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

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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.

Rush questioned Fox's behavior based on a factual statement which Fox made himself. We can thank Rue for tracking down and posting the quote for us.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
"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."

Your attacks on me have no basis in fact, and this is the difference between you and Rush. Ironically, you are guilty of the very thing you accuse Limbaugh of doing so heinously.

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

---Napoleon Bonaparte

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 5:59 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
...the American public overwhelmingly supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research

Where'd you get that data? You stated earlier that GOP Senators and Congressmen are against Federal spending for Embryonic stem cell research, but that most Republican VOTERS are for it. I contend that the latter part of your statement is false. I for one see no need for the Federal dollars to be spent in this area, as it's not a proper function of Gov't. I'm more a Conservative Libertarian than a Republican, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that most GOP voters are for a smaller Gov't., one that is more responsible in how it spends its $$. And FYI, Bush is the 1st U.S. President to spend ANY Federal tax money on the research of stem cells. Only on the matter of embryonic stem cells does Bush with hold any FURTHER spending, but in no way has he outlawed or banned private or state funding in this area.

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 6:53 AM

I apologize in advance for the length, but you asked for data.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Where'd you get that data? You stated earlier that GOP Senators and Congressmen are against Federal spending for Embryonic stem cell research, but that most Republican VOTERS are for it. I contend that the latter part of your statement is false.

Here's the poll:

Advocates of this research say it can produce new treatments for disease, while critics oppose using embryos in research. After hearing these competing views, 58 percent of Americans support stem cell research, while 30 percent oppose it, according to a new ABCNEWS/Beliefnet poll. Six in 10 also say the federal government should fund it.

Do You Support Federal Funding for Stem-Cell Research?

Stem Cell Research

Personal view Government funding
Support Oppose Support Oppose
58% 30 60% 31

This ABCNEWS/Beliefnet poll, however, finds that people in these groups do not broadly oppose stem cell research. Catholics support it personally by a margin of 54 percent to 35 percent, and favor its federal funding by a slightly wider margin, 60 percent to 32 percent. (A small share of Catholics oppose the research personally, but support its funding as a matter of policy.)

Conservatives divide evenly on stem cell research. More Republicans support it than oppose it.

Among evangelical white Protestants — a conservative, largely anti-abortion, core Bush group — 50 percent support it, while 40 percent are opposed. Even among opponents of legal abortion, opposition to stem cell research falls just short of a majority, at 50 percent.

Support for stem cell research is much higher, moreover, among centrist groups that are also of interest to Bush politically — such as independents (62 percent support stem cell research), moderates (63 percent) and non-evangelical white Protestants (70 percent).

Stem Cell Research

Religion:

Support Oppose
Evangelical white Protestants 50% 40
White Catholics 54 35
Non-evangelical white Protestants 70 18

Ideology:

Support Oppose
Conservatives 44% 44
Moderates 63 26
Liberals 76 14

Politics:

Support Oppose
Republicans 49% 37
Independents 62 26
Democrats 65 27

Abortion:

Support Oppose
Legal 76% 15
Illegal 39 50

Among all groups examined in this poll, opposition to stem cell research is highest — 58 percent — among people who think abortion should be illegal in all cases (they account for one in five Americans). More moderate abortion opponents, who think abortion should be mostly, but not always, illegal, divide about evenly on stem cell research.

Quote:
I'm more a Conservative Libertarian than a Republican, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that most GOP voters are for a smaller Gov't., one that is more responsible in how it spends its $$.

I would say that is just another example of how Republicans are not getting want they want with this Republican Congress and Bush. Here is some more data:

'Conservative' Bush Spends More than 'Liberal' Presidents Clinton, Carter
by Veronique de Rugy and Tad DeHaven

Veronique de Rugy is a fiscal policy analyst and Tad DeHaven a policy researcher at the Cato Institute.

The Bush administration's newly released budget projections reveal an anticipated budget deficit of $450 billion for the current fiscal year, up another $151 billion since February. Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the fact is we have mounting deficits because George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. One could say that he has become the "Mother of All Big Spenders."

The new estimates show that, under Bush, total outlays will have risen $408 billion in just three years to $2.272 trillion: an enormous increase in federal spending of 22 percent.

According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent.

That the nation's budgetary situation continues to deteriorate is because the administration's fiscal policy has been decidedly more about politics than policy. Even the tax cuts, which happened to be good policy, were still political in nature considering their appeal to the Republican's conservative base.

Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent at the same point in his administration. More importantly, after his first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent. This is contrasted by Bush's three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in non-defense discretionary spending.

Quote:
And FYI, Bush is the 1st U.S. President to spend ANY Federal tax money on the research of stem cells. Only on the matter of embryonic stem cells does Bush with hold any FURTHER spending, but in no way has he outlawed or banned private or state funding in this area.

I am well aware of that. However, I am not sure what your point is, because that does not negate the fact the he vetoed legislation for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Bush's only reason for not supporting FURTHER funding of stem cell research is because he is pandering to the religious Right.

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

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:18 AM

America loves a winner!

The key issue isn't 'stem cell reseach', but Embryonic stem cells. I have serious reservations as to any national news agency poll concerning issues of science and whether such polls have any real relevency. Simply putting it, I dobut the vast majority of ALL Americans have a clue as to what we're being asked. We have a Congresswoman who thinks the Mars Soujourner rover could be directed to take photos of the flag the ASTRONAUTS planted on the moon. From the Apollo missions to the moon 30+ yrs ago. The moon that revolves aournd Earth, and is no where near where the Sojourner rover now sits, on MARS. I rest my case.

Quote:
I would say that is just another example of how Republicans are not getting want they want with this Republican Congress and Bush.

No need to get ME started on the finer points of what both have done. I completely agree that Bush and this Congress have been abysmal failures for us fiscal conservatives in this regard. No argument here.

Quote:
Bush's only reason for not supporting FURTHER funding of stem cell research is because he is pandering to the religious Right.

Bush IS supporting further stem cell research, just not embryonic and not with Federal dollars. While he may certainly be pandering to his religous Right base, there's also a very pragmatic reason. Embryonic stem cells have, to date, yielded very little medical value. For all the 'potential', it's been adult stem cells which have yielded the most literal assistance to the treament of diseases. We can't do everything at once. If you're going to play that game, best put the $$ where it can offer the greatest pay back. So far, E.S.C research is a hole in the ground, where better returns could be expected elsewhere.

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I've already posted the main point twice, so I feel little need to do so again. But I'll repeat. Rush wasn't making fun of, trying to intimate that MJF isn't really that sick...What Rush did was correctly point out that MJF actively has, in the past adjusted his medication doses.

Part of what Rush SAID was "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." Not that he had in the past not taken his meds and that he MIGHT have done the same thing again but AT THAT MOMENT, when the ad was being filmed, MJ was abolutely and without question doing SOMETHING to exaggerate his disease- exaggerate, which means that MJ's disease isn't really all that bad. You know- FAKE. I see why you're so confused- you don't listen very carefully and you don't understand what's being said.

Quote:
And SIGNYM, I don't know why you're attempting to split hairs here, per my comment of 'medical', or 'stem cell' research. It SHOULD have been understood, with the topic we're discussing, that I meant EMBRYONIC STEM CELL research. And where you lose your bet is that not only did I specifically answer you, but you also go the point of the matter wrong!

You also don't speak or think very carefully, another source of confusion. YOu said nothing about embyonic stem cell research. You said "medical research"- a whole nother story. Since I can only go by transcript, you tell me... did Rush say ANYTHING about EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH? Or was it all about MJ Fox?

Quote:
Embryonic stem cells have, to date, yielded very little medical value. For all the 'potential', it's been adult stem cells which have yielded the most literal assistance to the treament of diseases. We can't do everything at once. If you're going to play that game, best put the $$ where it can offer the greatest pay back. So far, E.S.C research is a hole in the ground, where better returns could be expected elsewhere.

So, having put no Federal research funds into this area of research (Federal funds are VERY important, my daughter's doctors are also researchers and I get an earful every time we visit) it is any wonder that there are few results? By that argument, I cna make an even stonger case for pulling the plug on Star Wars, where we HAVE sunk billions of dollars of research money into a hole in the ground.

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

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The key issue isn't 'stem cell reseach', but Embryonic stem cells.

I know that, as I am the one who started this thread. Since we were discussing E.S.C. research all along, I did not think it was necessary to continue writing it out in its entirety. Apparently, I was wrong.

Quote:
I have serious reservations as to any national news agency poll concerning issues of science and whether such polls have any real relevency.

I thought you might.

Quote:
We have a Congresswoman who thinks the Mars Soujourner rover could be directed to take photos of the flag the ASTRONAUTS planted on the moon. From the Apollo missions to the moon 30+ yrs ago. The moon that revolves aournd Earth, and is no where near where the Sojourner rover now sits, on MARS. I rest my case.

Thanks for serving that Red Herring. It was delicious

Quote:
Bush IS supporting further stem cell research, just not embryonic and not with Federal dollars.

Again. I am well aware of that Bush is not opposing all forms of stem cell research. I am not sure why you keep reiterating this point. Anyone who has been following this thread understands that we are talking about E.S.C. research.

Quote:
While he may certainly be pandering to his religous Right base, there's also a very pragmatic reason. Embryonic stem cells have, to date, yielded very little medical value. For all the 'potential', it's been adult stem cells which have yielded the most literal assistance to the treament of diseases. We can't do everything at once. If you're going to play that game, best put the $$ where it can offer the greatest pay back. So far, E.S.C research is a hole in the ground, where better returns could be expected elsewhere.

We are not realizing the same value, because Bush is placing limitations on funding. There is consesus from the scientists performing the research, which concludes that E.S.C. research possesses an enormous amount of potential. It is precisely because of this potential that it needs more federal funding.

"Truth springs from argument amongst friends."
-David Hume

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 8:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Your attacks on me have no basis in fact, and this is the difference between you and Rush. Ironically, you are guilty of the very thing you accuse Limbaugh of doing so heinously.

See my response to Auraptor.

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

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 9:55 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Since I can only go by transcript, you tell me... did Rush say ANYTHING about EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH? Or was it all about MJ Fox?

Here in lies the problem. You, like many on this board, seldom ,if ever, listen to Rush's show. A few of you 'might' catch what few seconds the media plays by way of audio clips, but even then the point Rush is trying to make is being distorted.

This entire issue is specifically ABOUT EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH! That's why MJ Fox made the ads, that's why Bush is getting vilified by some in the science community, the media , etc. Rush wasn't attacking the messenger (MJ FOX) so much as he was attacking the MESSAGE! Folks then get all bent out of shape because Rush 'attacked ' a Parkinson's disease sufferer, and they completely overlook the facts of this issue.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself over and over.

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:01 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
We are not realizing the same value, because Bush is placing limitations on funding. There is consesus from the scientists performing the research, which concludes that E.S.C. research possesses an enormous amount of potential. It is precisely because of this potential that it needs more federal funding

bush in only putting limits on FEDERAL funding. Let the free market decide if there's a need to fund ESC research. Let state's decide if they want to pick up the fight. The argument being made here is that it is not a proper function of Gov't to get into the business of funding the production of embryos for the sake of destroying them. Even if it means they 'might' be destroyed in the name of research. THAT IS THE GORRAM ISSUE!

Too many look toward the Federal Gov't as being the answer for everything. The point being made is that just as it's wrong to build a bridge to nowhere up in Alaska, it's wrong to spend $$ creating embryos for the sole sake of being destroyed.

MISBEHAVEN....., you started this thread with a false prmise...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.
In no way what so ever did Rush 'verbally attack' anyone, and he definatly didn't do it 'just because he disagrees w/ the mj fox's politics. There in lies the problem. Folks simply hate Rush for what ever reason, and then base their views accordingly. As I've said before, if you're that narrow minded and ignorant on this issue, please do us all a favor and post on things you've heard yourself, and not rely on biased filters of colum writers instead.

Thanks.

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:03 AM

YINYANG

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

AURaptor: Then, for those of us who don't listen to his show, would you be so kind as to post trascripts and links of things Limbaugh has said that agrees with your statement that:

Quote:
Rush wasn't attacking the messenger (MJ FOX) so much as he was attacking the MESSAGE!

?

Or, perhaps if they have already been posted, you could show us where his statements support you? That would probably be more effective than repeating yourself ten times over, and it would clear up the confusion.

---
"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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
This entire issue is specifically ABOUT EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH! That's why MJ Fox made the ads, that's why Bush is getting vilified by some in the science community, the media , etc. Rush wasn't attacking the messenger (MJ FOX) so much as he was attacking the MESSAGE! Folks then get all bent out of shape because Rush 'attacked ' a Parkinson's disease sufferer, and they completely overlook the facts of this issue.

But what did Rush SAY? This thread is about (if you read the title) []iRush Limbaugh, Michael J Fox, and Parkinson's disease. I know you would like to move the focus off of Rush's egregious attack on Mr. Fox and onto the issue of embryonic stem cell research. But Rush SHOULD be villified. And you should take your lumps for defending him, write a mea culpa, and move on.

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

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:10 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
AURaptor: Then, for those of us who don't listen to his show, would you be so kind as to post trascripts and links of things Limbaugh has said that agrees with your statement that:

Quote:
Rush wasn't attacking the messenger (MJ FOX) so much as he was attacking the MESSAGE!

?

Or, perhaps if they have already been posted, you could show us where his statements support you? That would probably be more effective than repeating yourself ten times over, and it would clear up the confusion.

http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

I already listen to him. Why should I be the one who needs to go back and give you the text too ? Google works just as well for me as it does anyone else. Or, become a Rush 24/7 subscriber, and listen to him yourself.

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I already listen to him. Why should I be the one who needs to go back and give you the text too ?

Because you're the one making a point of defending him? You wouldn't want your defense to appear baseless and completely devoid of fact, would you?

And I need a transcript. I don't have audio at home or at work. The partial transcripts that have been posted here are pretty damning.

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

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:14 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Auraptor- I need a transcript. I don't have audio at home or at work. The partial transcripts that have been posted here are pretty damning.

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

They're not daming in the least, unless you're alredy biased against Rush. Want the audio ? try

www.rushlimbaugh.com

you're welcome

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:

As to Rush being an asshole and guilty of general assholery, I'm afraid we cannot agree on that. Just as I suspect you wouldn't agree that your three compadres have tended to engage in the same assholery.

Read the sentances above very carefully.
I rest my case for you not being very smart (sorry, not an ad-hominem...a reasoned judgement call).

Chrisisall, the same kind of asshole that Rush is NOT being, heh heh heh.

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Chrisisall, the same kind of asshole that Rush is NOT being, heh heh heh.

And explain to me again how if you truly believe this that two wrongs make a right?

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

---Napoleon Bonaparte

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rush SHOULD be villified. And you should take your lumps for defending him, write a mea culpa, and move on.

Signy, why are you so prejudiced against the pompous and ignorant? That particular combo has guided much of the history of mankind, and got us this far, how does it deserve your disdain?

*The preceeding was sarcasm, for the comprehension-challenged*

The oh-so-smarty Chrisisall

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:

And explain to me again how if you truly believe this that two wrongs make a right?

Whoah, buddy, I rested my case, I need no further evidence, okay?

(sad....he doesn't get it...)

But thanks just the same Chrisisall

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:35 AM

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

And explain to me again how if you truly believe this that two wrongs make a right?

Whoah, buddy, I rested my case, I need no further evidence, okay?

(sad....he doesn't get it...)

But thanks just the same Chrisisall

Yes, I get it. You think I'm stupid. Seemingly all I have to do to counter your arguement is apply the same label to you. Thankfully I left grade school many years ago and no longer resort to phrases like "I know you are but what am I?"

I don't know you, but I'm pretty sure your an intelligent fellow, so again I ask why the personal attacks and complete lack of substance to your posts? If all you have to bring to the discussion is "Your a stupid asshole, so shut up" why bother posting anything?

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

---Napoleon Bonaparte

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

www.rushlimbaugh.com

I'd say thanks, but there is nothing there that provides me with an actual transcript of what Rush said. So, you tell me... what did Rush say?

---------------------------------
I predict that Auratpor will duck out. Again. As he had in so many other threads.

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
www.rushlimbaugh.com

I'd say thanks, but there is nothing there that provides me with an actual transcript of what Rush said. So, you tell me... what did Rush say?

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

Sygnm:

The fact that you do not know what he said and yet have condemned him anyway is the point. Perhaps you should educate yourself before forming an opinion and throwing around all kinds insults at people who actually heard his broadcast.

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

---Napoleon Bonaparte

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

bush in only putting limits on FEDERAL funding.

I KNOW!

Why do you keep repeating something that no one is disagreeing with you about in the first place?

Quote:
Let state's decide if they want to pick up the fight.

Some already are deciding that very thing. California just voted in favor of state funding.

Quote:
The argument being made here is that it is not a proper function of Gov't to get into the business of funding the production of embryos for the sake of destroying them. Even if it means they 'might' be destroyed in the name of research. THAT IS THE GORRAM ISSUE!

Yes, according to you, that is the issue. Only a couple of problems. The issue is not whether or not the government should be providing funding for E.S.C. research, because the overwhelming majority of American taxpayers agree they should. The real issue is that Bush and other Republicans in Congress are not supporting federal funding, because they are pandering to the minority in this country, the religious Right. That is why Fox endorses candidates that support E.S.C. funding. That is why Fox made the campaign ads. That is why Rush attacked him and mocked him, as the facts are not in Rush's favor. The fact remains the majority of Americans agree with Fox's position, not Rush's and Bush's stance.

Quote:
The point being made is that just as it's wrong to build a bridge to nowhere up in Alaska, it's wrong to spend $$ creating embryos for the sole sake of being destroyed.

There is some logic for you.

Yes, it is wrong to build a bridge for hundreds of millions of dollars in Alaska. It is a bridge even the residents do not want, but the Senator does because he gets to place his name on it.

The primary basis for arguing against funding E.S.C. research is unfounded religious belief. It is also a religious belief that not even all Christians agree is correct. And that is not reasonable grounds for denying millions of people worldwide potential cures for diseases that are killing them. Call me compassionate, but I would rather try and preserve the life of the living and not some subatomic gob of goo in a Petri dish, because a minority group of Christian fundamentalists believe it might have a soul.

Quote:
misbehaven, you started this thread with a false prmise...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. In no way what so ever did Rush 'verbally attack' anyone, and he definatly didn't do it 'just because he disagrees w/ the mj fox's politics.

Yeah, you are right. I was just making up stuff about Rush accusing Fox of lying and mocking him. It has only been all over the media. Initially, Rush attacked Fox's character. It was not until he began to take a beating by both Democrats and Republicans that he switched tactics.

Quote:
There in lies the problem. Folks simply hate Rush for what ever reason, and then base their views accordingly.

I do not hate Rush one way or the other, but I do think it is despicable to mock someone dying of a disease. I do think it is despicable to attack that person's character without sufficient cause. That is what Rush did.

Quote:
As I've said before, if you're that narrow minded and ignorant on this issue, please sit down and shut up.

I am glad you decided to remain civil. But then since I have handed you your ass on every post, I can see how you might be a little upset.

Hatred. It's the only thing that lasts.
-Charles Bukowski

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:06 AM

YINYANG

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

Okay, here goes (because Google works so well for everybody, you can go link hunting yourself):

Quote:
But yet every one of his ads is run for the benefit of a Democrat, even in Maryland whether the Democrat beneficiary of the Michael J. Fox ad voted against exactly what Michael J. Fox advocates in the ad.

Quote:
Mr. Fox is doing is bipartisan. I watched and I was sort of stunned to hear this -- and then he said, I don't really care about politics. Uh, disease is a nonpartisan problem, requires a bipartisan solution. He's only doing commercials for Democrats.

Quote:
Mr. Fox on Katie Couric's show last night said some incredible things. He said disease is a "nonpartisan problem that requires a bipartisan solution." The only person I'm aware of who said that all week is me. He's not acting in a bipartisan fashion. He's running commercials exclusively for Democrats.

So, then, when he did a commercial in support of Arlen Specter, that was...

And, here's a link to the amendment in question:

http://www.nocloning.org/amendment.pdf

If indeed this amendment does allow cloning (which to my knowledge it doesn't; "No person may clone or attemp to clone a human being" seems clear enough, except for the definition of a "human being"), then why isn't there something in federal laws or scientific ethical guidlines that prohibits it; or, why isn't there a movement to put such laws and guidlines in place? If nothing like that exists so far, then it is up to the people to do something about it.

---
"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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:07 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
I do not hate Rush one way or the other, but I do think it is despicable to mock someone dying of a disease. I do think it is despicable to attack that person's character without sufficient cause. That is what Rush did.

Rush didn't mock anyone here, and you know it. There was sufficient cause to clarify what MJ Fox did, and Rush was well with in his right to do so. I'm glad he did. If anyone is to blame here, it's not MJ Fox, but the Democrats who used him for this pathetic sympathy ploy to get folks to vote their way. It's beyond disgraceful.

P.S. I edited my comments before you posted your reply, so I don't really care about your claims of civility here.

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

huh????

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Razza- Rush's conclusions about Mr Fox, as transcribed, are not based in fact they are based on supposition.

What can one call into question about MJ Fox?

Well, we can call his obvious motives into question. But I think his motives are quite clear- he's facing death in the near term and he's hoping someone will come up with an answer. If not for him then for others. No issue there.

What about less obvious motives? Using his disease to push a pro-Democratic agenda? Well, for someone who's facing death fairly soon I can't imagine Fox getting so worked up about it, but the fact is that Fox also supported Arlen Specter, a pro-embryonic stem cell Republican, and has made common cause with Nancy Reagan also a Republican. If the current GOP wants to kick Specter and Reagan out of the Party I suppose that's their problem, but MJ Fox apparently has no problem working with Republicans who support embryonic stem cell research. It seems to me that MJ Fox is pretty much a one-issue guy.

We can question his science. But I didn't hear anybody really do that... they said was "Well he's not really a scientist, so if he's mistaken we'll give him a pass on that".

And we can question his means. Did he "fake" his disease- make it appear more horrible than it "really" is? Rush said yes. He attacked MJ Fox's integrity and honesty directly. He called Fox a "fake" for NOT HIDING his disease. Just like Fox did NOT HIDE his disease for Congress. Because the medications don't "cure" the disease they only mask if, and then only for about 5 years.

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

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:

since I have handed you your ass on every post, I can see how you might be a little upset.

Like fish in a barrel.
Ease up, M, he's bleedin'.

Chrisisall

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Rush didn't mock anyone here, and you know it.

*holds up a sign with a big screw on one half and a baseball on the other*

Chrisisall

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sygnm: The fact that you do not know what he said and yet have condemned him anyway is the point. Perhaps you should educate yourself before forming an opinion and throwing around all kinds insults at people who actually heard his broadcast.

I've seen the visuals (Rush jerking around, flailing his arms) I've seen various portions of the transcript which are QUITE CLEAR on what he said about MJ Fox. QUITE CLEAR. And based on those transcripts alone, Rush should be condemned.

What I want to know is... did Rush make ANY attempt to address the issue of embryonic stem cell research? Any at all? Or was it all about MJ Fox? Attempting to address the issue will prevent further opprobrium from being heaped on him. Mkaing it ALL about MJ Fox simply means that Rush will be, should be, villified even further.

The fact that none of Rush's defenders have come forward to say "YES! Rush DID address embryonic stem-cell research in tha segment!" makes me think that maybe he didn't.

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

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Rush didn't mock anyone here, and you know it.

Yes he did, and you know it. There has been footage of Rush on every mainstream media outlet waving his arms about, as he tries to impersonate Fox's ad. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

Quote:
There was sufficient cause to clarify what MJ Fox did, and Rush was well with in his right to do so. I'm glad he did.

I agree. If you are going to appear in an ad, then people have the right to question what you are saying. Rush did not initally do that. He resorted to mocking Fox and questioning his character and motivations. Of course Rush is still wrong, because Fox's character, unlike Rush's character, is beyond reproachable. Fox also campaigned for Republicans, so there is no political motivation for either party.

Quote:
If anyone is to blame here, it's not MJ Fox, but the Democrats who used him for this pathetic sympathy ploy to get folks to vote their way. It's beyond disgraceful.

I wondered how long it would take before you blamed the Democrats for this. Yes! it is the Democrats fault. If they had not run an ad willingly featuring an admirable celebrity dying of a debilitating disease, then a typically uniformed Rush Limbaugh would not have made an ass out of himself and brought even more attention to the E.S.C. debate.

I can see why the Republicans are mad. This shines a nationwide spotlight on E.S.C. funding right before an election. It puts a recognizable face on the disesase. And it exposes most Republican Congressmen and the Bush administration for the unsympathetic panderers they are.

Quote:
P.S. I edited my comments before you posted your reply, so I don't really care about your claims of civility here.

I am touched, even if you don't care.

To the comment you did make (before you edited it out), I will let my reply stand. No need to apologize for the truth.

It's a good rule in life never to apologize. The right sort of people don't want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them.
- P. G. Wodehouse

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 12:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What I want to know is... did Rush make ANY attempt to address the issue of embryonic stem cell research? Any at all? Or was it all about MJ Fox? Attempting to address the issue will prevent further opprobrium from being heaped on him. Mkaing it ALL about MJ Fox simply means that Rush will be, should be, villified even further.

The fact that none of Rush's defenders have come forward to say "YES! Rush DID address embryonic stem-cell research in tha segment!" makes me think that maybe he didn't.

Sygnm:

Yes, he did talk about stem cell research in the segment. He questioned Fox's assertion that Talent wanted to criminalize it, he talked about how promising research to date has mostly come from adult stem cells, he spoke about the Missouri ammendment 2 initiative, and quite a few other points. I can see how you would assume that the few transcripts you've seen would fill an entire hour of broadcast. He would obviously have to speak very slowly for his intellectually deficient listeners to understand him in your view. The few sentences you have posted account for a small percentage of what he said. I found what I heard a little rude and inappropriate as I've said before, and I certainly wouldn't have used them myself. But the characterization that he was personally attacking Fox for no other reason than that he suffers from Parkinson's and supports democrats is just flat out wrong in my view.

As far as him flailing his arms and jerking around goes, have you never acted out an action as you speak about it? I know people who cannot talk without moving their hands about in a distracting manner. If you had listened to the show you would have heard that Rush was genuinely disturbed by Fox's appearance. He had never seen him in such a state and was taken aback by it and genuinely concerned for Fox's plight. Why is it necessary to assume that he was being cruel? And let's face it, it is an assumption on your part, and we know that because you have admitted that you have not heard all that was said in the broadcast and do not know the fully story.

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

---Napoleon Bonaparte

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 12:17 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
I am glad you decided to remain civil. But then since I have handed you your ass on every post, I can see how you might be a little upset.

Come now, those on your side of the debate, against ad hominem attacks on the diseases of the ill, really shouldn't be mocking the retarded.

Obviously I'm not calling AURaptor retarded, I'm just trying to describe the situation. People who read my posts often will understand that accusing AURaptor of being a jelly brain is as far from my mind as one could hope to be. Of course those that think otherwise are merely ignorant or attempting to further their own agenda.

Do the Limbaugh, da da da da da da da da...

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 12:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
I am glad you decided to remain civil. But then since I have handed you your ass on every post, I can see how you might be a little upset.

Originally posted by Citizen:
Come now, those on your side of the debate, against ad hominem attacks on the diseases of the ill, really shouldn't be mocking the retarded.

After some thoughtful consideration, I find myself reluctantly agreeing. Perhaps I was too harsh with AURaptor. After all, he's only parroting Republican talking points.

“Originality is the one thing which unoriginal minds cannot feel the use of.”
-John Stuart Mill

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 12:52 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
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.

Sorry Razza I did read your post but I've been fair busy over the weekend.

You know I kinda got the feeling that what you were saying was that it would be (if indeed that was what Rush was doing) to say "He ain't got Parkinson's, he's a liar and fraud and he's jerking around like an idiot". It came across to me that, that is what you were defending, possibly Signym Rue and Chris saw it that way too, possibly you just dived in front of the guns I don't know.

I can't really speak to motive, but I can speak to what I saw, and frankly (sorry guys) I thought some of the responses were a might over the top, especially from Chris, not because his were the worst it's just he's usually the guy least likely to go off like that. However I also noticed that some of your replies, if they had been directed at me, would possibly have made me angrier, that very possibly was not your intention, like I said I can't speak for motive.

Which leads me to finally come in on Rush. I've had the opportunity to hear both the segment in question and see the video clip and the original with audio too. He's kind of describing MJ Fox, but you know he's kinda mocking him too. Maybe that wasn't his intent, but I think for him to be entirely truthful that he wasn't mocking even a little, and that for anyone to think different is merely 'lefty Agendas' kinda makes me think he might have an Autism like disorder. I really find it hard to believe someone really has that level of disconnecting to the subjective experiences of other people and it not be a disorder.

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

I really don't know, it's partially a quote lifted from Red Dwarf. Although if I could ever come up with away of combining Ice Cream, Milk and Beer without it ending up as melting ice cream floating in a concoction of bitter fizzy milk I think I might try it.

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 1:00 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
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?

Why am I close minded? Because I don't hold the same view as you. Rush Limbaugh has shown himself repeatedly to be an ass. My opinion. He isn't really even worthy of a thread. One can only hope his 15 minutes are soon to be up. That way the airwaves will be cleared for someone with something of impoort to say.

----
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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 1:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I thought some of the responses were a might over the top, especially from Chris, not because his were the worst it's just he's usually the guy least likely to go off like that.

It's the whole post-it's okay to torture legislation thing.
I'm disgusted with all things neo-con, and Rush is right there. My Buddha side is in the shadow of my Shaolin, and I aim to misbehave, as far as pro-fascists go.
Like Max said, I don't have a lot of patience, and what little I had is now gone.
Bush and Cheney, as well as Rush, and any who agree with him, have declared themselves officially the enemies of Human freedom and decency.
Eff 'em.
Eff 'em all.

Something new Chrisisall

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 2:49 PM

Thanks for the voice of reason. You said:

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You know I kinda got the feeling that what you were saying was that it would be (if indeed that was what Rush was doing) to say "He ain't got Parkinson's, he's a liar and fraud and he's jerking around like an idiot". It came across to me that, that is what you were defending, possibly Signym Rue and Chris saw it that way too, possibly you just dived in front of the guns I don't know.

If Rush had said something like that we would not be talking. I would be right along side Rue, Sygnm, and Chris in revulsion of such behavior. I'm not sure how you could read that from my posts, but if you did I can assure you that was not my intent in the least.

You also said:

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I thought some of the responses were a might over the top, especially from Chris, not because his were the worst it's just he's usually the guy least likely to go off like that. However I also noticed that some of your replies, if they had been directed at me, would possibly have made me angrier, that very possibly was not your intention, like I said I can't speak for motive.

I agree, especially about Chris. I was as surprised as you, I usually enjoy his lighthearted humorous quips, but I appearantly pushed a very sensitive button unwittingly. I am certainly guilty of trying to goad them a little with my replies, but the tone of their posts hardly motivated me to cut them some slack on that score. They weren't exactly interested in promoting my calm.

As I've said, I found Rush's comments rude and inappropriate, and not ones I would have use, but the demonization campaign currently ongoing is a bit on the side of overkill if you ask me.

Hmm...beer flavored ice cream, I wonder....

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

---Napoleon Bonaparte

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:34 PM

KANEMAN

Wow, I love this thread. We've got everything from name calling, pissed off posts, too anti-civilized behavior. All over what? Rush's comments over MJ Fox. Rush and his cronies have every right to question the validity of MJF's tremors. Fox has admitted to doing it(misusing his medication to magnify the effects of his illness) in the past. Period. No discussion about it. They have as much right as Fox supporters have to question Rush's sobriety. Who gives a shit. Can't you assholes get along. Shit, Chrisisall is jumping around like someone slapped his mother, Ruse is telling his family's health history, and Citizen is actually being civilized. Crazy thread...just crazy, keep up the good work you freaks......Well, I hope you do......

PS.
Citz, Congratulations on Dirty McDaniel's having that "all you can eat gay night" you've been eagerly waiting for. Have fun fruit-loop.......

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:22 PM

SOUPCATCHER

A couple of general observations and then a specific response...

The claim has been made by Limbaugh supporters that the video clip that was shown on Olbermann's show (and other shows) distorts Limbaugh's actual meaning. When I first saw that clip, I recognized that it was a collection of three video clips spliced together. Which isn't usually a big deal. It's like removing text from a quote and using ... As long as you maintain the look and feel of the original work, there's no problem. In this specific instance, the edited version showed Rush Limbaugh attacking Michael J. Fox's character and mocking his physical symptoms. Based on that clip alone, I think any reasonable person comes to the conclusion that Rush Limbaugh was being an asshole.

But was that clip an accurate representation of the entire segment? Well, after first viewing the clip I went to Limbaugh's web site to see if I could find more information. Limbaugh usually has transcripts up on his site. I couldn't find the transcript for that portion of the show (it was from Monday) in the free section. It's only available to people who have paid a subsription fee. Which I am not going to do. I did find a transcript of later on in Monday's show where it sounds like Limbaugh is already back peddling after taking phone calls.

So I couldn't answer for myself whether that clip was representative. It's up to someone who has access to the transcripts to make that case. In other words, the burden of proof is on those making the claims that the video clip shown is not representative of the segment.

* edited out Barbara Cubin digression because the Billings Gazette article I referenced was very tongue in cheek. Here's the link for anyone who's interested: http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/10/29/news/local/50-light
s.txt *

Okay, now that that's out of the way.

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Soupcatcher:

I don't want to burst your bubble, but hatred is hardly limited to the conservative side of the issue. There is hatred quite evident in posts from this discussion coming from the other side, and very little that I see from my posts. Now I have great respect for your posts because you are always rational, coherent, and civil when you speak. But I fail to see how you can characterize Sygnm, Chrisisall, or Rue's responses to me as anything short of outright hatred. They are using the very same technique you attribute to the "Right Wing Assholes" who are trying to "silence the opposition". Now I know, you can argue that they were only doing so to make a point, but I don't see it. There is obvious vitriol in their posts that does not speak to a coherent intellectual motive.

As to Rush being an asshole and guilty of general assholery, I'm afraid we cannot agree on that. Just as I suspect you wouldn't agree that your three compadres have tended to engage in the same assholery.

I have no desire to silence those who disagree with me because I know such actions would be extremely harmful to myself as well as them. I want my beliefs questioned, because in so doing I they are bolstered or changed and I grow as a human being and become a better person for it. I see evidence of the same desire in your posts, but it is completely devoid in Rue's, Sygnm's, or Chrisisall's posts. It must be very comforting for them to live in a hermetically sealed self-affirming environment where anyone who disagrees with them can be easily dismissed as stupid or brainwashed by a radio talk show host.

This probably won't come as too much of a shock to you, Razza, but I don't think there's an equivalence here. Come back to me when SignyM or Rue or Chrisisall has an audience of 10 million who bob their heads in unison over every utterance. Come back to me when they are an integral part of a political party. In other words, come back to me when they're in charge of anything.

Never mistake civil discourse for lack of anger. I choose to not attack individuals. That's a style of online discourse that I feel most comfortable with. But don't ever think that I'm not pissed off.

There's anger that's been building in me for four years. It started when this administration used the support of a united country as cover to begin dismantling the Consitution. It grew when anyone who disagreed with this administration was labeled as a traitor. My anger was fed when more than a million Americans, myself included, took to the streets in early 2003 to send the message that we thought Saddam Hussein didn't have anything to do with September 11 and that Bush was rushing us towards an invasion of choice and we were dismissed as a focus group. Many different actions of this administration have left me apoplectic: the move towards a unitary executive, legalizing torture, editing out habeus corpus, just to name a few.

Maybe I'm not being honest by attempting to engage in civil discourse. What I really want to say, often, is, "How the fuck can you support a radical dismantling of many of the things that make this country great?" The main reason I don't go apocalyptic is that I don't see any benefit to engaging in that in this venue.

But that doesn't mean that I don't want to. None of us here have any power or control over the situation. To me, it would be like kicking sideways. When you're on the bottom, it's always best to kick up. When you're on the top, kicking down is a sign of weakness.

There is a difference, in my mind, between hatred and righteous anger. When you have no power, when you're constantly marginalized, when no one in a decision making position shares your values there are very few alternatives. When you are in control of everything, when you are part of the system, when you have a huge platform there are very many alternatives. I don't see similarities at all.

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

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:58 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Razza- I didn't attack you personally. I just "questioned" your uncle's existance and the nature of his "disease". Does that feel like an attack? It was a lesson- a very gentle one. It lasted for all of one post. About as many sentences involved in my post as sentences in Rush's partial transcripts. Amazing how they stick in the mind, isn't it?

Otherwise I stuck to the issue. Re-read my posts carefully. I didn't attack you anywhere else and I think you'll have a VERY hard time showing that I did. If you think I did, prove it. Quote me.

But I'm sticking to my opnion and will keep repeating it. You keep saying that Rush has a right to "question" MJ Fox's symptoms. I've read several partial transcripts of what Rush said and heard several partial audios. As SOUP said, there was no "question" involved. Rush stated AS FACT that MJ Fox was faking or exaggerating his disease. Even embedded in a larger discussion about embryonic stem cell research and other issues, Rush had no business slandering MJ Fox.

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

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

Monday, October 30, 2006 4:25 AM

You didn't attack or insult me? I thought I'm the one who lies, is blinded by my ideology, and speaks out of both sides of my mouth.

But for the last time, if it makes you happy to insult or attack me and then believe that you didn't, it's no skin off my nose.

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

---Napoleon Bonaparte

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

Monday, October 30, 2006 4:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

What I really want to say, often, is, "How the fuck can you support a radical dismantling of many of the things that make this country great?" The main reason I don't go apocalyptic is that I don't see any benefit to engaging in that in this venue.

Soup, you are the voice of reason here, and a better man than I at the moment.
When the neo-nazis are out of office, and we begin to swing back to the belief that individual human rights matter, and that we don't need to sink down to Bin-Laden's level to defeat his intentions in a stand-up fight, I hope to re-gain the ability to debate the lost boys.
But at present, those that want to live in Hero and AURaptor's world of the 'I, personally, feel fine right now, so everything's okay' variety can kiss the barrel of my drawn weapon (virtually speaking, of course).

Having gills installed to enjoy waterboarding more Chrisisall

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

Monday, October 30, 2006 4:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Soupcatcher:
This probably won't come as too much of a shock to you, Razza, but I don't think there's an equivalence here. Come back to me when SignyM or Rue or Chrisisall has an audience of 10 million who bob their heads in unison over every utterance. Come back to me when they are an integral part of a political party. In other words, come back to me when they're in charge of anything.

Never mistake civil discourse for lack of anger. I choose to not attack individuals. That's a style of online discourse that I feel most comfortable with. But don't ever think that I'm not pissed off.

There's anger that's been building in me for four years. It started when this administration used the support of a united country as cover to begin dismantling the Consitution. It grew when anyone who disagreed with this administration was labeled as a traitor. My anger was fed when more than a million Americans, myself included, took to the streets in early 2003 to send the message that we thought Saddam Hussein didn't have anything to do with September 11 and that Bush was rushing us towards an invasion of choice and we were dismissed as a focus group. Many different actions of this administration have left me apoplectic: the move towards a unitary executive, legalizing torture, editing out habeus corpus, just to name a few.

Maybe I'm not being honest by attempting to engage in civil discourse. What I really want to say, often, is, "How the fuck can you support a radical dismantling of many of the things that make this country great?" The main reason I don't go apocalyptic is that I don't see any benefit to engaging in that in this venue.

But that doesn't mean that I don't want to. None of us here have any power or control over the situation. To me, it would be like kicking sideways. When you're on the bottom, it's always best to kick up. When you're on the top, kicking down is a sign of weakness.

There is a difference, in my mind, between hatred and righteous anger. When you have no power, when you're constantly marginalized, when no one in a decision making position shares your values there are very few alternatives. When you are in control of everything, when you are part of the system, when you have a huge platform there are very many alternatives. I don't see similarities at all.

And all of that is why I have respect for your posts and often find them very persuasive. I commend you for not allowing that anger to cloud your judgement and degenerate your discourse. I too am often angered by some of the posts I read here, and I try to follow the same model as yourself.

I don't have a subscription to Limbaugh's site either. I can think of a million more useless things I would rather spend my money on, and then a billion useful things I should spend it on before wasting it on that. I disagree that it is my responsibiliy to provide it to you. I'm not the one taking a very heated stand on an issue without all the story. You and Sygnm are, and therefore it is your duty to find out if you are correct in your assumptions or if I'm full of crap. All I ask is that you not form an opinion until you have looked at all the evidence. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

I'll concede that Rue, Sygnm, and Chrisisall do not have millions of listeners, but how does that justify their actions?

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

---Napoleon Bonaparte

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

Monday, October 30, 2006 6:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:

I'll concede that Rue, Sygnm, and Chrisisall do not have millions of listeners, but how does that justify their actions?

LOL, Rush, with the great responsibility that should come with his position, can be an a**hole, and I can't, in a more limited and personal way here? This is the sourse of my problem w/you, the inequity- your apparent inability to weigh things reasonably.
Fox goes off (or on?) his meds to show what's 'underneath the bandage', and suddenly ANYONE has the right to shake a finger at him?
Bullpatties.

See how I've toned down my language; I think I've grown Chrisisall

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

Monday, October 30, 2006 6:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You didn't attack or insult me? I thought I'm the one who lies, is blinded by my ideology, and speaks out of both sides of my mouth.

Lies... yes, that was part of that post that was supposed to be an example of what Rush does. Speaks out of both sides of your mouth- I didn't write that. Blinded by ideology? Okay, you got me there. I said it, my bad.

How is that different from saying that you're lying? How is that different from Rush saying that Fox was faking (lying)?

Quote:
I'll concede that Rue, Sygnm, and Chrisisall do not have millions of listeners, but how does that justify their actions?

How do you justify Rush's? You keep sayng Rush "questioned" Fox's veracity. I didn't see any question marks at the ends of his statements- did you? If you did, post them here. I agree with Chrisisall- you're applying two very different standards.

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

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

Monday, October 30, 2006 8:30 AM

BATTLESTARMINNESOTIA

It seems to me that it would be MORE honest for MJ Fox to be off his meds to illustrate the TRUTH of what Parkinsons is really like in it's untreated form. As it would appear, he needs them to even speak, so he has to be on them to simply do any ads at all. To paraphrase; Wanna see how bad this disease is? Well, let me peel this mask away and horrify you.

So Limbaugh's speculation is really a moot point. It doesn't matter either way. But what he characterizes to me are two things.

1) Rush is just mean. I don't think real conservatives are mean--tempermentally speaking (As a lefty how I miss old style conservatives. You could make deals with them at least...hash out some good policies). But on some level it just seems that cruelty for cruelty's sake is something that Rush just likes.

2) However what really scares me seems to be a cornerstone of Republican ideology. What Rush is saying in his "critique" if you can call it that, is,

"What you just saw with your own two eyes isn't really what you saw with your own two eyes."

With the war(makin' progress/we're liberators not invaders/fighting them "over there" etc) and the economy("improving") it seems that they are more than willing to stare at a fact sheet and say, "Naw...I don't like these "facts", I want better "facts".

The Truth, however, as we all famously know, is Out There. And you don't get to have your own "facts". Now that Republicans have used the religious right to pull their wagon for awhile, but there is the fact that they also are in a way, capable of stopping the wagon altogether, like a stubborn mule. This is because faith is the only thing that makes people ignore facts. "I know this is right because the Bible tells me", or "I just know in my gut" or in this case "Rush says so". But "faith" doesn't design airplane wings, computer chips, or better light bulbs. Truth is s slippery eel and its hard to pin down, but its there in all it's amazing and sadly, often inconvenient opposition to what we want. And the longer you try to avoid the facts, the harder they come back and whack you (kinda like compound interest) This is what is slaying the Republicans right now, in my opinion. (But also our culture too I think). Image, spin, neverending campaigns, all mistaking the cover for the book.

If there was evidence that MJ Fox was actually exaggerating his symptoms, well then I would also be critial. But the experts who know a hell of a lot more about Parkinsons say he was having "classic" symptoms. (Is that faith on my part? No...I think it's more trust in the systems that produce the credentials for such expertise, which are rigerous and systematic and have procedures to amend them when required).

So he's a famous guy who's really sick making appeals to the body politic to pursue promising but unproven work using embryoes that are going to be destroyed anyway. The truth of his disease is aweful to behold, we've all seen it. With our own eyes.

I've long held that when someone says something about someone else it tells you a hell of a lot more about the teller than the subject. And Rush never disappoints on that level, thats for sure.

later

BSG-30 Minnesotia

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

Monday, October 30, 2006 12:28 PM

America loves a winner!

me - There was sufficient cause to clarify what MJ Fox did, and Rush was well with in his right to do so. I'm glad he did.

misbehaven -

Quote:
I agree. If you are going to appear in an ad, then people have the right to question what you are saying. Rush did not initally do that. He resorted to mocking Fox and questioning his character and motivations. Of course Rush is still wrong, because Fox's character, unlike Rush's character, is beyond reproachable. Fox also campaigned for Republicans, so there is no political motivation for either party.

How do you know what Rush 'initially' did ? Were you listening to his show or watching it via web cam as all this unfolded? Did you catch all his comments, in context, as he was simply trying to EXPLAIN to the listeners / viewers as to the specifics of what was being discussed ? I WAS listening, and I'll bet dollars to donuts you weren't. Rush wasn't MOCKING Fox in the least.

me - If anyone is to blame here, it's not MJ Fox, but the Democrats who used him for this pathetic sympathy ploy to get folks to vote their way. It's beyond disgraceful

misbehaven -

Quote:
I wondered how long it would take before you blamed the Democrats for this. Yes! it is the Democrats fault. If they had not run an ad willingly featuring an admirable celebrity dying of a debilitating disease, then a typically uniformed Rush Limbaugh would not have made an ass out of himself and brought even more attention to the E.S.C. debate.

I can see why the Republicans are mad. This shines a nationwide spotlight on E.S.C. funding right before an election. It puts a recognizable face on the disesase. And it exposes most Republican Congressmen and the Bush administration for the unsympathetic panderers they are.

Well, it is the Democrats fault. A fact which seems unable to penetrate your thick skull. If they had not run a deceitful ad that lies about the issues with a willingly admirable celeb who has admitted to NOT having read the specific initiative being voted on in Missouri, there'd be no issue. No where does the ad meniton Federal funding for ESC research. All it does is pander the the overly emotional issue of a dying celebrity by falsly claiming the GOP wants to criminalize anyone who tries to help. Those who say ESC research is the answer to Parkinson's are the unsympathetic liars and panderers , NOT the GOP.

Had the MJ Fox ad simply said... "We want to clone embryos for the purpose of harvesting stem cells from these embryos and then destroy them, on the far flung chances that we'll someday find a cure to such diseases as Parkinsons and Alzheimers. Never mind that all the promising treatments for any diseases have already been found in ADULT stem cells, and that , to date, nothing of a treatment value has been found from embryotic stem cells. " ... THEN we'd be talking about an honest ad! But that isn't what the Dims did, now is it ?

The Dims intentionally used MJ Fox for the specific purpose of glossing over the details of this issue and to get the average joe six pack to simply feel sorry for Fox and vote the way his ad tells them to vote. It's shameful, it's disgraceful and worst of all, it's the promise of a cure which will never come in our life time. Not from ESCs. MJ Fox will be long gone before any such cure or treatment is found, and the odds greatly favor such a breakthrough will be found from ADULT stem cells, and not from embryos.

But the Left can go on living in its own little world, where the template of how the GOP is nothing but mean and makes fun of those with handicaps, and are pretty much nothing more than NAZIs.

( All this while the Dims are guilty of doing what they accuse the GOP of being, making fun of Rush for his hearing loss or battling over addiction to pain meds. Yes, true compassion from the Left.

)

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

Monday, October 30, 2006 1:14 PM