Rush Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox and Parkinson's Disease by misbehaven

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:

Sorry? When did I belittle someone with Parkinsons's?
"Their health condition does not exclude them from
criticism, nor should it."

BUT LIMBO ATTACKED HIS DISEASE-OR LACK THEREOF-AND PERSONAL
CREDIBILITY. Not stem cell research, or celebrity endorsement. To
defend the indefensible (Rush) you destroy your own position (And piss
off those tired of the endless bullshit).

But by your logic, Rush should be excused due to his oxycontinaholism,
a degenerative disease in it's own right, correct?

Actually, Rush never attacked his disease or lack thereof and
repeatedly expressed his sympathy for Fox's plight, but he certainly
questioned his credibility and Fox's position on stem cell research.
He did so on the grounds that his statements were false or misleading,
not on the fact that he suffers a terrible disease. He conjectured
that Michael J. Fox may have been off of his medication, was
exaggerating his symptons, or possibly acting. Limbaugh did so based
on statements Fox made himself in his book where he admits that he has
deliberately not taken his medication in the past when making public
appearances. Rush Limbaugh explained extensively why he believes that
the substance of Fox's statments in the ad were misleading and wrong,
but appearantly that doesn't matter since he's just a moron with a
degenerative disease called oxycontinaholism.

I'm not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, but that doesn't mean I close my
ears when he speaks like so many people who disagree with him do. I
generally disagree with everything Rue says, but I don't just scroll
through her posts and ignore them wholesale. (I leave that for PN's
drivel) I believe one of the reasons civil discussion in our society
is in such decline is precisely because we have stopped listening to
one another. We don't want to hear something that challenges our
beliefs and so its easier to just categorize those who disagree with
us as suffering from oxycontinaholism or are just plain stupid.

But hey, I'm just full of

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
...f***ing bull***t,...[\QUOTE]

What do I know?

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 2:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Razza,

What you said was that a well known person should be personally attacked if they express an opinion. You defend ad hominem attacks. You believe in ad hominem attacks. Even if they are pure slander and implication and have nothing to do with issues, or facts or truth.

Is it any wonder people think you're an asshole? I mean, really. What did you expect?

Rue:

I never said it was okay to conduct personal attacks on any public figure, but I did say it was okay to question their statements. You would have a lot more credibility with you arguement about ad hominem attacks and sidetracking the issues if you weren't so glaringly guilty of it in this discussion. You have attacked me personally and failed to address the issues of this discussioin with each of your posts.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Largely I suspect it's because you argue out of both sides of your mouth.

And because you think it's OK to belittle someone's integrity and politics because they have Parkinson's.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Is it any wonder people think you're an asshole? I mean, really. What did you expect?

Luckily, I'm pretty thick skinned and quite frankly, don't much care what you think of me. Bottomline, you still haven't goaded me into insulting you in return, but by all means keep trying if it makes you happy.

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 2:34 PM

Soup:

First off, thanks for [Edited later to include] "NOT" starting out with derogatory insult, how refreshing to have someone actually talk to me instead of at me.

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Hmmm. Been trying to post this for a while now. Let's see if the X time is the charm...

What was fascinating, to me, is that he appears to be going out of his way to steer clear of the entire topic of stem cell research. I went to each of the candidates web sites to see what their positions were. Claire McCaskill appears to be making this a primary issue of her campaign. Lots of stuff. Jim Talent? Not so much. In fact, I couldn’t find one mention of stem cell research on his site ( http://www.talentforsenate.com ).
* edited because I realized his site hadn't been indexed at all *
Compared to around a couple dozen on McCaskill’s.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.claireonline.com+stem&
btnG=Google+Search
You’d think he’d at least hype his co-sponsorship on S.681. Nada.

I don't find that surprising at all. It's a contentious issue, and what politician is actually going to tell what they think if they don't have to? I'm pretty conservative and I'm on the fence on this one, and I suspect a lot of people are. Why risk pissing off your base by taking a stance they may not like in hopes of luring fence sitters like me. Vice versa, why risk losing fence sitters by making your right wing cowtowing so evident?

Quote:
I read what Rush had to say. I actually watched the feed from the crooks and liars link that I posted above (which was from Olbermann’s show). His gesturing was mimicking Michael J Fox. There’s no other reasonable explanation for that. He posited, in his statements, that Michael J Fox was either off his medication or acting. That’s calling Fox a faker, in my book.

I’m sure you’re right that there are Rush fans who don’t think Fox was being mocked. I can only speak from personal experience. I used to listen to Rush. Spent years doing it, as a matter of fact. One of the reasons was because he would attack and make fun of those on the left. I loved that. And, based on the callers who interacted with him on the show, a lot of his listeners felt the same way. Rush’s main value to the modern American conservative movement is that he operates on the other side of the decency boundary. He attacks their opponents. He gets down and dirty. Other conservatives can appear more rational because Rush does the dirty work.

Interesting take! You may BE giving more credit than is due here though. I think it has more to do with promoting Rush Limbaugh and his show than anything else. Free advertising so speak.

Quote:
But Rush didn’t question Fox’s position. He didn’t say anything, as far as I heard, about what Fox actually said. He wasn’t debating at all on the level of the spoken message. Because Rush, for all his faults, is not dumb. He realizes, as the Republican leadership realized as soon as they saw this ad, that this was a damn powerful ad precisely because of what is seen on the ad. Not what is said. That’s why it was necessary for Rush to attack what was seen. His main goal was to convince his millions of listeners that what they saw was not accurate. Because what they saw was pretty damn convincing. Here we had a young, good looking and talented man looking like shit on the basis of his disease. My first thought when I saw the ad was, “Damn. Michael J Fox sure has deteriorated.” I called over my partner telling her, “You’ve got to see this. It’s powerful.”

I disagree, I happened to be listening on the way to work and he specifically addressed the ads content as well as questioning Fox's behavior. He was most vociferous on the very same thing you and I can seem to find any support for. Fox's claim that Talent would like to criminalize the research, but he more or less spoke to each point you brought up. He basically even had the same thing to say as you on the first two points. They are kind of hard to find fault with.

Quote:
I personally do not interact with anyone who has Parkinson's. I've never seen the implications of that disease close hand. It was shocking. It was absolutly an appeal to emotion. And it worked. If we can help people like Michael J Fox by fully embracing embryonic stem cell research, let's do it. Twenty years down the road. Forty years down the road. Who cares? Let's make this our generations gift to the human race. Those were my thoughts after seeing the ad. And I already support expanding federal investment in embryonic stem cell research!...We are selfish and obsessed with denying that life sometimes sucks and there are diseases out there that can take and ravish a healthy adult and then kill them in some of the most horrific ways imaginable. However, we have the ability to attack these diseases. We have an opportunity to improve the quality of life of millions of Americans and billions of humans. What is standing in our way are a small fringe group who think that a few cells are more important than living breathing adults. And what this ad does is pull back the curtain and say, "Here is what a person who has Parkinson's disease looks like. Now. Do you still think a few cells are more important?"

My uncle had Parkinsons, and passed when I was a bit younger. He had the tell tale tremors, but I don't think his condition was ever as bad as Fox's obviously is. You make a compelling arguement, and I don't think many would disagree. It assumes, however, that there is no research going on right now because of roadblocks in the way of researchers. The fact is that research is currently legal and ongoing. I'm not a very religious guy, but I think there are some compelling secular arguements for not going down that slippery slope if we don't have to. There are alternative, and think we should explore those their fullest before running down a path that may lead to things we did not intend. The Missouri Ammendment 2 issue is a good example of this point. I don't completely understand all the legalese, but from I've read and seen it could possibly make human cloning a constitutional right in Missouri. I don't think those that wrote it meant to do this, but there it is. That's a little scary. Here's a link with the actual text of the ammendment:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

It is one of those double speak bills that specifically bans something in one part of the bill and then sneakily allows it later on, by calling it something else.

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 2:36 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You:
When a public figure injects himself into the political debate, they are fair game.

Me:
As is Rush. So Rush's addictions, impotence, credibility, motivations, and basic humanity are all fair game. Right? And that belongs in a political debate about the issues. Right?

You:
Absolutely!

You:
I never said it was okay to conduct personal attacks on any public figure ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 2:41 PM

Rue:

If someone's personal life has a bearing on the discussion, then it should absolutely be fair game. If Rush Limbaugh were espousing the belief that pain killers should be sold over the counter at the drugstore and in schools so little kids can become addicted. I'd want to know that he has billion dollar stake in the pharmaceutical company that produces the pills and is prodigious pill popper himself. That doesn't mean I think it's okay to attack him just because I think he's fat and deserves it.

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 2:52 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So since Fox suffers from Parkinson's - which is an unequivocal fact - and supports ANY politician who publicly supports stem cell research - he should be accused of - what? Faking his disease to further some hidden political agenda? That's where you lose me. Fox has no hidden agenda. He put it out there for everyone to see.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 3:14 PM

And I'm glad he did! I don't deny he has every right and some damn good motivation to do so, but that does not make him immune to criticism from those opposed to his point of view on the issue. It was shrewd of those democratic candidates who used his ad as support to do so. He is a compelling advocate.

I realize you believe Limbaugh mocked him, but I don't think he did nor that it was his intent to do so. You and I disagree on that point, but let's just agree to disagree since it's clear we are unlikely to come to concensus on it. Fox's past actions as he describes with his own words in his book give Limbaugh the right to speculate about his behavior in the ad. It may be a little inappropriate and rude, but hardly an act deserving of such gaping condemnation.

Let's get past Limbaugh and address the issues in the ad as Soup and I have attempted to do. What are your stands on the misleading statements Fox made? Is it okay to criticize him for those, or am I required to give him a pass on those because of his illness as well?

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 3:49 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Originally posted by JaynezTown:
As Rush Predicted
http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/messages?msg=32604.6

He's still a pig, yeah. And your point is....?

Confused Chrisisall

I think the link was wrong
http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/messages?msg=32604.6
http://forums.prospero.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=foxfirefly&msg=3260
4.1
Look some people you will never convice on this stem-cell issue.

poor Adam, he's a great actor but he's going to be a die-hard GOP conservative no matter what the cause

and perhaps that's too bad because not all Republicans are like this

Nancy Reagan currently resides California, where she had tended to the former President who, before his death on June 5, 2004, was debilitated by Alzheimer's disease. She also urged President George W. Bush to support embryonic stem cell research, in the hopes that such research would lead to a cure for Alzheimer's disease. She has not been successful in changing the opinion of Bush.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 3:51 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

THIS IS WHAT RUSH SAID:
He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting.

Rush said Fox was SHAMELESS. That was purely a personal attack that had NOTHING to do with the issues. So I'm not quite ready to get past Rush.

"It may be a little inappropriate and rude, but hardly an act deserving of such gaping condemnation." REALLY! Rush said Fox was 'exaggerating the effects of the disease.' It was highly ignorant. It was cruel to anyone who has Parkinson's and is facing certain - and gruesome - death. It belittled the agony of families who have to deal with suffering members.

Those symptoms are inevitable. They are as frightening, debilitating and painful as they look.

So why do you stick up for Rush's ignorance and cruelty, and take Fox to task for his ad?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 3:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza
I don't find that surprising at all. It's a contentious issue, and what politician is actually going to tell what they think if they don't have to? I'm pretty conservative and I'm on the fence on this one, and I suspect a lot of people are. Why risk pissing off your base by taking a stance they may not like in hopes of luring fence sitters like me. Vice versa, why risk losing fence sitters by making your right wing cowtowing so evident?

It may be a contentious issue but I think a lot of the noise against fully embracing embryonic stem cell research comes from a small segment of the population. Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans support easing or eliminating federal funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research (sometimes this goes as high as seventy percent). This number is going up pretty much every year. When Bush vetoed the bill, he acted against the interests of a majority of Americans and for the interests of a small group. Now the majority is not always right. But the majority is the majority.

It's one thing for a Senator to refrain from publically stating his or her stance on an issue. But when you actually sign on to co-sponsor legislation that's a bold statement in and of itself (It's interesting that the bill that Talent co-sponsored would have had zero impact - everything it addressed was already legal and being funded - and was purely a publicity stunt). And when you vote against legislation, which Talent did with a bill that would have had a profound impact, then you're also making a statement. What Michael J. Fox is doing with his ad is calling attention to that No vote (and doing it in other congressional races). Nothing wrong with that in my book.

As far as the second claim in the ad (re: criminalizing things) I still have no clue about that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
I disagree, I happened to be listening on the way to work and he specifically addressed the ads content as well as questioning Fox's behavior. He was most vociferous on the very same thing you and I can seem to find any support for. Fox's claim that Talent would like to criminalize the research, but he more or less spoke to each point you brought up. He basically even had the same thing to say as you on the first two points. They are kind of hard to find fault with.

Well then we need to read the transcript of that portion. Because here's the transcript of the clip I've seen:

Quote:
Rush Limbaugh talking (via clip shown on Olbermann's show):
In this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of this disease. He is moving all around, and shaking and it’s purely an act. This is the only time I have ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any symptoms of the disease he had.
...
He can control himself enough to stay in the frame of the picture. And he can control himself enough to keep his eyes right on the lens, the teleprompter. But his head and shoulders are moving all over the place.
...
This is really shameless, folks. This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting...

Now this isn't the entirety of his remarks, the ... show where they cut the video. But it seems pretty obvious to me what Rush Limbaugh is doing. This is further reinforced when you watch the clip and see the gestures he is making, in real time (not sped up as Limbaugh claims).

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
My uncle had Parkinsons, and passed when I was a bit younger. He had the tell tale tremors, but I don't think his condition was ever as bad as Fox's obviously is. You make a compelling arguement, and I don't think many would disagree. It assumes, however, that there is no research going on right now because of roadblocks in the way of researchers. The fact is that research is currently legal and ongoing. I'm not a very religious guy, but I think there are some compelling secular arguements for not going down that slippery slope if we don't have to. There are alternative, and think we should explore those their fullest before running down a path that may lead to things we did not intend. The Missouri Ammendment 2 issue is a good example of this point. I don't completely understand all the legalese, but from I've read and seen it could possibly make human cloning a constitutional right in Missouri. I don't think those that wrote it meant to do this, but there it is. That's a little scary. Here's a link with the actual text of the ammendment:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

It is one of those double speak bills that specifically bans something in one part of the bill and then sneakily allows it later on, by calling it something else.

I understand the arguments of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research on the basis of their beliefs. I disagree, but I can see their point. However, our current policy is half assed to me. Either you don't support the research with federal funding at all or you do. You don't say, "Well, we'll fund the lines that exist right now but no more." That's like saying that we're going to fight a war but we're only able to use the weapons that are in existence now. Anything that is developed after we start fighting, we can't use. That could be a bad analogy.

I thought the bill that Congress passed, and that Bush vetoed, was a great bill. Let's face it, the difference between federally funding research and not federally funding research is huge. As it is, we're asking researchers to work with a depleted bench.

As far as the other two bills that were being considered at the time, the bill to make a crime something that no one was doing or would in all likelihood do and the bill to make legal and fund something that was already legal and being funded, I thought those were silly.

*edited to add: Looks like I was thinking the same thing as you, Rue. Now I feel foolish for actually going to the clip and transcribing it

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 4:06 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey Soup,

Well, I appreciated the transcription.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 4:15 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"The Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative was developed in response to repeated attempts by some Missouri politicians to pass state legislation that would ban and criminalize stem cell research involving Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) – and prohibit Missouri patients from having access to future SCNT stem cell cures that are federally-approved for use in the United States."

Fox is fighting Missouri's attempts to criminalize any kind of stem cell therapy or work at the Federal level. He supports Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, running against Republican Sen. James M. Talent. While I haven't looked it up, it's entirely possible that Talent supported Missouri's attempt to criminalize any kind of stem cell therapy or work.
----------

And I'm not going to spend more time looking into this, but Razza, you should look up if there are other STATES besides Missouri actively working on criminalizing stem cell research, and if those efforts are being supported by US congressmen.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 4:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"The Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative was developed in response to repeated attempts by some Missouri politicians to pass state legislation that would ban and criminalize stem cell research involving Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) – and prohibit Missouri patients from having access to future SCNT stem cell cures that are federally-approved for use in the United States."

Fox is fighting Missouri's attempts to criminalize any kind of stem cell therapy or work at the Federal level. He supports Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, running against Republican Sen. James M. Talent. While I haven't looked it up, it's entirely possible that Talent supported Missouri's attempt to criminalize any kind of stem cell therapy or work.
----------

And I'm not going to spend more time looking into this, but Razza, you should look up if there are other STATES besides Missouri actively working on criminalizing stem cell research, and if those efforts are being supported by US congressmen.

Ah. Thanks, Rue. That makes more sense. I haven't paid any attention to Missouri before this so that part of the ad just wasn't working for me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 4:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
THIS IS WHAT RUSH SAID:
He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting.

Rush said Fox was SHAMELESS. That was purely a personal attack that had NOTHING to do with the issues. So I'm not quite ready to get past Rush.

"It may be a little inappropriate and rude, but hardly an act deserving of such gaping condemnation." REALLY! Rush said Fox was 'exaggerating the effects of the disease.' It was highly ignorant. It was cruel to anyone who has Parkinson's and is facing certain - and gruesome - death. It belittled the agony of families who have to deal with suffering members.

Those symptoms are inevitable. They are as frightening, debilitating and painful as they look.

So why do you stick up for Rush's ignorance and cruelty, and take Fox to task for his ad?

Well, if you can't get past Limbaugh at least you finally got past insulting and personally attacking me. Not sure how your actions are any different, and at least Limbaugh has issued some apologies. Don't worry I'm not interested in getting one from you or Chrisisall.

I don't defend Rush's "ignorance and cruelty" as you characterize it, but I do defend his right to question Fox's position on the issue of stem cell research. As I said before, Fox opened the door for Limbaugh's speculation about his behavior with his own words, why do you choose to ignore that?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative was developed in response to repeated attempts by some Missouri politicians to pass state legislation that would ban and criminalize stem cell research involving Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) – and prohibit Missouri patients from having access to future SCNT stem cell cures that are federally-approved for use in the United States."

And the Bill's wording leaves open the possibility of using Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (the process used to clone Dolly the Sheep) for cloning human genes. You could probably persuade me that unfettered stem cell research is a good thing if you hadn't resorted to personal attacks, but I'd have to draw the line at human cloning like the vast majority of americans. Clean up the wording of the bill and there is not problem.

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 4:44 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You really should change your sign-off to "Keep the shiny side up."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 5:07 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

dbl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 5:10 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Razza,

Perhaps you didn't read Fox's quote. Or you read it and didn't understand it. It says:

"I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease, and the urgency we as a community were feeling, be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling."

To simplify it so you can understand, I'll draw an analogy. As I get older, my hair turns grey. To mask the appearance I color my hair. It doesn't change that fact that I'm getting older and, biochemically, my hair is grey and will always be grey. It just makes it look different temporarily.

That's what medication does for Parkinson's. It temporarily masks the symptoms. The disease, and its effects, are still there, ready to come back when the medication wears off. Progressing as time goes on until no medication can mask the symptoms at all.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 5:11 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey SoupCatcher,

I was looking for something else and ran across this post on a blog:

"I saw something on television last night, part of the ad session that is not used a lot, where he explains that he is not a political person, but that his cause is advocating for Parkinson's. He is doing this as a way to get through to Missourians about the need for stem cell research BECAUSE Missouri has an initiative on the ballot to out law stem cell research. McCaskill, as flawed as she can be, is definitely against the initiative."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 5:38 PM

Thanks, Rue. As always, your ability to track down online information that adds to the discussion is greatly appreciated (at least by me).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 5:44 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Thanks, Rue. As always, your ability to track down online information that adds to the discussion is greatly appreciated (at least by me).

Hey, I appreciate it, too!

You may all continue with your discussion now...

---
"What the world needs now is love, sweet love - it's the only thing that there's just too little of. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. No, not just for some, but for everyone."

http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 5:58 PM

MURPH

Ya know... I'm pretty conservative myself... on alot of things, but Limbaugh just proved himself to be a world class dip-stick.
Michael J. Fox, like all of us, diserves the right to stand for any cause he feels is right... as do the rest of us... without comment from the out of touch Limbaugh types.

All we are, is dust in the wind...dude.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 11:49 PM

CITIZEN

This is all very interesting, I feel I'm getting a little more insight into how American politics works.

Over here debates in the house of commons go a little like this:
"May I remind the right honourable gentleman that taxes have increased 5% during his government"

Where as in America it seems they go (and are expected to go) a little more like this:
"Well my opponent is a liar and a fraud and possibly a poo poo head and smells bad. You can't trust him because he hates puppies."

No wonder you guys elected George Bush and some people still think that was actually a good idea

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Razza,

Perhaps you didn't read Fox's quote. Or you read it and didn't understand it. It says:

"I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease, and the urgency we as a community were feeling, be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling."

Precisely! He admits that he deliberately did not take his medication in order to create a dramatic effect. Why is a heinous act to speculate that he may have done so again in the recent ads? It seems to me it is a pretty logical possibility, though not the case in this instance.

I appreciate your research too!

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 4:18 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Where as in America it seems they go (and are expected to go) a little more like this:
"Well my opponent is a liar and a fraud and possibly a poo poo head and smells bad. You can't trust him because he hates puppies."

Now, your on the trolly...

And what most people on this side of the pond don't realize is that this is done with intent. The purpose is to turn voters off to politics and keep the turnout as low as possible, to prevent any meaningful change. It is manufactured apathy.

Sadly, this is extremely effective. Off year election turnout is generally between 30% to 40% and after unprecendented "get out the vote" efforts in the last Presidential election, we came in with a paltry 60%. No sh*t, more people over here vote for American Idol than they do for President.

But, on to Limbaugh for a moment. Let's not forget that the guy is just an entertainer and he is very good at what he does. His mocking of Fox has gotten him a ton of free press. The man is an evil (that's right, I said evil) genius.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 4:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Precisely! He admits that he deliberately did not take his medication in order to create a dramatic effect. Why is a heinous act to speculate that he may have done so again in the recent ads? It seems to me it is a pretty logical possibility, though not the case in this instance.

Razza- you keep saying that Rush didn't "mock" MJ Fox. But he DID accuse him of faking his disease or going off his meds. Parkinsons's is an extremely difficult disease to control when you're at MJ Fox's stage of the disease. So let me inject a little REAL LIFE INFORMATION- Please read this carefully (emphasis mine):

Within four to six years (PLEASE NOTE: MJ FOX is very definitley in this phase as he has been taking meds longer than six years) of treatment with levodopa, the effects of the drug in many patients begin to last for shorter periods of time (called the wearing-off effect ) and the following pattern may occur:

* Patients may first notice slowness ( bradykinesia) or tremor in the morning before the next dose is due.

* Less commonly, some experience painful dystonia, muscle spasms that can cause sustained contortions of various parts of the body, particularly the neck, jaw, trunk, and eyes and possibly the feet.

* Patients must increase the frequency of levodopa doses. This puts them at risk for dyskinesia (the inability to control muscles), which usually occurs when the drug level peaks. Dyskinesia can take many forms, most often uncontrolled flailing of the arms and legs or chorea, rapid and repetitive motions that can affect the limbs, face, tongue, mouth, and neck. Dyskinesia is not painful, but it is very distressing.

* In some people, eventually L-dopa is effective only for one to two hours and most patients start to experience motor fluctuations. In about 15% to 20% of patients such fluctuations become extreme, a phenomenon known as the on-off effect , which consists of unpredictable, alternating periods of dyskinesia and immobility. Sometimes the symptoms switch back in forth within minutes or even seconds. (The transition may follow such symptoms as intense anxiety, sweating, and rapid heartbeats.)
www.umm.edu/patiented/articles/what_levadopa_l-dopa_000051_7.htm

Here's another fun fact about anti-Parkinson's meds: The main med commonly causes complex and quite believable visual hallucinations, nausea and diarrhea, and heart arrhythmias.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Razza- if you allow Rush to call MJ Fox a faker and question whether he has a disease (which he clearly does) then we can attack you lying about your uncle in order to further your right-wing talking points. You don't like ad hominem attacks against yourself? Then don't support it in other people.

BTW- as far as your supposed uncle with Parkinson's is concerned... assuming that I even believe you... you were a busy little kid most likely. Your uncle was prolly under-treated with meds. He most likely got slower, and quieter, and therefore invisble to a little kid who had concerns and activities of his own. The final Parkisnon's state is becoming a victim of something like "locked-in syndrome" in which he was fully aware and awake, but not able to voluntarily move any muscles: unable to talk, to scratch an itchy nose, or shift to a more comfortable position. Even before you get to that state you will most likely breathe in food and die of pnuemonia. You might want to ask his surviving family about what happened.

Razza- Just another right wing tool.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I just saw the Rush visuals Razza, if you didn't see that Rush was CLEARLY imitating MJ Fox... I mean, it's just out and out obvious... then why should we believe ANTHING you have to say? You're obviously so blinded by your own ideology you can't even see what's right in front of your face. And any statement you make will be answered by "Well, you're either faking it or lying".

Soup- Thanks for the link. BTW- thanks for the transcript. I don't have audio on either of my PCs so many of the links don't work for me.

Rue- it appears as if the ONE part of MJ Fox's statement that people were questioning... about amking stem cell reserach illegal- is absolutely correct. Great bird-dogging!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:30 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
While I usually lurk, I felt like entering the discussion for a change, but if this is the reaction I can count on in the future, I'm not sure it is worth the effort. Was that your intention?

Not in my original post, but now I'd say yes; you use words well but you're not very smart, and demonstrating it as you have been is damaging my calm.
My advice is stay on the entertainment side of things-
or just go listen to Rush some more.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Razza- if you allow Rush to call MJ Fox a faker and question whether he has a disease (which he clearly does) then we can attack you lying about your uncle in order to further your right-wing talking points. You don't like ad hominem attacks against yourself? Then don't support it in other people.

BTW- as far as your supposed uncle with Parkinson's is concerned... assuming that I even believe you... you were a busy little kid most likely. Your uncle was prolly under-treated with meds. He most likely got slower, and quieter, and therefore invisble to a little kid who had concerns and activities of his own. The final Parkisnon's state is becoming a victim of something like "locked-in syndrome" in which he was fully aware and awake, but not able to voluntarily move any muscles: unable to talk, to scratch an itchy nose, or shift to a more comfortable position. Even before you get to that state you will most likely breathe in food and die of pnuemonia. You might want to ask his surviving family about what happened.

Razza- Just another right wing tool.

Sygnm:

Again, I haven't attacked anyone ad hominem, I leave that to you and Rue. For people who seems to think it's such an abhorrent technique you sure have trouble refraining from doing it yourself. As I told Rue, if attacking me makes you happy, then by all means please continue to do so. I don't do it, and never will. It isn't a very good tool for convincing people to your point of view. All it does is divide people and force them to take an opposing view in repulsion of your arguement.

But then, I'm just a lying right wing tool who makes up sick relatives to get my rocks off. What do I know?

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
While I usually lurk, I felt like entering the discussion for a change, but if this is the reaction I can count on in the future, I'm not sure it is worth the effort. Was that your intention?

Not in my original post, but now I'd say yes; you use words well but you're not very smart, and demonstrating it as you have been is damaging my calm.
My advice is stay on the entertainment side of things-
or just go listen to Rush some more.

Chrisisall

Couldn't help yourself again? Now I'm just stupid. What a great counterpoint. Chalk up another one to the ad hominem attackers.

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 8:04 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Sygnm:

Again, I haven't attacked anyone ad hominem, I leave that to you and Rue. For people who seems to think it's such an abhorrent technique you sure have trouble refraining from doing it yourself. As I told Rue, if attacking me makes you happy, then by all means please continue to do so. I don't do it, and never will. It isn't a very good tool for convincing people to your point of view. All it does is divide people and force them to take an opposing view in repulsion of your arguement.

I don't understand, you were saying it had a proper place in political debate, now you say it doesn't.

What I mean is some of the admitted ad hominems from sig were in responce to the idea that such things were a part of healthy political debate: "if thats what you think then I can say this about you..." kinda thing.

If it's a part of debate for Rush against MJ why is it bad for use by Sigynm against you?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 8:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Sygnm:

Again, I haven't attacked anyone ad hominem, I leave that to you and Rue. For people who seems to think it's such an abhorrent technique you sure have trouble refraining from doing it yourself. As I told Rue, if attacking me makes you happy, then by all means please continue to do so. I don't do it, and never will. It isn't a very good tool for convincing people to your point of view. All it does is divide people and force them to take an opposing view in repulsion of your arguement.
I don't understand, you were saying it had a proper place in political debate, now you say it doesn't.

What I mean is some of the admitted ad hominems from sig were in responce to the idea that such things were a part of healthy political debate: "if thats what you think then I can say this about you..." kinda thing.

If it's a part of debate for Rush against MJ why is it bad for use by Sigynm against you?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

Hey Citizen!

I have never advocated that ad hominem personal attacks are above board. I have said that a person is not immune from criticism simply because they suffer from a debilitating disease. Especially when they inject themselves into the debate. Rush questioned Fox's performance in the ads not based on a personal animosity, but on Fox's own words which he wrote in a published book. Rue, Chrisisall, and Sygnm have attacked me personally for no other reason than they don't like me. That's okay, but it doesn't really get us anywhere does it? How is that healthy? I realize that people believe Limbaugh was attacking Fox out of hatred or cruelty. I disagree with that assumption as I've said before. He has apologized a couple of times for some of his comments because of that perception, which he says was not his intent.

I used this example before and I think it is a good illustration of when personal information is relevant to a discussion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
If someone's personal life has a bearing on the discussion, then it should absolutely be fair game. If Rush Limbaugh were espousing the belief that pain killers should be sold over the counter at the drugstore and in schools so little kids can become addicted. I'd want to know that he has billion dollar stake in the pharmaceutical company that produces the pills and is prodigious pill popper himself. That doesn't mean I think it's okay to attack him just because I think he's fat and deserves it.

By the way, is there really such a thing as a beer milkshake? I'm strangley repulsed yet intrigued at the same time.

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:04 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
It's sad that a person's political ideology can run so deeply, that he feels justified in verbally attacking someone who's suffering from a debilitating disease just because he disagrees with the other guy's politics.

That's not at all what Rush has done, but many on the Left feel just fine about completely distorting the issue. Rush is 100% justified in answering the false claims in the CAMPAIGN AD that Michael J. Fox appears in, mainly because the underlying premise of these ads is flat out false.

But leave it to some to completely lie about the issue and then cry when someone calls them on it. Classic.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:44 PM

MISBEHAVEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

That's not at all what Rush has done, but many on the Left feel just fine about completely distorting the issue. Rush is 100% justified in answering the false claims in the CAMPAIGN AD that Michael J. Fox appears in, mainly because the underlying premise of these ads is flat out false.

But leave it to some to completely lie about the issue and then cry when someone calls them on it. Classic.

So are you saying that Rush didn't attack Fox's character? From what I've seen, he accused Fox of exaggerating his condition; going off his medication; and possibly outright faking symptoms to generate sympathy. I'd hardly say that I was distorting things.

First of all, Fox's condition has worsened, as Parkinson's disease is progressive in nature. Secondly, Fox wasn't off his medication. In point of fact, he was on it and that's what causes the shaking. If he wasn't taking his medication, then he likely would appear nearly immobile. Thirdly, to accuse him of faking symptoms to generate sympathy is grotesque, but not as grotesque as Rush's "impersonation" of Fox. I'm sure you've seen the video clips, as they've been all over the news.

As for the ad, what part of it is false? All Fox did was endorse candidates who support embryonic stem cell research, and not all of the candidates he has endorsed are Democrats. He also supports Sen. Arlen Specter, a Republican. So the notion that he's just stumping for Democrats isn't true. And embryonic stem cell research might potentially yield cures for Parkinsons, Diabetes, and Alzheimers, so Fox wasn't lying about that either. And, yes, the majority of the Republican leadership opposes federal funding for stem cell research. That's true as well.

I'll tell you what is, however, classic. Republican pundits attacking the character of someone, because they can't defeat him on the facts. The overwhelming majority of people in this country support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research; it passed both houses of congress only to be vetoed by Bush. Not only are Bush and Rush on the wrong side of this fight, you are as well.

The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation.
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:03 PM

DREAMTROVE

Okay,

I went and watched the ad, and then I watched Fox's show.

The movements were more exaggerated in the ad, true. Fox said

"the producer of the show does a lot more takes to get the less exaggerated movements"

"I was on my meds when i made the add, and didn't make purposeful conscious exaggerations"

"I have the right to back a political candidate"

Sure. All of those things are undoubtedly true. What Fox did was he failed to do the number retakes needed to get the smaller shakes, which he says go up and down, and are sometimes are less than in the ad, but also sometimes a lot worse.

But should he have to subdue the symptoms, or fake subduing the symptoms by a lot of retakes when he's addressing the disease?

Fox's show isn't about someone with Parkinsons, it's about someone with OCD, which is neurochemicially really the opposite of parkisons. It's not appropriate or likely that an OCD person would exhibit parkinson's symptoms. Subduing those symptoms in the show makes Fox's character more believeable, and he's pretty convincing.

That's not what he's trying to do here.

We shouldn't be arguing this. Michael J Fox has the right to back a democrat, which is what's really going on here. Republicans who took issue with that and attacked him were amazingly dumb. What they should have done is sit back and say "Hmm. That's clever. Who can we get that's this sympathetic who we can get to back the republican?"

A personal attack against Fox is petty and got the backlash it royally deserved. And there's nothing conservative about this sort of rhetoric. Dale Carnegia and Rush Limbaugh clearly didn't live on the same planet, socially speaking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 4:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Razza, Auraptor, Finn, and Hero- What Rush SHOULD have said was: "As sad as it is to watch Michael, and as much as we would all want to help him, embryonic stem cell research is a bunch of hooey. Adult stem cells show much more promise and don't destroy another human life."

THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID. Stop trying to re-interpret what Rush said into what he meant or what he should have said, He said what he said and he was completely and irretrievably callous, cruel, and... wrong.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:04 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Rush Limbaugh is an ass.

Everything that comes out of his mouth is shite.

Why is this even a discussion?

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:06 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

RAZZA, you said

Quote:
Sygnm: Again, I haven't attacked anyone ad hominem, I leave that to you and Rue. For people who seems to think it's such an abhorrent technique you sure have trouble refraining from doing it yourself. As I told Rue, if attacking me makes you happy, then by all means please continue to do so. I don't do it, and never will. It isn't a very good tool for convincing people to your point of view. All it does is divide people and force them to take an opposing view in repulsion of your arguement.

But then, I'm just a lying right wing tool who makes up sick relatives to get my rocks off. What do I know?

Just a taste of Rush's medicine. Because I can question your motives, your family history, the veracity of anything you say without any factual basis on my part, simply because you've entered a political debate. Right? If that's not the case, show me how Rush and I differ.

AURAPTOR: I'll bet this will be another one of those threads where I repeatedly ask you to back up your claims and you eventually slink away. You said

Quote:
Rush is 100% justified in answering the false claims in the CAMPAIGN AD that Michael J. Fox appears in, mainly because the underlying premise of these ads is flat out false.

WHICH underlying premise are you referring to and how is it false?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:07 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
So are you saying that Rush didn't attack Fox's character? From what I've seen, he accused Fox of exaggerating his condition; going off his medication; and possibly outright faking symptoms to generate sympathy. I'd hardly say that I was distorting things.

What Rush did was correctly point out that MJ Fox DID indeed alter his medication so as to appear worse while testifying in front of Congress. Fox admitted to doing exactly that, and for the specific purpose of showing folks what the disease is doing to him. But what he DIDN'T do was fess up to his audience that he altered his meds for this display. But none of that was the point of Rush's issue w/ MJ Fox or his meds. It has to do with the underlying implication of the DNC ads which falsly try to paint the GOP as being against a cure for such diseases as Parkinsons and Alzheimers.

Rush responded to Fox's ( and the DNC's ) purely political ad, because that's how politics works. Parkinson's diseas does not grant Mr Fox or anyone a shield against other's answering their unfounded accusations. Just as Cindy Sheehan is not granted immunity from those to counter her anti - Bush rhetoric simply because her son died in Iraq. If their positions have any merrit, then the facts, and not pure sentimentality, will be what gather's the most attention.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:09 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Rush Limbaugh is an ass.

Everything that comes out of his mouth is shite.

Why is this even a discussion?

If you're going to be so close minded and ignorant on this issue, why even post at all?

Quote:
AURAPTOR: I'll bet this will be another one of those threads where I repeatedly ask you to back up your claims and you eventually slink away. You said

Quote:

Rush is 100% justified in answering the false claims in the CAMPAIGN AD that Michael J. Fox appears in, mainly because the underlying premise of these ads is flat out false.

WHICH underlying premise are you referring to and how is it false?

Don't make any plans for Vegas. You'd lose, again. The underlying premise of the ads is that Republicans want stop medical research which would find a cure for Parkinson's disease, that Republicans don't WANT to find cures for people like Michael J Fox, or that certain laws will, if passed, even make criminals out of those researchers trying to find such cures. In short, the message being sent .." Vote Democrat if you want Michael J. Fox to live "

John Edwards tried a similar sleezy tactic back in the '04 election. He said that Republicans are blocking research which would some day allow Christopher Reeves to walk again. That sort of wreckless, heartless pandering to those in dire need is about the lowest form of snake oil salesmenship I've ever seen. It's a false hope, founded on the most basic of needs.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:19 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
But what he DIDN'T do was fess up to his audience that he altered his meds for this display.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15435271/

Quote:
In a response to charges by conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox defended his appearance in recent political campaign ads, saying he was neither acting nor off his medication for Parkinson’s disease.

On the contrary, he had been overmedicated, the actor said during an interview aired on Thursday’s “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.”

“The irony of it is that I was too medicated,” Fox told Couric, adding that his jumpy condition as he spoke to her reflected “a dearth of medication — not by design. I just take it, and it kicks in when it kicks in.”

“That’s funny — the notion that you could calculate it for effect,” he said. “Would that we could.”

Quote:
“Would you support a Republican candidate?” Couric asked.

“I have,” Fox replied. “I’ve campaigned for Arlen Specter,” describing the Republican senator from Pennsylvania as a “fantastic champion of stem-cell research.”

---
"What the world needs now is love, sweet love - it's the only thing that there's just too little of. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. No, not just for some, but for everyone."

http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:23 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
On the contrary, he had been overmedicated, the actor said during an interview aired on Thursday’s “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.”

“The irony of it is that I was too medicated,” Fox told Couric, adding that his jumpy condition as he spoke to her reflected “a dearth of medication — not by design. I just take it, and it kicks in when it kicks in.”

That directly contradicts some of his previous statements where he knowingly overmedicated or undermedicated for the specific purpose of letting others see what the disease does to a person with out the veil of treatment.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:31 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
That directly contradicts some of his previous statements where he knowingly overmedicated or undermedicated for the specific purpose of letting others see what the disease does to a person with out the veil of treatment.

Would you be willing to provide links and transcripts?

---
"What the world needs now is love, sweet love - it's the only thing that there's just too little of. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. No, not just for some, but for everyone."

http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 8:45 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Of course, Jew "Rush" constantly altered his own self-medication of Hillbilly Heroin, to appear more or less like an ass.

Canadian Fox ain't too bright if he campaigned for Jewish traitor Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter, who participated in the coup d'etat assassination of President JFK Sr.

Fox proved he's low intelligence and illiteracy by selling DIEt colas to the sheeple. Then proves again how dumb he is by not correcting that homicidal tendency. So he deserves Parkinsons, er, Rumsfeld's Disease.

And DemoRats literally shoot themselves in the head by selling genocide of 50-million US citizens as their campaign slogan, which means they literally cannibalize 10s of millions of Democrat voters....

"You can't stop the signal! You know, stem cell "research", how is that different from Reavers?"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
www.piratenews.org

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 9:05 PM

My thoughts are heading in two different directions so I'll try to make two not really related points.

One argument I'm reading in this thread is that those who are supporting Michael J. Fox and bashing Limbaugh are trying to censor legitimate criticism. I think I've summarized that accurately. Which leads me off on a tangent. It reminds me of the complaint of a bigot when they're called on their hate speech, "Well, you're just trying to stifle debate." No. We're just not going to let you get away with being an asshole. Rush Limbaugh, in calling Michael J. Fox a shameless faker, was being an asshole. By design. Because he doesn't want people to think at all about the effects of Parkinson's disease. I hope we can all agree that Rush was being an asshole. Did he have any legitimate criticism of the contents of the ad? Maybe, maybe not. That didn't appear to me to be his point. The legitimate criticism, or I should say criticism, was an aside. Window dressing to allow him a fallback defense if he was called on his assholery, "Well, you just can't handle the truth." He was just trying to tear down the credibility of Michael J. Fox. And, for the ten million or so dittoheads, it worked. That's all that matters in Rush's world, keeping the base happy. Now, for the rest of their lives, Rush's listeners can tune out anything Michael J. Fox has to say because he's a shameless faker. He was playing to the home crowd.

But what was also happening was he was sending a message to the next person who might think about spotlighting their physical condition to make a point. And that message was crystal clear, "We will attack you. Hard. Fast. And we won't let up. And we're ten million strong and have a compliant media who will report our attacks." Most sports fans are familiar with the phrase, "working the refs." Well, Limbaugh and others are masters at a similar tactic of, "scaring off the witnesses." Look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks. Look at what happened to Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. Anyone who gets in the way of a permanent Republican majority must be attacked so hard that it silences the next ten. Every time some member of the government has felt that it was important the country learned what was going on behind closed doors the FIRST reaction of this administration was to investigate who the leaker was. Look at what happened with the Foley case. The first impulse of Hastert was to call for an investigation into who passed the e-mails on to ABC. It's control through brute force bullying. What person in their right mind is going to want to put up with what the 9/11 widows are putting up with? And for the rest of their lives? The Dixie Chicks utter twelve words and they're getting death threats. There are now people who will go to their graves cursing the Dixie Chicks. That's a lot of hate that's being effectively manipulated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 29, 2006 1:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Auraptor, when challenged to state the underlying (false) premise of MJ Fo'x ad, you said

Quote:
Don't make any plans for Vegas. You'd lose, again. The underlying premise of the ads is that Republicans want stop medical research which would find a cure for Parkinson's disease, that Republicans don't WANT to find cures for people like Michael J Fox, or that certain laws will, if passed, even make criminals out of those researchers trying to find such cures. In short, the message being sent .." Vote Democrat if you want Michael J. Fox to live "

However, what MJ Fox specifically said in the ad was

Quote:
As you might know, I care deeply about stem cell research. In Missouri you can elect Claire McCaskill, who shares my hope for cures. Unfortunately, Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research. Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope. They say all politics is local, but that’s not always the case. What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans. Americans like me.

It's very clear that the issue is STEM CELL research not "medical" research. STEM CELL was repeated twice. How much clearer does MJ Fox have to get?

I'll take my money now, thanks.

Amusingly, the right wing suddenly becomes concerned with "the truth"!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 29, 2006 2:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Auraptor: It would be nice if you would educate yourself first. Even reading the other posts would have prevented you from making this mistake.

Quote:
On the contrary, he had been overmedicated, the actor said during an interview aired on Thursday’s “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.” “The irony of it is that I was too medicated,” Fox told Couric, adding that his jumpy condition as he spoke to her reflected “a dearth of medication — not by design. I just take it, and it kicks in when it kicks in.” That directly contradicts some of his previous statements where he knowingly overmedicated (NO) or undermedicated for the specific purpose of letting others see what the disease does to a person with out the veil of treatment.

I happen to know something about the disease and about the medication side effects because my daughter was taking one of the milder anti-Parkinson's medications (amantadine) for about two years and suddenly devloped a movement disorder. And what I DON'T know I can look up. What I originally said was

Quote:
Parkinson's is a very difficult disease to control, and in MJ Fox's version (which begins at an early age) the progression is more rapid that with later-onset Parkinson's. It is a balancing act between enough meds (L-dopa and related/ synergistic meds) and too much meds, and eventually you get all of the side effects but very little benefit.

However, since nobody seemd to "get" the point, I posted a more detailed description later, which was

Quote:
Within four to six years (PLEASE NOTE: MJ FOX is very definitley in this phase as he has been taking meds longer than six years) of treatment with levodopa, the effects of the drug in many patients begin to last for shorter periods of time (called the wearing-off effect) and the following pattern may occur:

* Patients may first notice slowness (bradykinesia) or tremor in the morning before the next dose is due.

* Less commonly, some experience painful dystonia, muscle spasms that can cause sustained contortions of various parts of the body, particularly the neck, jaw, trunk, and eyes and possibly the feet.

* Patients must increase the frequency of levodopa doses. This puts them at risk for dyskinesia (the inability to control muscles), which usually occurs when the drug level peaks. Dyskinesia can take many forms, most often uncontrolled flailing of the arms and legs or chorea, rapid and repetitive motions that can affect the limbs, face, tongue, mouth, and neck. Dyskinesia is not painful, but it is very distressing.

* In some people, eventually L-dopa is effective only for one to two hours and most patients start to experience motor fluctuations. In about 15% to 20% of patients such fluctuations become extreme, a phenomenon known as the on-off effect , which consists of unpredictable, alternating periods of dyskinesia and immobility. Sometimes the symptoms switch back in forth within minutes or even seconds.

www.umm.edu/patiented/articles/what_levadopa_l-dopa_000051_7.htm

I know from personal experience what happens and I have heard many times about the difficulty of controlling Parkinson's. What you saw was the appalling truth of end-stage Parkinson's. Eventually, MJ's condition will get WORSE, not better. Eventually (and probably in the not-too-distant future- most likely within a year or two) MJ will die a horrible death. He's not faking his disease, he's just not hiding it.

---------------------------------
Stop running from the truth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 29, 2006 4:02 AM