Rush Limbaugh is an asshole

Quote:

Prometheus said:
Quote:

the G-man said:
There's also the fact that a fair number of people are saying that Fox

From REPUBLICANS for a Fair Media. The article is also titled "Limbaugh + Coulter were Right", then citing that "author Ann Coulter says Democrats often use the sympathy strategy."

So, totally unbiased, right?

Quote:

lied in the ad.

An Op-Ed piece from The Orlando Sentinel....so, obviously fact, right?

Quote:

For example, Mary L. Davenport, MD is an obstetrician and gynecologist, and a Fellow of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

She's called Fox's claims "unconscionable":

Mr. Fox and his ads' sponsors are guilty of conflating embryonic stem cell research, which the GOP candidates and many Americans oppose for destroying a human life in the name of curing other people's diseases, with stem cell research in general, which includes adult stem cell research and umbilical cord blood stem cell research.

The only limits in question are on federal funding of new embryonic stem cell lines, requiring the sacrifice of new embryos. Private and state-funded research is ongoing. The implicit claim that research based on new embryos is "the most promising" is absurd, completely unsupported by the scientific literature, and an insult to voters, based as it is on the assumption that they are incapable of understanding the issue. Too stupid to tell the difference, is the elitist assumption underlying this campaign.

Flim-flam is a charitable description.

Mary Davenport

Mary Davenport is an obstetrician/gynecologist practicing medicine in El Sobrante, California. She graduated from Smith College, received her M.D. from Tufts University School of Medicine, and completed her residency at the University of California, San Diego. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and has served on the clinical faculty of the University of California, San Francisco Medical School. She is a member of the board of directors of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and strictly follows the teachings of the Catholic Church in her practice of medicine.

You forgot that part, I'm sure...

Sorry. I'm not up to being spoonfed Conservative rhetoric today, thanks...

Are things just overheated 'cause of the upcoming election, or is it always like this around here?

Can't you let the new guy settle in before you show your ignorance, Pariah?

Quote:

Pariah said:
As usual, you prove yourself to be the biggest moron on the East Coast (before, it was the South). You haven't even heard her arguments and yet you judge her and then go onto say that the majority is always right. You probably haven't even paid as much as two glances at the stem-cell debate to know whether or not she's "spun" anything let alone proved it. If she's a doctor, then that puts her in the same arena as those other voluminous doctors and scientists you fall back on. In which case, you can't just brush her word off.

Certainly I can, just as fast and as much as I do yours. Neither you, or the Doctor, can obviously make objective analysis of this situation. You make insults instead of arguments, Pariah. Stop being a joke. Please. For your own sake.

Quote:

So, for the record, you feel that anyone who has Parkinsons should be believed regarding anything they say as long as they say it?

Spin it, baby, spin it! You and G-Man should join forces and fight crime.

Quote:

Fox has been seen on many other appearances before that commercial, and he's never shaken that badly. He's made a show of moving around a lot to cover up the shakes, but they were small. Unless your next argument is going to be, "He's showing how intense it can get--It's for a good cause," then you're just re-hashing an old grudge with Limbaugh for anything he says (no matter what it may be).

You assume you've seen every appearance with Fox, and then, you assume I have an "old grudge" against Limbaugh.

These are the reasons why I never feel the need to debate with you Pariah. You live in a fictional world, and attack everything you disagree with and do not understand. Make assumptions all you want. When you want to debate the facts and points of what G-Man and I are talking about, get back to me. Until then, keep on keeping on...

Quote:

Pariah said:
Look everyone! Whomod's back!

Whomod's on first?

(Whatmod's on second, I Don't Knowmod is on third, right?)

Quote:

Prometheus said:
Why you keep comparing Rush, a political commentator, to South Park, a cartoon on Comedy Central, I have no idea...

As noted earlier, Limbaugh has always been as much a satirist and provacteur as a legitimate commentator. He performs in skits, plays parody songs and tells jokes on a regular basis on the program.

He uses humor and exageration to make points, not unlike Stone and Parker.

Stone and Parker mocked Reeve for his stem cell "obsession", Limbaugh mocked Fox.

Quote:

Did [Fox use his illness to score political points]? Or, did he step in to try and promote political backing and awareness for a prominent disease?

He went beyond stem cell research advocacy. He specifically endorsed one candidate and attacked the other. That's "poliitcal"

Quote:

Does the very fact that his disease is visually evident mean that whenever he appears anywhere, at any time, he's trying to garner sympathy or emotion?

He specifically asked people to vote for his endorsed candidate. He did so at a time when, for whatever reason, his seizures were visibly more pronounced than when he, for example, films "Boston Legal."

Why did Fox do the ad, if not to stir sympathy and emotion?

Furthermore, as noted above, there is a real question whether Fox's statements against the Republican candidate were even accurate:

Granted, you may, for whatever reason, chose not to believe Talent. However, the mere fact that Fox, who "has been politically active for Democratic causes [and] campaigned for John Kerry" might suffer from a disease doesn't make him automatically more credible that Talent, or anyone else.

Finally, as noted on another thread, even Scientific American (hardly a "right wing" or "Catholic" magazine) has reported on some of the inherent dangers in embyonic stem cells, including cancer. Much of the Republicans opposition to federal funding has been based on those dangers. In contrast, many (if not most) Republicans support federal funding for non-embryonic stem cell research which, as noted in the other thread, may be even more promising.

Given that support, isn't a bit disingenuous for Fox to portray Talent, as wanting to criminalize stem cell research?

Finally, if we get right down to it. Fox, a millionaire, is attacking politicians for not spending other peoples' money, and engaging in perhaps scientifically risky research for his Fox's personal benefit.

Is that nobility...or self interest?

And, if so, why is Fox's self interest any more important than any other "special interest group"?

Quote:

Prometheus said:
Certainly I can, just as fast and as much as I do yours. Neither you, or the Doctor, can obviously make objective analysis of this situation. You make insults instead of arguments... Stop being a joke. Please. For your own sake

Quote:

Prometheus also, and paradoxically, said:
Limbaugh is an asshole

Quote:

Prometheus also said:...spoonfed Conservative rhetoric...

Quote:

As well as:
...she cannot make any form of objective argument, as it's obvious her personal beliefs sway emphasis to her opinions

Quote:

and
That's not only immature, and illogical, it's reprehensible ...someone who has little to no knowledge of what the fuck he's talking about...Limbaugh only wants soundbytes...Rush is just being an asshole...

Well, at least your above insults and nonobjectivity.

Well spun. But did I insult anyone here? No. Pariah makes it his mission to butt into conversations, insult people, and then run back to re-writing the Bible, or whatever it is he does in his off hours.

Oh, and it's "you're" not "your". -4 points...

Promod corrected my spelling in lieu of addressing my points.

You know what that means.

I win again.

Quote:

the G-man said:
As noted earlier, Limbaugh has always been as much a satirist and provacteur as a legitimate commentator. He performs in skits, plays parody songs and tells jokes on a regular basis on the program.

He uses humor and exageration to make points, not unlike Stone and Parker.

Stone and Parker mocked Reeve for his stem cell "obsession", Limbaugh mocked Fox.

So, then, it's your stance that we should take Rush Limbaugh's opinions with the same amount of intellectual cred as we take South Park? Heh. Oooookay...fair enough...

Quote:

He went beyond stem cell research advocacy. He specifically endorsed one candidate and attacked the other. That's "poliitcal"

Did he "attack"? Or, did he state his lack of support for the opponent? There's a difference.

Quote:

He specifically asked people to vote for his endorsed candidate. He did so at a time when, for whatever reason, his seizures were visibly more pronounced than when he, for example, films "Boston Legal."

And, yet, any time spent reading about Fox, and his current acting gigs, knows that he can only film so many shots at a time without jerking, as well, as the fact that the crew shoot around his visual availability. Why wasn't the same done for the "commercial"? What's the point of being the poster boy for the disease, if you have to hide it while trying to make a point about it? That doesn't seem logical to me.

Quote:

Why did Fox do the ad, if not to stir sympathy and emotion?

I've answered this.

Quote:

Furthermore, as noted above, there is a real question whether Fox's statements against the Republican candidate were even accurate:

"Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research," Fox says in the 30-second spot. "Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope."

Talent's campaign called the ad a false attack.

"Senator Talent supports medical research including stem cell research that doesn't involve cloning or destroying a human embryo," said Talent spokesman Rich Chrismer.

Earlier this year, Talent withdrew his support for a Senate bill that would ban all embryonic stem cell research and impose a million-dollar fine and jail sentence on violators. But he opposes the Missouri ballot initiative, claiming it would "make cloning human life at the earliest stage a constitutional right."

First of all, if you were cutting and pasting the quote, why did you edit out the "Unfortunately" at the beginning of his statement? To make him sound more "accusatory"?

Second, you left off this bit...

Supporters of the state referendum deny that assertion, noting the language of the proposed constitutional amendment explicitly bans human cloning.

Thus, sounds like Fox was pretty accurate in his statement.

Quote:

Granted, you may, for whatever reason, chose not to believe Talent. However, the mere fact that Fox, who "has been politically active for Democratic causes [and] campaigned for John Kerry" might suffer from a disease doesn't make him automatically more credible that Talent, or anyone else.

No one said it did. And, again, you're straying from the issue. Disagreeing with Fox is fine. But, like Limbaugh, don't make assumptions about him "acting" or "being off his meds" just because you (not you, literally, but Rush) disagree with his politics. Instead of coming at him with facts and reason, Limbaugh wants to smear him personally. That's the reason he's an asshole.

Quote:

Finally, as noted on another thread, even Scientific American (hardly a "right wing" or "Catholic" magazine) has reported on some of the inherent dangers in embyonic stem cells, including cancer. Much of the Republicans opposition to federal funding has been based on those dangers.

Somehow, I doubt fear of cancer keeps them from supporting, at the very least, active research into the concept. More to the point, I would bet dollars to dicks that it's the religious base of their party that thinks it's "unholy", or something. However...and I freely admit this plainly...that's just my opinion.

Quote:

In contrast, many (if not most) Republicans support federal funding for non-embryonic stem cell research which, as noted in the other thread, may be even more promising.

Then, if it's all the more promising, why isn't it given more support? What would be the point of even bothering with embryonic research? Could it be that the results from testings are incomplete? Or that it's only in theoretical stages, and thus, would set back the research decades? Curious.

Quote:

Given that support, isn't a bit disingenuous for Fox to portray Talent, as wanting to criminalize stem cell research?

Where did he say Talent was wanting to "criminalize" anything? He simply pointed out the fact that Talent doesn't support the research. And, given the above, he's right.

Quote:

Finally, if we get right down to it. Fox, a millionaire, is attacking politicians for not spending other peoples' money, and engaging in perhaps scientifically risky research for his Fox's personal benefit.

Is that nobility...or self interest?

Oh that's petty, man. You cannot say that he wants it because of himself. That's an illogical line to draw. If they had a spokesperson for the disease that didn't even HAVE the disease, how on Earth would that be effective by any stretch?

Quote:

And, if so, why is Fox's self interest any more important than any other "special interest group"?

Who said they were? He didn't. I didn't either. Where's that coming from? Don't blame Fox because he has Parkinson's, and happens to be a celebrity...

Quote:

the G-man said:
Promod corrected my spelling lieu of addressing my points.

You know what that means.

I win again.

I didn't see in the Political Blog Rule Book that there was a time limit...

I saw the ad in question. Fox was bobbing and weaving like a drunken sailor in a barfight.

Quote:

And, yet, any time spent reading about Fox, and his current acting gigs, knows that he can only film so many shots at a time without jerking, as well, as the fact that the crew shoot around his visual availability. Why wasn't the same done for the "commercial"? What's the point of being the poster boy for the disease, if you have to hide it while trying to make a point about it? That doesn't seem logical to me.

I'm sure you have no problem with shelling out for sympathy, but I would want my favorite actors or politicians to make a coherent point without the use of exaggeration. If Paris Hilton was going to give a lecture on the dangers of herpes, would you really want to see her in an outbreak of disgusting sores while she talked to you about it? Or worse, what if she tried to hammer the point home by showing how damaging it is elsewhere.

Quote:

Then, if it's all the more promising, why isn't it given more support? What would be the point of even bothering with embryonic research? Could it be that the results from testings are incomplete? Or that it's only in theoretical stages, and thus, would set back the research decades? Curious.

The entire debate over stem cells evolved from scientific value to moral justification a long time ago. Since embryonic research has fallen flat while use of dead adults and umbilical cords has proven many times more successful, the embryo-exploitation camp is too embarressed to admit defeat.

Quote:

Where did he say Talent was wanting to "criminalize" anything?

Did you even watch the commercial?

Quote:

If they had a spokesperson for the disease that didn't even HAVE the disease, how on Earth would that be effective by any stretch?

.......Are you serious?

Quote:

Pariah said:
I'm sure you have no problem with shelling out for sympathy, but I would want my favorite actors or politicians to make a coherent point without the use of exaggeration.

Heh...explain "Mission Accomplished" then...

Quote:

If Paris Hilton was going to give a lecture on the dangers of herpes, would you really want to see her in an outbreak of disgusting sores while she talked to you about it? Or worse, what if she tried to hammer the point home by showing how damaging it is elsewhere.

No, I would need her, or anyone else, to obviously be afflicted by whatever disease they are championing for me to accept their expertise on the subject.

Quote:

The entire debate over stem cells evolved from scientific value to moral justification a long time ago. Since embryonic research has fallen flat while use of dead adults and umbilical cords has proven many times more successful, the embryo-exploitation camp is too embarressed to admit defeat.

Yeah....that's it. They're too "embarressed". No reason to actually go investigating the best possible lead for the cure. No, they have their "egos" involved. Right. That makes sense...

Quote:

Did you even watch the commercial?

Yep. Did you?

Quote:

.......Are you serious?

I could ask the same of you...

I haven't seen the ad, but have always thought of Limbaugh as an ass. Will return to argue the point after I see the ad and read/watch Limbaugh's response.

Quote:

Prometheus said:
Pain-pill addiction's a bitch. Makes you think you have the right to condemn someone who's trying to help a needy cause, like Michael J. Fox. Thus, Limbaugh is an asshole.

Thoughts?

It's been argued before that liberals like to hide behind the "untouchable". Have someone who's an identified "victim" make your political claims for you then if anyone criticises them hang them for being insensitive or an asshole. Look at Pro's response here. Fox can't be condemed because he's trying to help a needy cause? I guess if you call getting Democrats elected a needy cause, but i call it politics.

Here's teh add in question. Agree or dissagree you should all be honest enough to recognise it as a politcal add and not a Public service announcement.

* Youtube isn;t working for me... so here's the link.

here.

Believe it or not....I agree with G-man, Rush and Michael J. Fox all at the same time.

Quote:

wannabuyamonkey said:
It's been argued before that liberals like to hide behind the "untouchable". Have someone who's an identified "victim" make your political claims for you then if anyone criticises them hang them for being insensitive or an asshole. Look at Pro's response here. Fox can't be condemed because he's trying to help a needy cause? I guess if you call getting Democrats elected a needy cause, but i call it politics.

Come on, Wbam. Read the entire thread. You'll see I never said it wasn't a political ad. I'm just saying that (A) Rush tried to attack Fox, personally, instead of his message or point, (B) at least Fox is siding with a good cause, instead of Big Business, Oil, or just lining his own pockets (not saying that all Republicans do so, just saying that there are politicians on both sides of the aisle that use politics as a personal monetary gain), and finally, (C) it's just a well known, proven fact that Rush Limbaugh is an asshole.

That's all...

Quote:

PJP said:
Believe it or not....I agree with G-man, Rush and Michael J. Fox all at the same time.

Unfortunately, I believe it, Peter...

Quote:

Prometheus said:
Quote:

Captain Sammitch said:
He's from Hollywood. He's not used to people around him having opinions that differ from his own.

Phil Smith, the RKMBs #1 Sideline Cheerleader...

Fuck off. We've been over this before. What exactly constitutes being 'in' a debate or on the 'sidelines'? I don't have to post a secondhand opinion from professional opinion-posters to make a statement. I never see you bitching about my one-liners when my opinion lands on the other side (as it has on a number of occasions). Don't you have anything better on me than this tired bullshit? I start threads all the damn time. I post detailed explanations of my opinions quite often, and nobody says a damn thing. If I'm so irrelevant as to be considered 'on the sidelines' in every political thread, then why do you get your panties all up in a bunch every time I toss off a semi-humorous observation? Are you the only one entitled to wisecracks in this forum? Is there a list of authorized wisecrackers? I didn't get the memo. Why don't you concentrate on the thread instead of stalking me.

Quote:

Prometheus said:
Quote:

Captain Sammitch said:
Much like Jon Stewart, he'd be one of my favorite comedians if he weren't so hopelessly mired in his own political leanings.

You prefer Bill O'Reilley to get your laughs?

Actually, no. I'm actually capable of recognizing perspectives that aren't all the way to one side or the other - there are plenty of people here who could probably give that a try any time now. I didn't say "I despise Jon Stewart because he's a liberal scumbag". I watch The Daily Show. I laugh at it. All I said was that Jon Stewart isn't my favorite comedian, because he seems unable to step outside the political arena, unlike many other A-list comedians, most of whom have decidedly liberal political leanings but don't live and die by them.

You seem to think I'm some raving reactionary neocon simply because I am cynical about liberal politics and don't keep quiet about it. You forget I've said a number of things like "a conscience is a sorry substitute for a party line," or "if you can't argue both sides of an issue, you don't know enough about it yet." I'm sorry I can't agree with you all the time. No, wait. I'm not. I don't dislike you at all, or really anyone else in here, but I don't have to keep my mouth shut if I have an opinion that differs from that of the person who posted before me. Compared to adler and many of the other vocal liberals on this board, I suppose I might come off as a staunch conservative. But to be honest, I'm closer to the middle of the road than most other people who post with any frequency in here - with a few noteworthy exceptions like Pig Iron or Doc.

To answer your question, I don't listen to/watch/read O'Reilly at all. I don't even know what channel Fox News is in my area. I know how I feel about most issues that people deem relevant right now, and I go with whoever shares my opinion on that issue. I know that's an astounding concept for many people in this country, but if more people were to try that once in a while, you'd be surprised at how many people like me there are out there. People who, despite differences of opinion, are generally able to be reasonable and civil - except, unfortunately, when someone is inexplicably stalking them.

Quote:

Captain Sammitch said:
Fuck off. We've been over this before. What exactly constitutes being 'in' a debate or on the 'sidelines'? I don't have to post a secondhand opinion from professional opinion-posters to make a statement. I never see you bitching about my one-liners when my opinion lands on the other side (as it has on a number of occasions). Don't you have anything better on me than this tired bullshit? I start threads all the damn time. I post detailed explanations of my opinions quite often, and nobody says a damn thing. If I'm so irrelevant as to be considered 'on the sidelines' in every political thread, then why do you get your panties all up in a bunch every time I toss off a semi-humorous observation? Are you the only one entitled to wisecracks in this forum? Is there a list of authorized wisecrackers? I didn't get the memo. Why don't you concentrate on the thread instead of stalking me.

Holy shit, Princess...calm down!!

Geez, fair enough, fair enough. You called me square, and I accept it. Fuck, just unclench!

Quote:

Captain Sammitch said:
Actually, no. I'm actually capable of recognizing perspectives that aren't all the way to one side or the other - there are plenty of people here who could probably give that a try any time now. I didn't say "I despise Jon Stewart because he's a liberal scumbag". I watch The Daily Show. I laugh at it. All I said was that Jon Stewart isn't my favorite comedian, because he seems unable to step outside the political arena, unlike many other A-list comedians, most of whom have decidedly liberal political leanings but don't live and die by them.

Well, my joke in reply was that I was comparing O'Reilley as a comedian, and not a serious journalist. But, okay...in rebuttal:

Jon Stewart is the lead comedian in a very liberal comedy show called "The Daily Show". That's his forte'. That's his deal. And, that's what he's good at. If you can't appreciate his humor because it's political, then, that's one thing. But, it's not like he does anything else at all. That's why he is who he is. Much like Bill Mahr or Dennis Miller. He's a political comedian. So, you can't argue that you would like him more if he would "seperate" himself from his politics. He wouldn't be the comedian we know without his politics. That's all.

Quote:

You seem to think I'm some raving reactionary neocon simply because I am cynical about liberal politics and don't keep quiet about it. You forget I've said a number of things like "a conscience is a sorry substitute for a party line," or "if you can't argue both sides of an issue, you don't know enough about it yet." I'm sorry I can't agree with you all the time. No, wait. I'm not. I don't dislike you at all, or really anyone else in here, but I don't have to keep my mouth shut if I have an opinion that differs from that of the person who posted before me. Compared to adler and many of the other vocal liberals on this board, I suppose I might come off as a staunch conservative. But to be honest, I'm closer to the middle of the road than most other people who post with any frequency in here - with a few noteworthy exceptions like Pig Iron or Doc.

....oh, what? You weren't finished?

Quote:

To answer your question, I don't listen to/watch/read O'Reilly at all. I don't even know what channel Fox News is in my area. I know how I feel about most issues that people deem relevant right now, and I go with whoever shares my opinion on that issue. I know that's an astounding concept for many people in this country, but if more people were to try that once in a while, you'd be surprised at how many people like me there are out there. People who, despite differences of opinion, are generally able to be reasonable and civil - except, unfortunately, when someone is inexplicably stalking them.

Phil, get a grip. You interjected into a thread I started, and into a discussion I was having/debating with G-Man. If anyone is "stalking", it's you. Also, if you ever feel the need to take the time to explain your positions, and why you feel the way you do, rather than just dropping in with a pithy 'shout-out' to whoever you feel like sucking up to at the moment, I'd be more than happy to notice you in the crowd...

Quote:

Prometheus said:
...Also, if you ever feel the need to take the time to explain your positions, and why you feel the way you do, rather than just dropping in with a pithy 'shout-out' to whoever you feel like sucking up to at the moment, I'd be more than happy to notice you in the crowd...

Quote:

pretty much ignoring what Captain Sammitch said earlier:
...I start threads all the damn time. I post detailed explanations of my opinions quite often, and nobody says a damn thing...

Do I really need to provide you with a list of productive contributions I've made to threads in this forum? Outside this forum there's no question, but I suppose it might be a little tougher to accept in here. If you took the time to read my statements and not just my replies, though, it might be a little easier to see.

And, once again, I never claimed not to 'appreciate' Stewart's humor. I said, again, it wasn't my favorite. If not thinking Jon Stewart is The Second Coming™ makes me unappreciative, I guess I'm guilty as charged.

Quote:

Prometheus said:

Come on, Wbam. Read the entire thread. You'll see I never said it wasn't a political ad.

I was addressing the premise of the thread and the term "a needy cause"

Quote:

(A) Rush tried to attack Fox, personally, instead of his message or point

Acctually he did both. I want to ask you a question and I want to hear (read) you answer ir honestly. Have you heard the Rush Limbaugh segment in it's etirety (considering it was about 20+ minutes) on teh Rush Limbaugh show or have you only seen exerpts from other media?

I'm willing to concede that Rush attacked Fox personally, but I would like you to concede that you don;t know weather or not Rush addressed the issues as well.

However I think it was acceptable to adress Fox personally because he was using himself and his condition to enhance his position. Rush didn;t make him a part of the debate, Fox did.

Quote:

(B) at least Fox is siding with a good cause, instead of Big Business, Oil, or just lining his own pockets (not saying that all Republicans do so, just saying that there are politicians on both sides of the aisle that use politics as a personal monetary gain), and finally,

That's just your political opinion, wich I respect but dissagree with. I don;t think it's a good cause, so there we simply have a difference of opinion. Also the Bill in question is acctually a cloning Bill, not a Stem Cel bill. It's missleading.

Quote:

Captain Sammitch said:
r3xyz... something. Can't be arsed to look it up. Much like Jon Stewart, he'd be one of my favorite comedians if he weren't so hopelessly mired in his own political leanings.

i haven't even said anything in this thread.....

Quote:

Prometheus said:
Quote:

PJP said:
Believe it or not....I agree with G-man, Rush and Michael J. Fox all at the same time.

Unfortunately, I believe it, Peter...

well I believe that Michael J. Fox is a good person and I happen to be a big fan of his. I also, like him believe in stem cell research. However, I also believe that like Rush said, he was playing for the camera. I believe the tremors were real and his condition is nothing to laugh at....but if he can shoot scenes of Boston Legal without the tremors why not shoot these commercials without the tremors too. And I agree with G-Man's points that each side believes they are right and you could call every political add an attack ad.

Quote:

Prometheus said:at least Fox is siding with a good cause, instead of Big Business

When did medical research stop being "big business"?

Quote:

wannabuyamonkey said:
Have you heard the Rush Limbaugh segment in it's etirety (considering it was about 20+ minutes) on teh Rush Limbaugh show or have you only seen exerpts from other media?

I freely admit that I have not seen all of Rush's show, at any point.

Quote:

I'm willing to concede that Rush attacked Fox personally, but I would like you to concede that you don;t know weather or not Rush addressed the issues as well.

Okay, I concede that. You are right. I don't know whether he addressed the issues at all, much less in a fair light.

Quote:

However I think it was acceptable to adress Fox personally because he was using himself and his condition to enhance his position. Rush didn;t make him a part of the debate, Fox did.

I disagree. But, I think we've all come to the point of the debate where it comes down to a matter of opinion...

I think the debate here was always been a matter of opinion.

The real issue, as Pat Moynihan would say, is that while we are entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts.

That applies to everyone, including Fox.

You are such the last word freak, aren't you?

Yes.

Also if I understand correctly, the window where medication helps gets smaller as the disease progresses. Fox use to be able to continue doing a sitcom up to a point, now it's guest appearences where even with shooting around his Parkinsons you can see the disease's progressive nature.

I would think, however, that if he can hold it together long enough (or they can schedule around his shakes) to do a regular guest spot on an hour long dramady he can hold it together long enough (or they can shoot around the shakes) to film a thirty second commerical

Well, nothing's going to convince you beyond your own opinion, so, what's the use of continuing the debate?

Quote:

the G-man said:
I would think, however, that if he can hold it together long enough (or they can schedule around his shakes) to do a regular guest spot on an hour long dramady he can hold it together long enough (or they can shoot around the shakes) to film a thirty second commerical

I would think they would be more interested in showing the effects of the disease. If most of his day is mostly like what you saw in the ad then it makes sense not to do 30 seconds where it doesn't seem so bad.

watch the whole thing, especially fox's ad for specter in 2004. he's a good man, putting himself out there to help people with his condition. so what if there's a selfish aspect to looking for a cure, its still a good thing to do that will help people.

Lol, those guys are funny.

Quote:

r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:

Captain Sammitch said:
r3xyz... something. Can't be arsed to look it up. Much like Jon Stewart, he'd be one of my favorite comedians if he weren't so hopelessly mired in his own political leanings.

i haven't even said anything in this thread.....

No need. You are, in fact, ubiquitous. Infamy has its rewards.

Quote:

Prometheus said:
I disagree. But, I think we've all come to the point of the debate where it comes down to a matter of opinion...

I thought that was the whole thing!

http://us.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-10-27/

Actor Fox's Ads Hurting GOP, Says Study

Michael J. Fox's political commercials supporting embryonic stem cell research may be harming Republicans according to a study conducted earlier this week and reported today (Friday) by CNSNews.com, a unit of the conservative Media Research Center. According to the study by HCD Research and Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion, support for such research increased from 78 percent overall to 83 percent after those surveyed viewed the ad by Fox, whose Parkinson's symptoms are apparent in it. The survey also concluded that Republican respondents' support for a Republican candidate decreased by 10 percent after seeing the ad while Independents' support for Democrats grew by 10 percent. Meanwhile, in an appearance on the CBS Evening News Thursday, Fox denied that charges by conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh that he had stopped taking his medications in order to exaggerate his Parkinson's symptoms. The medication, he pointed out, counteracts the rigidity of Parkinson's and allows him to speak. "The irony of it is that I was too medicated," he told anchor Katie Couric. "Would you support a Republican candidate?" Couric asked later. "I've campaigned for Arlen Specter, the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania who supports stem-cell research." (Fox also portrayed a conservative preppie on the long-running Family Ties TV series.)

No mention of whether the reaction to Fox's ad (like Rush's comments) had anything to do with this.

Not only did Fox unfairly attack Republicans with the ad, but in one state, Fox actually used the ad to endorse a democrat who has voted against stem cell research.

This would seem to be the "smoking gun" for Fox's motives. If this was only about stem cell research, there was no reason for Fox to endorse this democrat. In fact, if both candidates were against stem cell reseach, Fox could have withheld his endorsement.

Instead, however, he cut an ad that inaccurately portrayed a democrat as a supporter of stem cell research.

There's little doubt left: for Fox its about politics and nothing else

Fox has endorsed at least one Republican (Specter) so trying to make it look like it's just politics for Fox just isn't true. Limbaugh is still an asshole pooping out the same GOP approved truthiness.

The fact that Fox endorsed one republican, Spector, in the past does not mean he's not now shilling exclusively for the DNC.

If, as we were led to believe, the issue was stem cell research, how do you explain Fox supporting a democrat who voted against the research?

Yeah, and I noticed you're getting your "facts" linked from Rush Limbaugh's website. This is the same website that promotes "Club Gitmo" apparel. So, I'm sure it's accurate and unbiased...

Considering Fox's disease, it's more reasonable to suspect he's more interested in seeking a cure than partisan politics.

Hey, cures don't come cheap, you know. If the man feels he has to sell out to a party that might possibly get him a cure lined up, I suppose that's enough for him to justify pimping the Dems' entire platform on the basis of one comparatively minor issue.

And before anyone starts in with any kind of sensitivity horseshit, yes, I have/have had relatives suffering from Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's, and other diseases that could supposedly be cured more rapidly through embryonic stem cell research than through other forms of stem-cell research - in the time period that this debate has been going on. But none of them have supported embryonic stem-cell research.

If you really want to tie this to the abortion debate - and most of you should already know my argument concerning that - then no, I don't believe it's right to use human beings (even "potential" human beings, if you want to use that little PC tag) as raw materials from which to harvest things we find useful, no matter what the windfall might be.

Arguing the issue itself is a whole other thread, though. If you want me to say something relevant to this, Gregory Peck was elected chairman of the American Cancer Society and didn't have cancer. Self-preservation is probably the most primitive instinct of any living thing, and anyone can stand up and advocate something they have a direct stake in. But not every victim of Parkinson's is willing to send our society off down that slippery slope where other human beings are ultimately just another resource to exploit. (The opinion of one person I actually know is worth the opinions of thousands of strangers, as far as I'm concerned.) It's not like there's a guaranteed payoff - that opening the floodgates for no-holds-barred research on embryonic tissue is gonna produce a definite payoff. And if there are people who are willing to wait for another way to find a cure, that's good enough for me. If Fox is serious enough about stem-cell research that he's going all-out to promote a political party on the strength of one issue, he shouldn't be surprised by the reaction he gets.

A Special Message from Emmy Award-Winning actor, Michael J. Fox

You have no class...

We suggest cheapest prices for sildenafil citrate. Be sure
Follow the links:

buy viagra
cheap levitra
cheap viagra

Quote:

Prometheus said:
You have no class...

Quote:

the G-man said:
A Special Message from Emmy Award-Winning actor, Michael J. Fox

Fellow Americans,

Many of you have expressed reservations concerning embryonic stem cell research, fearful that it will lead us down a slippery slope towards a society where human embryos are worth only what you can get for them on the open market. You strongly believe that human life, even in its earliest stages, is sacrosanct.

Well, that and three bucks might get you some brownie points with the Big Cheese in the afterlife, but if you ever want to see another Back to the Future sequel you’ll vote Claire McCaskill for United States Senate.

Claire’s strong support for embryonic stem cell research is the best hope that beautiful celebrities afflicted with embarassing diseases have of finding a cure - and the only chance you people have of ever seeing Marty McFly and Doc Brown back in action again.

Seriously, I’d love to do another movie. In fact, I’ve got the script for Back to the Future Part IV right here. It’s damn good, too. But I’m going to feed it into the shredder page by page unless you people start forking over some goddam stem cells! I don’t want any of those second-rate stem cells from some dead geezer’s spine, either! They better be embryonic stem cells, from human embryos, or the deal’s off.

Come on. Wouldn’t you like to see your ol’ pal Calvin Klein riding a modified stegosaurus through prehistoric Hill Valley? It’s right here on page 17. But it’s not going to happen as long as I’m shaking like an Indonesian heroin addict. LOOK AT ME, FOR CHRISTSAKE!!!! I'M A F***ING WRECK!! How am I going to bury Caveman Biff under a mountain of dinosaur poop when I can’t even hold a pencil without poking my f***ing eye out?

So I’m going to say it one last time: VOTE CLAIRE McCASKGILL, OR MARTY MCFLY DIES! I'll kill him, I really will. Alex P. Keaton, too. I'll take my medication, and stab him right in the neck with a screwdriver. There will be no Family Ties Reunion Special, no more Back to the Future flicks, and your own damn selfishness will be to blame. Just keep that in mind when you go to the polls in November.

Thank you, and God bless

yeah that Fox is a real grifter.

can we find the post where you blasted him for doing almost the same commercial for a pro-stem cell Republican in 2004?