It's just not possible. And yet, weren't you attempting to correct someone who had ended a sentence with a preposition? Wouldn't that indicate that it is, in fact, possible since it was there for all to see?

Some people have a strange idea about what is and is not possible. As for whether it is correct or not is another matter altogether. Grammer is a human construct, nothing about it is inerently correct or incorrect. It is only correct insofar as we agree that it is correct.

LFTKBS

9th December 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by American

A sentence can't end with a prep. It's just not possible.

It's not generally recommended, but it's both possible and allowable. It is not something up with which you should not put.

hgc

9th December 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by American

...
A sentence can't end with a prep. It's just not possible. Despite all evidence to the contrary? This is the forum equivalent of putting your hands over your ears, and singing "Mary had a Little Lamb" in a loud voice.

But, I digress...

Ditto me this, Batman: Do you believe Rush when he says he did nothing illegal?

hgc

9th December 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Thanks, hgc. Good stuff! You're welcome. I rather think it's something Professor Peabody could sink his canines into.

Leif Roar

9th December 2003, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by American

Please don't end your sentence with a preposition. It's bad language.

I'm not a grammarian, but doesn't "throw the key out" in the sense "throw the key away" use "out" as an adverb rather than a preposition?

hgc

9th December 2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Leif Roar

I'm not a grammarian, but doesn't "throw the key out" in the sense "throw the key away" use "out" as an adverb rather than a preposition?
You are correct. See American, you could have avoided all this embarrassment. Key is the direct object to the verb throw, and out modifies the verb. Nice thing about English.. you can move words around sentences a lot, in order to shift emphasis, or to acheive a nice cadence, or just for the fun of it.