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

POSTED BY: misbehaven
UPDATED: Saturday, November 18, 2006 01:39
VIEWED: 27195
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

MISBEHAVEN

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:12 PM (P)

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.

Rush Limbaugh On the Offensive Against Ad With Michael J. Fox
By David Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 25, 2006; Page C01

Possibly worse than making fun of someone's disability is saying that it's imaginary. That is not to mock someone's body, but to challenge a person's guts, integrity, sanity.

To Rush Limbaugh on Monday, Michael J. Fox looked like a faker. The actor, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, has done a series of political ads supporting candidates who favor stem cell research, including Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, who is running against Republican Michael Steele for the Senate seat being vacated by Paul Sarbanes.

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "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."

Limbaugh, whose syndicated radio program has a weekly audience of about 10 million, was reacting to Fox's appearance in another one of the spots, for Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, running against Republican Sen. James M. Talent.

But the Cardin ad is similar. It is hard to watch, unless, for some reason, you don't believe it. As he speaks, Fox's restless torso weaves and writhes in a private dance. His head bobs from side to side, almost leaving the video frame.

"This is the only time I've ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has," Limbaugh said. "He can barely control himself."

Later Monday, still on the air, Limbaugh would apologize, but reaction to his statements from Parkinson's experts and Fox's supporters was swift and angry.

"It's a shameless statement," John Rogers said yesterday. Rogers, Fox's political adviser, who also serves on the board of the Parkinson's Action Network, added: "It's insulting. It's appallingly sad, at best."

"Anyone who knows the disease well would regard his movement as classic severe Parkinson's disease," said Elaine Richman, a neuroscientist in Baltimore who co-wrote "Parkinson's Disease and the Family." "Any other interpretation is misinformed."

Fox was campaigning yesterday for Tammy Duckworth, a congressional candidate, outside Chicago, when he alluded to Limbaugh's remarks. "It's ironic, given some of the things that have been said in the last couple of days, that my pills are working really well right now," he said, according to a report on the CBS2 Web site.

After his apology, Limbaugh shifted his ground and renewed his attack on Fox.

"Now people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial," Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on his Web site. "All right then, I stand corrected. . . . So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act."

Then Limbaugh pivoted to a different critique: "Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician."

Limbaugh's shock at Fox's appearance is a measure of the disease's devastation, advocates say. Contrary to the charge that Fox might not take his medicine to enhance his symptoms, the medicine produces some of the uncontrolled body movements.

"Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's," Fox says in the Cardin ad. "But George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research."

Fox has appeared in ABC's "Boston Legal" this season. In his scenes, taped over the summer, Fox does not shake or loll his head as he does in the Cardin commercial, but does appear to be restraining him

RUE

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:37 PM (P)

My father died of pneumonia due to Parkinson's disease. The diease isn't pretty to watch and it's not merely debilitating, it's always fatal. Pneumonia is how most suffers die, and it is mentally, physically and emotionally gruesome. Rush and other hacks need to understand that it's called a 'disease' for the reason that it demolishes the person for years until a brutal death. And that THAT might be why people who have Parkinson's disease and their families are looking for effective treatment, and maybe even a cure.

Rush Limbaugh - a rancid slab of bacon.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:14 PM (P)

Perhaps he doesn't remember Janet Reno's distracting head-bob? Those were side effects from her Parkinson's meds.

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.

But the right-wing is just desperate, and they'll stop at nothing.

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

WHIMSICALNBRAINPAN

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:37 PM (P)

My mother worked in nursing homes for years so I have seen the disease and know that it is not pretty. But come on, can anyone really be surprised that Rush Limbaugh said what he did? It is after all the same guy who said that junkies were useless human beings while addicted to pain killers. What happened though disgusting, is pure Rush Limbaugh.

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." http://whimsicalnbrainpan.blogspot.com/

HERO

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 8:02 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:

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.

I agree. I can't believe Fox would go around the country attacking people because he suffers from a debilitating illness just because he disagrees with their politics.

I listened to Rush. He said what he said. Then I watched the video on the News. Fox is moving around pretty bad. Then they show'd recent file footage where he wasn't moving at all. Then there is Fox's book were he talks about going off his medication before testifying before Congress to further illistrate (or exaggerate) the illness. I found that odd and it made me wonder.

Today Fox's Doctor revealed that the movement was less a part of the disease and more a side effect of the medication. Oh, ok. That explains it unless we hear credible evidence to the contrary. So now we know that Fox isn't faking, lets look at his argument.

Fox indicates in his ads that Candidate So-n-so wants to make stem cell research illegal and that the Democrat will make it so that they can research stem cells and find a cure for his disease.

1. Stem cell research is not illegal. None of the candidates targeted have indicated a desire to make it so.
2. In Maryland the Republican candidate is neutral on Stem cells and indicated openess to the idea of limited govt. funding. The Democrat, who Fox supports, voted for the ban.
3. Stem cell research is not a path to cure Fox's particular disease, although it is a potenital path to cure other diseases which are mentioned (like Alzheimer's).

I disagree with most of Limbaugh's personal comments about Fox, but the ads are political cheap shot, false and misleading, and Fox is taking advantage of his disease to generate sympathy for a pet cause. He deserves to be challenged on the issue, if not the medium he chose.

In short I think celebrity standard bearers should take a note from Bono and go after both parties rather then targeting one. If Democrats get control of the House, not one federal dollar will be spent on stem cells. Not one. Republicans will stall it, sabotage it, veto it, whatever they need to to stick it to Fox. Thats not a Republican thing, its how politics really works. I suspect Fox knows this and that his real cause is the Demcratic Party, not stem cell research.

H

SOUPCATCHER

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:53 PM (P)

I personally found the ad very powerful. Here's a link if you haven't seen it yet.

More generally, I'm not surprised at all that Limbaugh and other Republicans (as evidenced by Hero's talking points spiel) are attacking Michael J. Fox. One of the worst things that could happen to the leaders of the Republican Party is for Americans to realize that the legislation they have been ramming through Congress, and that President Bush has been signing, impacts people personally. And that legislation they are cynically proposing to shore up their support among the far right fringe has a very real and direct impact on the quality of life of many Americans.

Ads like this, and the two VoteVets ads(

and

) put a human face on the other side of the equation. It's a face that the leadership of the conservative ruling majority does not want you to see. So they must attack as hard as they can. Attack. Always attack. Only one voice is allowed to be heard.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:09 PM (P)

urk!

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:10 PM (P)

Remember Bill Frist and Terry Schiavo? I think Limbaugh has gone to the Bill Frist School of Television Diagnosis.

Yes, it's terrible how a poltical party can use a person's diseases to further a cause (you know, like over-ruling judges from Congress) ...

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

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:18 PM (P)

How about a solution to the whole mess

Lets take the researchers and all the money that could be spent on said research, move it to Canada and get something done.

After all, the end goal is more important than the politics involved...

CITIZEN

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:44 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
And that legislation they are cynically proposing to shore up their support among the far right fringe has a very real and direct impact on the quality of life of many Americans.

You see it's statements like this, where you indicate that the American Government takes the opinions of religious extremists more importantly than quality of life for the majority of citizens, that I thank whoever it is I need to thank that I was born British.

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.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:56 PM (P)

I think for Rush to downplay the destructiveness of this horrid disease is heinous at best. He must be back on the "Oxy"..Well, it sounds like it's true.........

MISBEHAVEN

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:56 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I agree. I can't believe Fox would go around the country attacking people because he suffers from a debilitating illness just because he disagrees with their politics.

Fox didn't attack anyone. All he did was endorse a candidate who supports federal funding for stem cell research.

Quote:
I listened to Rush. He said what he said. Then I watched the video on the News. Fox is moving around pretty bad. Then they show'd recent file footage where he wasn't moving at all. Then there is Fox's book were he talks about going off his medication before testifying before Congress to further illistrate (or exaggerate) the illness. I found that odd and it made me wonder.

I'm not sure what footage you're referring to, but if it's the Boston Legal episodes, even the director has spoken about how they had to film in very short intervals to help cover Fox's movements.

Quote:
Fox indicates in his ads that Candidate So-n-so wants to make stem cell research illegal and that the Democrat will make it so that they can research stem cells and find a cure for his disease.

1. Stem cell research is not illegal. None of the candidates targeted have indicated a desire to make it so.

Ok, Hero. I'm sure that you're well aware that there's a serious movement, by a significant number of Republican voters, to pressure their party's leaders to ban stem cell research entirely. Also, federal funding remains unavailable for researching any stem cell line created after August 9, 2001 thanks to Bush.

Quote:
2. In Maryland the Republican candidate is neutral on Stem cells and indicated openess to the idea of limited govt. funding. The Democrat, who Fox supports, voted for the ban.

Now you're moving from being misleading to simply being dishonest. Here's an excerpt from your beloved Fox News: Steele is the Republican and Cardin is the Democrat

"Steele, Maryland's lieutenant governor, supports research on adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood, but not research that requires destroying an embryo to secure stem cells.

Fox has also recorded spots for Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, who is running against Republican James M. Talent, and for Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat seeking re-election. The actor is also planning to appear at events for two Democrats, Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois congressional candidate.

"He wants to take on races and get involved in races that involve a pro stem cell candidate against an anti embryonic stem cell candidate," John Rogers, a publicist for Fox, told The Washington Post.

Fox agreed to film the Maryland spot after an associate met Myrna Cardin, the candidate's wife, at a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee event in Maryland last month, Cardin spokesman Oren Shur told The (Baltimore) Sun.

Cardin has voted in favor of the bill to expand federally funded research, a measure that cleared Congress but was vetoed by President Bush."

Here's the link: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224339,00.html

Quote:
3. Stem cell research is not a path to cure Fox's particular disease, although it is a potenital path to cure other diseases which are mentioned (like Alzheimer's).

Actually, stem cells might indeed be able to cure Parkinsons, Diabetes and, yes, Alzheimers

Quote:
but the ads are political cheap shot, false and misleading

The only thing false and misleading is your post.

Quote:
Fox is taking advantage of his disease to generate sympathy for a pet cause. He deserves to be challenged on the issue, if not the medium he chose.

Pet cause? In 2005, it was estimated that over one million Americans were suffering from Parkinsons and many millions more suffer from the disease worldwide. And what's wrong with the medium? To obtain federal funding, you need political support. Going straight to the people in charge seems like a good idea to me.

Quote:
In short I think cel

PHAEDRA

Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:21 AM (P)

Hero-

Wow, I would just like to thank you for your inspiring words. Working 70-80 hours a week at my big evil corporate law firm has instilled a certain level of political, social, and Firefly apathy in me. Hell, I can barely follow the Mal and Inara threads I once treasured so deeply. But not I'm hopping MAD! Thank you Hero for showing me I can still feel.

I'm not going to attack your politics or opinions, those are your and they ain't gonna change. I do how ever tak issue with your presentation of the facts relating to this issue.

1. You're right stem cell research at present is not illegal, that has not prevented the present administration and it's goons from narrowing budgets and trying to make it so.

2. Your statement that "None of the candidates targeted have indicated a desire to make it so," is a best cleverly worded and at worst a willful misrepresentation. Senator James Talent has consistently supported both state and federal mesures to limit stem cell research.

3. Why the heck are you mentioning Maryland? Sen. Talent and his Dem opponent, McCaskill, are from Missouri. That's populace Fox's add is targeted at.

4. The full capabilities of stem cell research are not known yet. But, your right, let's not cure alzheimers.

Why don't we talk about what's really bothering you. Alex P. Keaton has betrayed you and it hurts. I feel your pain. I'd feel the same way if Buffy started to do pro life ads. But this is not about our feelings. And its even not about politics anymore.

This is about, yes. . . I'm gonna say it . . . basic human decency and dignity. And basic decency says that you don't mock someone for speaking their mind, by claiming they are taking advantage of the same disease which is slowly but surely killing them. Rush could have attacked the facts presented in the ad. Hell Rush could have attacked McCaskill for turning towards evil, liberal hollywood for support. Instead he chose to attack Fox's dignity and integrity. For lack of a better term, that just sux and Rush should be ashamed of his petty behavior.

Lastly, IMDB just published today that the Republicans are recruiting Jesus Christ himself (oh well Jim Cavizel, same difference right?) to speak against candidates who support stem cell research. Under the rubric you offer in your last paragraphs, is that wrong?

Actually, I would personally like to thank Rush. Between him, Bush, and Foely, we (Dems) might actually get the majority in both houses. And I think that's shiny!

Phaedra (a bad luck name and a bad speller)

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:43 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
How about a solution to the whole mess

Lets take the researchers and all the money that could be spent on said research, move it to Canada and get something done.

After all, the end goal is more important than the politics involved...

Hey its already happening.....

Great minds and such

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/10/25/keller-stem-cells.html

Dr. Gordon Keller, one of the world's leading stem cell scientists, is coming back to Canada to head up a new research centre in Toronto.

Keller will be the director of the McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine at the University Health Network, which was launched on Wednesday.

Keller left his native Saskatchewan 16 years ago to work in the U.S. Earlier this year, New York magazine called the embryonic stem cell researcher one of the top six medical minds the city didn't want to lose.

Now we need more researchers to move, more pharma companys to send their research budgets north, and of course all the charitable foundations to send all their cash up here...

KANEMAN

Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:49 AM (P)

"Working 70-80 hours a week at my big evil corporate law firm has instilled a certain level of political, social, and Firefly apathy in me. Hell, I can barely follow the Mal and Inara threads I once treasured so deeply. But not I'm hopping MAD! Thank you Hero for showing me I can still feel."

Get a new job if Mal and Inara threads are so important.....Well, it's true........

SHINYTRINKET

Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:52 AM (P)

The only good thing about Limbaugh's big mouth is that it will easily accomodate the foot that's bound to be in it for quite some time to come.

What a buffoon...

*************************************************
The 3 rules of aging:
1. Never bypass a bathroom
2. Never waste an erection
3. Never trust a fart

ROCKETJOCK

Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:07 AM (P)

Okay, let's review:

1. Rush Limbaugh once again proves himself the south-bound end of a north-bound horse.

2. Hero: ditto.

Big surprise.

I haven't been so shocked since I found out that Liberace was gay.

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:39 AM (P)

A picture is worth a thousand words (video of Limbaugh mocking Michael J Fox about a minute into the clip)...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/25/olbermann-gives-us-the-visual
-to-limbaughs-attack-on-michael-j-fox/

Rush Limbaugh is the modern Republican party in a nutshell.

* edit first sentence

MOHRSTOUTBEARD

Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:23 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
A picture is worth a thousand words (video of Limbaugh mocking Michael J Fox about a minute into the clip)...

I rather liked Fox's classy response to Limbaugh profound douchebaggery.

------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:14 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Remember Bill Frist and Terry Schiavo? I think Limbaugh has gone to the Bill Frist School of Television Diagnosis.

Yes, it's terrible how a poltical party can use a person's diseases to further a cause (you know, like over-ruling judges from Congress) ...

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

Glad you mentioned Schiavo. It was the first thing I thought of when I heard of this. The R 's had a doctor turned Legislator diagnose by videotape to fit his politics; now they've got a hack political comentator ( Where did he go to medical school? Was he in the top 3 percent at his medicad? ) offering a medical opinion.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:55 PM (P)

Isn't free speech great. Rush can offer his opinion (rather inelegantly) about Fox and suffer the fallout. The Dixie Chicks can offer their opinion about Bush and suffer the fallout.

Posting to stir stuff up.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:14 PM (P)

Okay, an interesting debate, with some very simple answers:

Would Fox go off his meds when representing his disease? Of course. To do anything else would be dishonest. I'm sure if you take a parkinson's patient and dose them up oxycontin they will not appear to have the telltale symptoms of parkinsons. Okay, that was a jab, but it's true. It wouldn't be honest to represent a doped Fox as showing parkinson's in action.

Rush is an ass. He's a true conservatives worst nightmare. No one wants the crack whore on the bus standing up for their argument in court. Rush Limbaugh is a crack whore. I do mean this litterally. Oxycontin is in that same opiate family, and its addicts are in the same mental state, there's little to choose between the two. And there's the whore part.

Rush Limbaugh is a whore. He says whatever his economic contributors and sponsors tell him to say. I remember Rush when he was young and actually a conservative, but he hasn't been one for years. He gets up and makes the case that the people who give him the cash and the drugs and the hookers want him to make.

In this case, Rush is a whore for Merck. Merck opposes funding for stem cell research. They are alone on this Earth, unless Pfizer et al have joined in the game. There is no true christian resistance, or republican resistance, there is only one opponent of stem cell research funding, and that is Merck. They do it for one very simple reason: They are funding stem cell research. They fund it in exchange for stock options, a deal they can only get as long as there is no public funding. If there were public funding, no one would be writing stock options in exchange for funding. It's as simple as that, and there is nothing else, at all, anywhere, to this debate.

If you support big pharm's right to own this new technology which they had nothing to do with creating, then by all means, oppose stem cell research funding. That's what Rush does, because they tell him to do it, and because they pay his bills.

Also, please bear in mind, Rush Limbaugh is a serious drug addict. It's not like he made one slip, or he smoked a reefer at a party once. He's what some of us call 'a goner' - he's not coming back. Everything he does is to some extent motivated by his habits, plural. He needs drugs, and he needs cash. If the man tells him sick people gotta suffer, then that's okay. Just load him up and hand him an AK and Rush is ready to roll.

I think I give this man about as much respect as he has earned. None.

RAZZA

Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:45 PM (P)

Quote:
"...They do it for one very simple reason: They are funding stem cell research. They fund it in exchange for stock options, a deal they can only get as long as there is no public funding. If there were public funding, no one would be writing stock options in exchange for funding. It's as simple as that, and there is nothing else, at all, anywhere, to this debate."

DT:

You are aware that there is currently federal funding available for stem cell research aren't you? Here is a link to the NIH's stem cell research opporunities.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/news/nihopps/nihopps_type.asp

There are currently millions of dollars in available federal funding for stem cell research. Granted, the funding is limited to the already existing lines of cells, but the money is there, hardly good news for Merck and Co. if what you say is true.

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

---Napoleon Bonaparte

FELLOWTRAVELER

Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:09 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Where did he go to medical school? Was he in the top 3 percent at his medicad? offering a medical opinion.

He doesn't even have his undergrad degree. He dropped outta' Southeast Missouri State

And I was gonna' let this slide, but the moral superiority was getting to me. That and it's flat wrong.

Quote:
Rush Limbaugh is a crack whore. I do mean this litterally. Oxycontin is in that same opiate family

Crack is made from Cocaine. Cocaine comes from the Coca plant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine#Crack_cocaine

OxyContin is a trade name for Oxycodone. It is an Opiate. Opiates are derived from the opium poppy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycontin

HERO

Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:51 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by MohrStoutbeard:

I rather liked Fox's classy response

I liked it too. It was classy. If you are talking about the press conferance...you might want to check the tape...his head, its not moving all that much...not like the commercials at all. I suspect his medication is working very well. Good for him.

I note for the record that he has written about going off his medication to better illistrate the affects of his illnes when he testified before Congress.

H

RUE

Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:45 PM (P)

I can't believe Zero is still blathering. "I suspect his medication is working very well. Good for him."

Sadly for Fox, with Parkinson's disease medication has a shorter and shorter benefit period where you can move almost normally. As the disease inevitably progresses, medication becomes less effective. Since Fox is having periods of freezing and writhing, he is already on the downhill to death. At some point, usually signalling imminent death, the medication has no benefit at all. You are either frozen because there is not enough medication in your blood stream, or writhing uncontrollably because there is too much. There is no happy middle ground. At that point, for some unknown reason, swallowing becomes uncoordinated and at the same time the sensations that would trigger coughing and the coughing reflex itself disappear. You then swallow liquid (you can't manage solids anymore) into your lungs, causing pneumonia, and a tortured death by slow suffocation lasting several days. All this happens while you are conscious and alert and feel everything.

Yeah, it's all just an act for political gain, ZERO. I get it.

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:10 PM (P)

Because when MJ Fox DOES die, Hero will be there like a vulture on the bedpost saying... He did that just to get sympathy for his cause! You know who else can't express political opinions according to the right wing?

The 9-11 moms (media whores, glad their husbands were dead)
Cindy Sheehan (media whore, glad her son was killed)
triple amputee Max Cleland (a faker)
any Congressional page (it was a prank they were playing)

I'm just waiting for them to smear Kevin Tillman, Pat Tillman's brother. You can bet your bottom dollar that if the Tillman story gets major traction the GOP will find SOME way to run over Kevin.

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:11 PM (P)

Look like I had to kill yet another deadlock victim!

PHOENIXSHIP

Friday, October 27, 2006 3:17 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Get a new job if Mal and Inara threads are so important.....Well, it's true........

Yeah, like where are our priorities! :)

I already quit my job as a congressional page so I could spend more time watching the blooper reel.

Don't forget the mission, people!

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 27, 2006 4:27 AM (P)

Razza,

It's not a guess. Funding-for-options programs are not secret, this is public information, and is occassionally in the news.

Sure, I know there's limited stem cell funding at the federal level, and even more at the state level. But millions of dollars is not the same thing as billions of dollars.

Come 01/07 the landscape is going to change.

MISBEHAVEN

Friday, October 27, 2006 4:32 AM (P)

Incidentally, Fox also recorded a campaign advertisement for Sen. Specter, because he's one of the few Republicans who supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. That sort of makes it a little difficult to say that Fox is just shilling for the Democrats.

Artists to my mind are the real architects of change, and not the political legislators who implement change after the fact.
- William S. Burroughs

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, October 27, 2006 5:41 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I disagree with most of Limbaugh's personal comments about Fox, but the ads are political cheap shot, false and misleading, and Fox is taking advantage of his disease to generate sympathy for a pet cause. He deserves to be challenged on the issue, if not the medium he chose.

Yep. Fox's ad should be challenged; that’s what it means to have a national debate. A point is made, which is challenged until its veracity is accepted. Unfortunately, I think many view the whole point of Fox’s ad as to stifle that debate, because anyone who does challenge Fox will be demonized as hating sick people, as evident by many of the responses to your post. Fox’s ad, setting aside the many misleading statements, is a logical fallacy in and of itself, Argumentum ad Misericordiam, appeal to pity. As if somehow, because Fox has Parkinson’s that means that stem cell research is the end all and cure all of every known illness on the earth and will even make Julian fries and Fox is just a stupid doe-eyed sick person with no agenda, and anyone who challenges his point of view is villainous monster who wants all sick people to die a horrid agonizing death.

I don’t think Fox is stupid. I’m certain that he knows exactly what he is doing and that this is a calculated move because he believes it will help to silence criticism against stem cell research. That’s his prerogative, and he certainly has a dog in this fight, but it is still important to examine the issue. While stem cell research appears promising it is still in its infancy, and there is more we don’t know about it then that we do. No approved medical treatments have been derived from research on embryonic stem cells. Any time someone makes a prediction about the effectiveness of stem cell research on medicine, it should be carefully scrutinized, not simply accepted because of sympathy towards the person making the claim. It is also not true that stem cell research is banned, as I often hear stated. Stem cell research continues to enjoy federal government funding for both adult and embryonic stem cells, with embryonic stem cells limited to existing lines. Furthermore, private research has no such restriction. So, the supposed “banning” on stem cell research is in fact nothing more then a cautious line being drawn around the human fetus.

Personally, I’m not against embryonic stem cell research. In fact, I’m one of those people who believe that it will change the face of medicine, but I also understand the concern behind the idea of harvesting human embryos to fuel the pharmaceutical industry. The idea of such a thing makes me cringe. I’m not without sympathy for Fox’s condition either and while I doubt that stem cell research in any form will ever help him, I believe that it might for future generations; however I also think that some serious consideration needs to go into how those embryonic stem cells are harvested and whether they are needed at all. There are laws and regulation that must be considered. If we can use adult stem cells then maybe we should. Little is certain at this point, I think.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, October 27, 2006 7:55 AM (P)

Here's the thing, Finn. The message of the ad isn't what is being challenged. The messenger is. Here's what Michael J Fox says in the ad:

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.

That's part of the message of the ad. And, since I don't think anyone's dissected this yet I'll take a stab at it...

“As you might know, I care deeply about stem cell research.”
Hard to argue with that.

“In Missouri you can elect Claire McCaskill, who shares my hope for cures.”
Hard to argue with this either.

“Unfortunately, Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research.”
Whether or not this is unfortunate depends on your point of view. For someone who cares deeply about stem cell research, I can see how this is unfortunate. As far as opposing the expansion of stem cell research, Talent did vote against the Senate bill that would’ve allowed for the expansion of federally okayed stem cell research. You know, one of the few bills in the past many years that had actual real bipartisan support. The one that Bush vetoed. Yeah, that one.

“Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope.”
I have no clue what this refers to. Could be right on or totally bogus.

“They say all politics is local, but that’s not always the case.”
Hard to argue with this.

“What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans.”
Umm. Probably not. I don’t think I’d agree with this one

. You probably only think this if you're in Missouri (apologies to my grandma's family still living in the vicinity of Willard, MO).

“Americans like me.”
Sure. Why not.

Maybe I missed the part where Limbaugh was debating each of these points. I only saw the part where he was waving his arms mocking Michael J Fox and accusing him of fakery.

There is a way to debate, and there is a way to attempt to stifle debate. Limbaugh was attempting to stifle debate through mockery.

So, I might as well return the favor and pass along the best snark I've read so far on this (via a commenter over at Crooks and Liars):

"Are we surprised that Limbaugh automatically equates shaking with cutting off your meds?"

PIRATENEWS

Friday, October 27, 2006 8:21 AM (P)

Michael J Fox should do another advert for Diet Pepsi, but without taking his meds for Rumsfeld's Disease (Aspartame poisoning).
www.sweetpoison.com
www.dorway.com

Wicked Sir Rumsfeld Knight of the British Empire on South Park:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8339201394200451031&hl=en

My wife had 4 heart attacks at age 32. The biggest change she made was elimination of diet sodas, which made the cardiologist sugeon angry, since he wanted to amputate her pacemaker cells: "We do it to young women all the time". She was a restaurant manager, so she had all the diet soda she could drink...

Of course, a pedophile Jewish drug addict like "Rush" would never report this disease to his sheeple, even when side effects from Oxycontin (hillbilly heroin) overdose made him lose his hearing. What do you expect for his $300-million contract?

And you don't have to genocide and cannibalize 7,000 US babies every day for stem cells, since every part of the body produces stem cells, especially umbilical cords. So abortion of 45-million US citizens, so far, is not part of the stem cell equation.

"We're flying a lot blinder than usual here. We need to get our bearings. I think we need to talk to Mr. Universe (Pirate News TV)."
-Wash, Serenity

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/

CITIZEN

Friday, October 27, 2006 8:53 AM (P)

You know Rumsfield isn't a Knight of the British Empire right?

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.

RAZZA

Friday, October 27, 2006 3:01 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
“As you might know, I care deeply about stem cell research.”
Hard to argue with that.

Yep!

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
“In Missouri you can elect Claire McCaskill, who shares my hope for cures.”
Hard to argue with this either.

Yep, but the same can be said of practically every american, excluding of course the wackos at "Skippy is Sexier, Alex must Die"

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
“Unfortunately, Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research.”
Whether or not this is unfortunate depends on your point of view. For someone who cares deeply about stem cell research, I can see how this is unfortunate. As far as opposing the expansion of stem cell research, Talent did vote against the Senate bill that would’ve allowed for the expansion of federally okayed stem cell research. You know, one of the few bills in the past many years that had actual real bipartisan support. The one that Bush vetoed. Yeah, that one.

All true, but he has also co-sponsored legislation that would expand stem cell research derived from umbilical chord blood [Senate Bill S.681]. He has also come under fire for supporting bills which were not popular with his pro-life base, see article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11410626/site/newsweek/

All and all, he sounds like a typical politician on this issue, walking a razors edge depending on the way the political wind blows, but what else can we expect from the idiots we elect these days?

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
“Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope.”
I have no clue what this refers to. Could be right on or totally bogus.

I can't find anything that supports this position either, but then I can't prove a negative so the burden lies with Fox to produce evidence to support his claim, barring that, I have to call BS on this one.

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Maybe I missed the part where Limbaugh was debating each of these points. I only saw the part where he was waving his arms mocking Michael J Fox and accusing him of fakery.

I don't want to turn into a Rush defender, but he does talk about this on his website, and how the video has been manipulated to exclude the audo, here's the link:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102606/content/correcting_
the_record.guest.html

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
There is a way to debate, and there is a way to attempt to stifle debate. Limbaugh was attempting to stifle debate through mockery.

I suppose if you believe he was mocking him, I'd have to agree with you, but I'm sure there are Rush fans who would tend disagree about whether or not he was mocking Fox. Personally, I don't think that was his intent, but I can see where people who don't like him would come to that conclusion.

So, I might as well return the favor and pass along the best snark I've read so far on this (via a commenter over at Crooks and Liars):

"Are we surprised that Limbaugh automatically equates shaking with cutting off your meds?"

I suppose if you believe he was mocking him, I'd have to agree with you, but I'm sure there are Rush fans who would tend to disagree about whether or not he was mocking Fox. Personally, I don't think that was his intent, but I can see where people who don't like him would come to that conclusion.

To go back to your opening statment:

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Here's the thing, Finn. The message of the ad isn't what is being challenged. The messenger is. Here's what Michael J Fox says in the ad:

I agree that Limbaugh was challenging the messenger, but so what? When a public figure injects himself into the political debate, they are fair game. Their health condition does not exclude them from criticism, nor should it. Limbaugh believes Fox's political position is wrong, so because Fox suffers from a debilitating disease means he should not question those positi

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, October 27, 2006 5:27 PM (P)

interview

RUE

Friday, October 27, 2006 6:37 PM (P)

Razza

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

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 27, 2006 6:54 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Under that logic, Mel Gibson shouldn't be in any trouble for his recent comments since he is obviously suffering from alcholism, a debilitating illness in it's own right.

That's f***ing bull***t, you a**hole!
How dare you equate a lack of personal control with a degenerative DISEASE that ultimatly causes death?
Let me take a stab here, you drink WAYYY too much, but it's a 'disease', so it's not you fault, right?

Sorry, I assumed Hero was the cruelest dope hereabouts. My bad.

Rabid Chrisisall

RAZZA

Friday, October 27, 2006 7:02 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Razza

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

Absolutely!

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

---Napoleon Bonaparte

RAZZA

Friday, October 27, 2006 7:09 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Under that logic, Mel Gibson shouldn't be in any trouble for his recent comments since he is obviously suffering from alcholism, a debilitating illness in it's own right.

That's f***ing bull***t, you a**hole!
How dare you equate a lack of personal control with a degenerative DISEASE that ultimatly causes death?
Let me take a stab here, you drink WAYYY too much, but it's a 'disease', so it's not you fault, right?

Sorry, I assumed Hero was the cruelest dope hereabouts. My bad.

Rabid Chrisisall

Why the insults and personal attacks? Why not just point out that alcoholism and parkinson's disease are illnesses of a different color and leave it at that? Or are you incapable of a civil discussion?

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

---Napoleon Bonaparte

RUE

Friday, October 27, 2006 7:29 PM (P)

Razza,

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.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 27, 2006 7:46 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:

Why the insults and personal attacks? Why not just point out that alcoholism and parkinson's disease are illnesses of a different color and leave it at that? Or are you incapable of a civil discussion?

Because everyone seems to have some political axe to grind. Nobody sticks to the substance of the issues.
Then the crap comparisons to illustrate some 'point' that aren't even consistant.
Fox didn't CHOOSE to get sick, so-called alchoholics (them that drink too much alcoholic beverages) CHOOSE to pour drinks down their throats.
They are not illness of a different colour, because one is NOT an illness!
And you think I should take any of your politics seriously?

If I need to point out such basics, civil discussion is lost for me.
(Nothing personal, just using your comments as an example of how 'discussion' is impossible when mired in such ignorance and agenda; this is in point of fact, Rush Limbaugh's whole routine.)

Wrong side of the bed Chrisisall

RAZZA

Friday, October 27, 2006 7:50 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Razza,

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.

Sorry? When did I belittle someone with Parkinsons's? As far as I can see, the only people belittling anyone are you and Chrisisall. I don't recall insulting or belittling anyone. I merely responded to Soupcatcher's post with relevant information and links in hopes of hearing his perspective, and possibly learning something. Unlike you, I believe it is counterproductive to insult someone when discussing a very important issue, and I have accordingly refrained from doing so.

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

---Napoleon Bonaparte

RAZZA

Friday, October 27, 2006 8:03 PM (P)

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

Why the insults and personal attacks? Why not just point out that alcoholism and parkinson's disease are illnesses of a different color and leave it at that? Or are you incapable of a civil discussion?

Because everyone seems to have some political axe to grind. Nobody sticks to the substance of the issues.
Then the crap comparisons to illustrate some 'point' that aren't even consistant.
Fox didn't CHOOSE to get sick, so-called alchoholics (them that drink too much alcoholic beverages) CHOOSE to pour drinks down their throats.
They are not illness of a different colour, because one is NOT an illness!
And you think I should take any of your politics seriously?

If I need to point out such basics, civil discussion is lost for me.
(Nothing personal, just using your comments as an example of how 'discussion' is impossible when mired in such ignorance and agenda; this is in point of fact, Rush Limbaugh's whole routine.)

Wrong side of the bed Chrisisall

Chris:

I appreciate your frustration with the impossibility of civil discussion. I share it! But I submit that your previous response to me was part of the problem. I disagree that alcholism is not a disease and so do many physicians and organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous. It is precisely because people refuse to see it for what it is that it continues to plague our society. We can start a whole new discussion on this topic, but here are a couple of links your might want to take a look at before dismissing it as a personal choice issue.

http://www.physiciansnews.com/commentary/298wp.html

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/FAQs/General-English/FAQ2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease_Theory_of_Alcoholism

So, I don't think it is a "crap" comparison, nor do I have a political "axe" to grind. I just like Firefly and enjoy talking to like minded people about our world views. 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?

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

---Napoleon Bonaparte

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 27, 2006 8:03 PM (P)

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?

Snark, thy name is Chrisisall

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, October 27, 2006 8:04 PM (P)

poor Adam is a die hard GOP fan

As Rush Predicted
http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/messages?msg=32604.6

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 27, 2006 8:22 PM (P)

Quote:
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

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, October 27, 2006 10:18 PM (P)

Hmmm. Been trying to post this for a while now. Let's see if the X time is the charm...

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
All true, but he has also co-sponsored legislation that would expand stem cell research derived from umbilical chord blood [Senate Bill S.681]. He has also come under fire for supporting bills which were not popular with his pro-life base, see article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11410626/site/newsweek/

All and all, he sounds like a typical politician on this issue, walking a razors edge depending on the way the political wind blows, but what else can we expect from the idiots we elect these days?

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.

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
I can't find anything that supports this position either, but then I can't prove a negative so the burden lies with Fox to produce evidence to support his claim, barring that, I have to call BS on this one.

Yeah. This is the one part of the ad that needs to be proven to me. Otherwise, as far as what is said, I don’t think there’s really anything controversial about the ad.

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
I don't want to turn into a Rush defender, but he does talk about this on his website, and how the video has been manipulated to exclude the audo, here's the link:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102606/content/correcting_
the_record.guest.html

…

I suppose if you believe he was mocking him, I'd have to agree with you, but I'm sure there are Rush fans who would tend to disagree about whether or not he was mocking Fox. Personally, I don't think that was his intent, but I can see where people who don't like him would come to that conclusion.

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.

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
I agree that Limbaugh was challenging the messenger, but so what? When a public figure injects himself into the political debate, they are fair game. Their health condition does not exclude them from criticism, nor should it. Limbaugh believes Fox's political position is wrong, so because Fox suffers from a debilitating disease means he should not question those positions or criticize the person who espoused them? Under that logic, Mel Gibson shouldn't be in any trouble for his recent comments since he is obviously suffering from alcholism, a debilitating illness in it's own right.

But Rush didn’t quest

SIGNYM

Friday, October 27, 2006 10:18 PM (P)

Let's go back to what Rush said. Not what we think he should have said or the points that we may disagree about in terms of embryonic stem cell research, but what he actually said, which 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.

Now, going backwards thru the link that wsa provided, thsi is what came up:

Quote:
When Fox is trying to win support to research he is on solid ground with this move. When he is lying about a Republican’s position on curing Parkinson’s then he is being duplicitous. As I pointed out in two posts already (here and here), the embryonic stem cell research angle from Fox is pure snake oil, and in violent opposition to one of the leading researchers Fox funds. That researcher is the one who noted Embryonic Stem Cell treatments for Parkinson’s - the supposed research Fox claims Republicans are trying to outlaw - cause tumors. The adult stem cell therapies by the same doctor avoid embryonic cells all together and use the patients own cells to correct the damage.

I like to backtrack claims, but the doctor who is cited over and over remains mysteriously nameless. Why do you suppose that is? To avoid a libel suit, perhaps? It makes me distrust the entire claim.

There is one other point to this: MJ Fox has also done commercials for Republicans who also support stem cell research, so it's not as if MJ Fox is partisan.

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

RUE

Friday, October 27, 2006 10:55 PM (P)

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?

RAZZA

Friday, October 27, 2006 11:57 PM (P)

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

RAZZA

Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:06 AM (P)

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

RAZZA

Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:34 AM (P)

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 fin

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:36 AM (P)

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 ...

RAZZA

Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:41 AM (P)

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

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:52 AM (P)

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.

RAZZA

Saturday, October 28, 2006 1:14 AM (P)

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

JAYNEZTOWN

Saturday, October 28, 2006 1:49 AM (P)

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.

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 1:51 AM (P)

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?

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, October 28, 2006 1:56 AM (P)

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 shoul

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:06 AM (P)

Hey Soup,

Well, I appreciated the transcription.

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:15 AM (P)

"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.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:27 AM (P)

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.

RAZZA

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:32 AM (P)

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

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:44 AM (P)

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

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:07 AM (P)

dbl

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:10 AM (P)

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.

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:11 AM (P)

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."

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:38 AM (P)

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

YINYANG

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:44 AM (P)

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

MURPH

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:58 AM (P)

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.

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 28, 2006 9:49 AM (P)

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.

RAZZA

Saturday, October 28, 2006 1:51 PM (P)

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

FELLOWTRAVELER

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:18 PM (P)

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.

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:55 PM (P)

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.

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:09 PM (P)

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.

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:24 PM (P)

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.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:30 PM (P)

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

RAZZA

Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:38 PM (P)

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

RAZZA

Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:40 PM (P)

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

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 28, 2006 6:04 PM (P)

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.

RAZZA

Saturday, October 28, 2006 6:31 PM (P)

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

AURAPTOR

Sunday, October 29, 2006 12:04 AM (P)

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. "

MISBEHAVEN

Sunday, October 29, 2006 12:44 AM (P)

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

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, October 29, 2006 1:03 AM (P)

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.

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 29, 2006 2:59 AM (P)

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.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:04 AM (P)

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:06 AM (P)

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.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, October 29, 2006 5:07 AM (P)

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. "

AURAPTOR

Sunday, October 29, 2006 5:09 AM (P)

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. "

YINYANG

Sunday, October 29, 2006 5:19 AM (P)

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

AURAPTOR

Sunday, October 29, 2006 5:23 AM (P)

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. "

YINYANG

Sunday, October 29, 2006 5:31 AM (P)

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

PIRATENEWS

Sunday, October 29, 2006 6:45 AM (P)

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/

SOUPCATCHER

Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:05 AM (P)

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.

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:54 AM (P)

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.

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 29, 2006 12:12 PM (P)

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.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, October 29, 2006 2:02 PM (P)

SIGNYM.....I'm more than educated enough for this debate. This has NOTHING to do w/ MJ Fox and the severity of his disease. That's what is so damn infuriating about this, is that everybody who doesn't listen to Rush has it WRONG. I listened to Rush, I know what he said, what his arguments were.

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, or any of that. What Rush did was correctly point out that MJF actively has, in the past, adjusted his medication doses for the specific purpose of showing people what Parkinson's DOES to those who are affected by it .

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!

Quote:
Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope.

This is line from the ad is a flat out lie. I don't know any other way to put it. All the research and treatment that has shown promise has come from ADULT stem cells, while NOTHING of use in the form of treatment has come from EMBRYONIC stem cells. There in lies the point. Embryonic vs adult stem cell research. The idea of spending federal $$ for the harvesting of embryos for stem cell research is what the GOP is against. California, on the other hand, HAS allowed for STATE moneies (raised by state taxes) to be allocated for exactly this purpose.

Sorry, SIG, but the House wins this one.

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. "

MISBEHAVEN

Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:26 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

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.

And what is wrong with showing Congrees exactly what the effects of the disease are? If Congress is to make an informed decision about whether or not to fund embryonic stem cell research, then it would stand to reason that they should know what happens to people who are medicated and those that are not medicated. As you noted, Fox did not try and conceal that he was not on medication, so that he could indeed show people what the disease is doing to him.

Quote:

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

If you mean by altering his medication that he actually took it, then yes you are right. But here is the problem. Fox stated in his interview with Katie Couric that if he was not medicated, at this stage of the disesase, he would no longer be able to speak.

Quote:
But none of that was the point of Rush's issue w/ MJ Fox or his meds.

If it was not Rush's point, then why did he go on and on about it?

Quote:
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.

The majority of Republicans in both Congress and in the current administration are against funding for embryonic stem cell research. This is not an implication; it is a fact. I will grant that the majority of Republican voters would like to see federal funding; however, the people they have elected are too busy pandering to the religious Right. As a result, Bush vetoed the legislation that passed both houses of Congress, and would have provided funding for the necessary research.

Quote:
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.

Yes. It is a political ad. To receive federal funding, you need politicians, specifically politicans who support funding the research. What is wrong with that? And, yes, it would not grant Fox a shield against answering questions. But Rush was not asking questions. He was too busy doing impersonations of Fox and accusing him of lying about his condition. As for the merit of their argument, the American public overwhelmingly supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and the scientists performing the research believe that it may potentially yield cures for numerous diseases. I would say there is some merit in that.

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

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE