Rush Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

[Pangloss]

Rush is a smart guy, and more importantly he offers a lot more than just liberal-bashing. He offers hope and motivational promise. That's the thing that Air America doesn't understand.

 

But at the end of the day, it's (a) just entertainment, and (b) completely close-minded bias. He's a partisan ideologue, and therefore he cannot be taken straight as a political observer. You have to take everything he says with a huge grain of salt.

 

That, by the way, is the road Michael J. Fox is headed down if he keeps supporting Democrats and attacking Republicans. He will destroy his credibility on the subject of ESCR and Parkinsons and become a partisan ideologue. He needs to take a page out of Christopher Reeves' book and avoid that sort of thing (Reeve only did it once, as I recall, and for reasons that were much more directly related to ESCR -- Bush v Kerry).

[john5746]

There you go. Take the easy way out. With cheap shots like that, you should consider running for office.

 

What? I can't attack the guy? He is obviously on drugs, acting the way he does, jibber-jabbering. He enters the political arena every day, so he is fair game...

 

That is his argument anyway.

[ParanoiA]

What? I can't attack the guy? He is obviously on drugs, acting the way he does, jibber-jabbering. He enters the political arena every day, so he is fair game...

 

That is his argument anyway.

 

Good point...carry on. I made the mistake of assuming you were advocating being better than him in your last post. I realize now, that you see the sense in his views.

[john5746]

Good point...carry on. I made the mistake of assuming you were advocating being better than him in your last post. I realize now, that you see the sense in his views.

 

Thanks! It was talent on loan from God... I have to give it back now. Sarcasm to prove a point. I think he does that as well, just not as good as many people on this board.

[ParanoiA]

Thanks! It was talent on loan from God... I have to give it back now. Sarcasm to prove a point. I think he does that as well, just not as good as many people on this board.

 

This is true. I'm curious though how he would handle a pro-marijuana caller now. Previously he would shut down any attempts to compare it to alcohol. That's always pissed me off, because alcohol is the only comparable precedent to use for advocating marijuana legalization. I think he knows that, and he knows it's much safer than alchohol and obviously safer and less addictive than pain killers...

[swansont]

I got the link to Lucky Man from Rush's web page. Rush is basing what he said after reading MJF's own words. Does that "Jibe"? The media isn't going to bother using these quotes from Rush because they sound rational, intellegent, and well thought out. They are going to use what is the most sensational. The media wants everyone else's perception of Rush Limbaugh to be of someone who just shoots his mouth.

 

No, it still doesn't jibe. The contention was that Fox was exaggerating — that it was an act. That's not legitimate criticism, it's an unfounded accusation of dishonesty, especially so since Rush admits to knowing the particulars: Fox doesn't take the medication in circumstances when he is trying to educate people on the disease. Instead of covering things up, Fox is displaying the actual unvarnished truth about the disease.

 

It almost sounds like Limbaugh wants Fox to take the meds so that nobody has to be subjected to someone who doesn't act like the rest of us. That's my impression his particular slice of ideology: Conform, dammit, you're embarrassing the rest of us.

 

That the stem-cell issue falls along partisan lines is probably the least interesting aspect of the issue. Does anybody really expect otherwise?

[bascule]

Here's the actual ad:

 

 

One doctor writes:

 

"...the chorea that Michael J Fox has in that ad comes from chronic use of dopamine agonists in the context of Parkinson's. They're movements from the medicine, not the disease itself. Although he might have odd movements OFF of his meds, they wouldn't look like the ones in the ad. They'd look like the Parkinson's-like presentation of Muhammed Ali's Dementia Pugilistica.

 

In addition, those movements are hard to imitate accurately because they stem from circuits between the basal ganglia and cortex that you can't just turn off or on. Those aren't volitional circuits. There is little chance he was acting, and if he was, he could only accentuate slightly movementse already had. In other words, this is as tragic as it looks."

[ParanoiA]

In addition, those movements are hard to imitate accurately because they stem from circuits between the basal ganglia and cortex that you can't just turn off or on. Those aren't volitional circuits. There is little chance he was acting, and if he was, he could only accentuate slightly movementse already had. In other words, this is as tragic as it looks."

 

Yeah, and for the record I do not think MJF was acting. And I do think Rush was out of line suggesting it. Everything else is fair though. I believe that is the apology offered by Rush as well.

[swansont]

Yeah, and for the record I do not think MJF was acting. And I do think Rush was out of line suggesting it. Everything else is fair though. I believe that is the apology offered by Rush as well.

 

Except he fumbled that, too, by proclaiming it was big of him to admit he was wrong. That's not big behavior, that's expected behavior.

[Rhino]

Except he fumbled that, too, by proclaiming it was big of him to admit he was wrong. That's not big behavior, that's expected behavior.

 

What world are you living in? How many people in the world of politics admit they are wrong? It certainly is not a common practice among politicians, or the media. I haven't seen one politcal campaign ad where a politician has admitted they were wrong. I haven't seen one in Clair McCaskill's or Jim Talent's campaign.

[Haezed]

No, it still doesn't jibe. The contention was that Fox was exaggerating — that it was an act. That's not legitimate criticism, it's an unfounded accusation of dishonesty, especially so since Rush admits to knowing the particulars: Fox doesn't take the medication in circumstances when he is trying to educate people on the disease. Instead of covering things up, Fox is displaying the actual unvarnished truth about the disease.

 

It almost sounds like Limbaugh wants Fox to take the meds so that nobody has to be subjected to someone who doesn't act like the rest of us. That's my impression his particular slice of ideology: Conform, dammit, you're embarrassing the rest of us.

 

That the stem-cell issue falls along partisan lines is probably the least interesting aspect of the issue. Does anybody really expect otherwise?

 

Perhaps we should start by considering what is the implicit message of MJF's commercials.

 

If MJF's point in showing how bad his disease is that a change in policy would improve his condition, why wouldn't he show his actual condition using medication produced by the present policy?

 

If MJF's ads say, "this is what I'm like if I don't take my meds and many people are just like this every day of their lives" I can't see how anyone would say that his implicit message was dishonest.

 

I've not seen the commercials so I don't know where this falls.

[swansont]

What world are you living in? How many people in the world of politics admit they are wrong? It certainly is not a common practice among politicians, or the media. I haven't seen one politcal campaign ad where a politician has admitted they were wrong. I haven't seen one in Clair McCaskill's or Jim Talent's campaign.

 

So what? Since when do we define right and wrong in terms of how people actually behave, rather than how we want them to behave? It's because we expect people to behave decently that we are so often disappointed in political behavior, but that doesn't mean one should just give up and lower the bar.

[bascule]

Yeah, and for the record I do not think MJF was acting. And I do think Rush was out of line suggesting it. Everything else is fair though.

 

So, to clarify, your problem is that Michael J. Fox suggested that James Talent attempted to criminalize stem cell research when in fact, he hasn't?

 

Or more to the point: Fox lied/overembellished when making a political statement?

[ParanoiA]

So, to clarify, your problem is that Michael J. Fox suggested that James Talent attempted to criminalize stem cell research when in fact, he hasn't?

 

Or more to the point: Fox lied/overembellished when making a political statement?

 

Yes, and because Claire McCaskill's support of Amendment 2 means absolutely nothing since it's a ballot initiative. So, that makes this worthless parade disingenuous on top of disturbing and shameful - more on Claire's part than Fox's.

 

At this point I think he's being used and suckered into believing Talent wants to make an attempt at criminalizing it now, but if you vote for Claire, she'll make sure that doesn't happen.

 

I don't see why the republicans don't do it too. They should produce a commercial parading deformed children, crack babies, burn victims, cancer patients and vegetables and show Jim Talent all teary eyed, looking to the heavens when the narrator says "elect someone who cares...elect Jim Talent". That would be effective and say absolutely nothing about what Talent has to do with those poor victims, just like the Fox ad.

 

Either way, my give a damn busted...I'm voting yes for farming little humans and robbing their stem cells and I'm voting for Frank Gilmour for Senate.

[bascule]

So ParanoiA, what's your take on Talent's statements regarding Amendment 2?

 

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=21226

 

“I personally cannot support the initiative because I’ve always been opposed to human cloning and this measure would make cloning human life at the earliest stage a constitutional right.[/b'] I would encourage every Missourian to study the initiative carefully and make up their own minds on this very difficult moral issue.”

 

This is a boldface lie. Amendment 2 bans human cloning. This is the very first provision of the bill:

 

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

 

To ensure that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures, that Missouri researchers can conduct stem cell research in the state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any stem cell research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Missouri, and any stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law may be provided to patients in Missouri, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements:

 

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

 

Fox's remarks are a distortion. Talent's are a boldface lie.

 

So why doesn't Rush Limbaugh come out against his lie? Well, the reasons are obvious... Rush is just trying to save face after he made false accusations against Fox for faking his symptoms. Fox is suffering one of the most debilitating diseases known to mankind, and what Rush did is one of the lowest blows imaginable. And Rush's hypocrisy continues.

 

This is about as bad as when Bill O'Reilly continued to insist that Americans massacred Nazis at Malmady when in fact the exact opposite was the case. He got called on it but continued to press on. Rush is no different.

[ParanoiA]

Bascule, are you familiar with Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer? That is the same technique used to clone Dolly the sheep. It is proposed in this Amendment 2 bill, close to the bottom where you didn't read.

 

Read my post #25, or look it up on wikipedia or something and you'll see why they keep saying it doesn't ban human cloning - rather it protects it.

 

However, you should also note that neither side (except for Rush Limbaugh...ahem) has pointed this out - directly! One side says it bans it. The other side says it doesn't. Neither one addresses what the other is saying. Except for Rush Limbaugh, which has said over and over again that it's the SCNT that is the cloning part. I haven't heard anyone else point that out - no one.

 

Rush is the only one being honest about the debate and putting it all on the table. I disagree with him, but at least he's not hiding the truth or worthlessly repeating himself over and over again.

[bascule]

Bascule, are you familiar with Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer? That is the same technique used to clone Dolly the sheep.

 

Therefore it's tantamount to cloning!

 

Ever heard of graphite molding? It's the same process they use to make bullets. We should ban graphite molds, because they're tantamount to murder.

 

Read my post #25, or look it up on wikipedia or something and you'll see why they keep saying it doesn't ban human cloning - rather it protects it.

 

Oh for the love of... let's try this again since you're apparently myopic:

 

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

 

it doesn't ban human cloning - rather it protects it

 

Here it is again in case you missed it:

 

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

[ParanoiA]

Therefore it's tantamount to cloning!

 

Ever heard of graphite molding? It's the same process they use to make bullets. We should ban graphite molds, because they're tantamount to murder.

 

Do you actually read anything? It IS cloning. There's nothing to debate.

 

From Wiki:

 

Some researchers use SCNT in stem cell research. The aim of carrying out this procedure is to obtain stem cells that are genetically matched to the donor organism. Presently, no human stem cell lines have been derived from SCNT research.

 

The resulting cells would be genetically identical to the somatic cell donor, thus avoiding any complications from immune system rejection.

 

One concern is that blastula creation in human stem cell research will lead to the reproductive cloning of humans. Both processes use the same first step: the creation of a nuclear transferred embryo, most likely via SCNT. Those who hold this concern often advocate for strong regulation of SCNT to preclude implantation of any derived products for the intention of human reproduction. [11], or its prohibition.[12]

 

From Dictionary.com:

clone 

noun, verb, cloned, clon‧ing.

 

–noun 1. Biology. a. a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived. b. a population of identical units, cells, or individuals that derive from the same ancestral line.

 

2. a person or thing that duplicates, imitates, or closely resembles another in appearance, function, performance, or style: All the fashion models seemed to be clones of one another.

–verb (used with object) 3. to produce a copy or imitation of.

4. Biology. a. to cause to grow as a clone.

b. to separate (a batch of cells or cell products) so that each portion produces only its own kind.

 

 

The only difference here is that we're not growing a human to full term. And I don't even care if they do! But quit lying to yourself, geez...

 

The irony is, I'm the one who first pointed out that the first line of the Amendment 2 reads :

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

 

They are very clearly ATTEMPTING to clone a human being, at the very least. This is the ambiguous wording they are talking about.

 

If I beat you about the head with a baseball bat, am I attempting to kill you or hurt you? It's all in how you look at it.

 

 

You're worse than Rush and O'reilly. You haven't even read my posts or attempted to understand SCNT - yet you go off in your posts like you know what you're talking about. No wonder you don't think MJF did anything wrong...

[Rhino]

So what? Since when do we define right and wrong in terms of how people actually behave, rather than how we want them to behave? It's because we expect people to behave decently that we are so often disappointed in political behavior, but that doesn't mean one should just give up and lower the bar.

 

Forum appointed "Physics Expert" you may be, but I'm seriously questioning your reading comprehension skills. Either that or you didn't really read my post before you replied to it.

 

What I said had absolutely nothing to do with how I define what is right and wrong. By the way I'm opting out of all of your statements where you loosely use the term "we". It's obvious that "we" do not see things the same way.

 

I am not so naive as to expect people in politics or the media to act decently towards one another unless it's in there own best interest to do so. I have never been disappointed in political behavior. I expect it to be vicious. If they give each other hugs, flowers, candy, and pat each other on the back for doing a great job how will I know who to vote for?

 

I don't want Mister or Miss "Nice guy" in office. I want people who will fight for what they believe in, or what they want, or even what they are paid to believe in, in the form of campaign contributions. The best way to find this out is how badly they rake their opponent over the coals, and drag them through the mud. Then comes the best part when these people are in office and they have taken all of that money, and don't do anything they promised they said they would do. That gives their opponent ammo for the next election. Which is exactly what is going on with Claire McCaskill and her nursing home audit promises.

 

I know what "lower the bar" means, but it does not apply here. The bar was lowered, buried and trampled on long before I was born when it comes to politics and people's behavior with in the realm.

[bascule]

The irony is, I'm the one who first pointed out that the first line of the Amendment 2 reads :

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

 

Okay, so do you want to point out the part that allows cloning?

[Pangloss]

Self proclaimed "Physics Expert" you may be, but I'm seriously questioning your reading comprehension skills.

 

Just a side note while wearing my moderator hat for the moment: The "Expert" tags are bestowed by forum management and are an official function.

[GutZ]

I think it wasn't a proper comment, but MJF is not made of paper, I think he has more things to worry about then what some guy said about him.

[Rhino]

Just a side note while wearing my moderator hat for the moment: The "Expert" tags are bestowed by forum management and are an official function.

 

Cool thanks for pointing that out to me I did not realize that was the case however, the skills in question, are still in question.

[bascule]

Okay, ParanoiA, I see the problem:

 

I'm officially confused though, because isn't a blastocyst a human being?

 

Absolutely not. I'd certainly like to know by what metric you define human being.

 

A colonic tissue biopsy is closer to a human being than a blastocyst.

[ParanoiA]

Absolutely not. I'd certainly like to know by what metric you define human being.

 

A colonic tissue biopsy is closer to a human being than a blastocyst.

 

Admittedly, I'm on the fence on this one at the moment. I really do see both sides. I'm leaning towards considering it a human because I can't accept size or number of cells as the magical threshold to being granted the label of human.

 

On the other hand, I can't see a microscopic glob of cells as human either. Like you said, it isn't any more human than any other arbitrary glob of cells.

 

So, it seems to me this whole debate AGAIN comes down to when a fetus, embryo, whatever, becomes a human being with rights to live.

 

In terms of whether or not to pass Amendment 2, I don't care if it's a human or not, cloning or not, I'm all for it. But, in terms of the language in the Amendment, I still see the controversial "beginning of life" issue in need of resolution before that can be determined.