Rush Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

[swansont]

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.

 

Why does the fact that I disagree with your opinion (which you really didn't explain until this post) indicate that I have reading comprehension difficulties? I will certainly agree that my telepathy skill are deficient, since I was unable to read your mind. I do expect people in politics and the media to conform to the rules of decent society and admit when they make mistakes.

[bascule]

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.

 

Human beings have a nervous system. A blastocyst does not.

[ParanoiA]

Did anyone see the Fox interview with Stephanopoulos this weekend?

 

Apparently Fox's reply to Rush's charges are to validate just how weak and fragile he is, and remind us that we are not allowed to criticize sick or crippled people, even when they criticize others. He used the "cripple card".

 

This all I can find as far as a transcript, at the moment.

 

It's funny, because what I'm talking about is a hope. It's about the promise. It's about moving forward. It's a forward-looking attitude about what this country is capable of, and what we can accomplish for our citizens.

 

And so if we get sidetracked into a dialogue about whether sick people have a right to display their symptoms in public, you know, that reaction — I think it was more disappointing from the point of view of — the [Republican Senate candidate Michael] Steele campaign. This spokesman said, "It was in poor taste," which really, I mean, I'm out here and I accept that, being in the lead. I'll take some hits. And that's fine. I'm a big boy.

 

(laughs) I'm experienced enough and mature enough to take my licks.

But (inaudible) the community was really hurt by it. And it really brings up the specter of "Go ahead, shut the windows, shut the doors, close the curtains and suffer. And don't let us know." Because it's a fearful response.

 

And what the irony is, is those people who are being pitied or being asked to suffer in silence don't want to suffer, don't see themselves as pitiable, don't see themselves as victims — see themselves as citizens, participants in the process, and people with aspirations and hopes and dreams for the future. They are way more positive as a whole than what I've seen from the community that (inaudible).

 

Those who are being pitied, don't see themselves as pitiable? Then why can't we criticize him and this TV ad, like we would criticize any political ad or position, without him coming back with "the community was really hurt by it" and "this brings up the spector of shut the curtains and suffer; we don't want to know"??

 

Rush pointed this out in the same program, just minutes after his comments about Fox. That using people like Fox is always a one way street. Fox can say or do anything he wants because he's got a disease and blah blah blah, but no one can say anything back or they're just a mean spirited hate monger! Why does everyone insist on making Rush's predictions come true?

 

I personally like Michael Fox and I think he is handling a polarized political issue quite well if you subtract the crybaby "that's hurts my feelings" impulse. He made several excellent points during the interview, and I was impressed with his disposition and general attitude. I wish he, more than anyone else, would address the SCNT process and shut the republicans up about cloning a human.

 

And I still don't see the point in doing the bidding for McCaskill, quite possibly the dirtiest, most hypocritical politician in Missouri right now. He should be doing these commercials for the amendment 2 vote - not getting democrats elected for disingenuous reasons.

 

This is a tough one. Actions ultimately speak louder than words. His actions are arguably deceptive, while his words are convincing.

[Pangloss]

Yeah I caught that bit of spin while I was watching it. But let's face it, if people can't make the distinction between a "ban on embryonic stem cell research" and a "ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research", then they're certainly not going to pick up on a subtle straw man like that. Not only did Rush stick his foot in his mouth in a huge way, but he also gave Fox (and his cause) a platform the likes he which he hasn't seen in years.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah I caught that bit of spin while I was watching it. But let's face it, if people can't make the distinction between a "ban on embryonic stem cell research" and a "ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research", then they're certainly not going to pick up on a subtle straw man like that. Not only did Rush stick his foot in his mouth in a huge way, but he also gave Fox (and his cause) a platform the likes he which he hasn't seen in years.

 

Very true.

 

So, does cancer, MS, MD or etc research receive federal funding?

[john5746]

 

Rush pointed this out in the same program, just minutes after his comments about Fox. That using people like Fox is always a one way street. Fox can say or do anything he wants because he's got a disease and blah blah blah, but no one can say anything back or they're just a mean spirited hate monger! Why does everyone insist on making Rush's predictions come true?

 

 

Rush attacked him personally, OK? Do you understand? That is the problem.

He does the same to McCain, a war hero. Instead of talking about the issues, he mocks his time being tortured, etc. It is disgusting, but that's what people like.

[ParanoiA]

Rush attacked him personally, OK? Do you understand? That is the problem.

He does the same to McCain, a war hero. Instead of talking about the issues, he mocks his time being tortured, etc. It is disgusting, but that's what people like.

 

 

I've never heard him mock McCain, particularly for the fun of mocking McCain. No one is going to enjoy that. I imagine what he probably did do, is mock McCain trying to use his POW history to create the "one-way street" scenario above. But I've never seen McCain do that either, so I highly doubt any of this has happened.

 

No, I reject the notion that sick crippled people can't be criticized for using their sick and crippled attributes to further their cause, politics, etc. If it's for their cause, generating some money, I don't think anyone would have a bad thing to say. But inject yourself into a political debate, then you take your licks like the rest of them. And by Fox's own admission, he's a big boy and can take it, so what's the problem?

[Phi for All]

This...

No, I reject the notion that sick crippled people can't be criticized for using their sick and crippled attributes to further their cause, politics, etc.

... seems to contradict this:

If it's for their cause, generating some money, I don't think anyone would have a bad thing to say.

Probably just an honest mistake but if not I guess I'll need some clarification.

 

If I understand you, I am open to your criticism if I am against the war and I introduce to my audience some amputee soldiers who lost limbs in Iraq. Would you insist that I make them wear the prosthetics that make them look more or less normal? Would you fight for the right to criticize these people for using an infirmity for political motivation? They are still just people, and it does seem like you are attacking them personally just because they happen to have something that makes them a vivid example of why people should think about voting a certain way.

 

I don't see the one-way street thing either. MJF certainly can't get away with saying just anything because of Parkinson's. If he started stumping for Communism I'd make him defend his reasoning like anyone else.

[Pangloss]

So, does cancer, MS, MD or etc research receive federal funding?

 

Absolutely. It's been a few years since I looked at this, and I imagine others here can give some more accurate info here, but if memory serves the biggest federal bucks go to cancer and AIDS research, mainly through the National Science Foundation.

 

The numbers are huge, but their value goes beyond the dollar amounts. One of the points that often comes up in these discussions is that federal dollars help lead the way to greater corporate and private contribution levels. Often you can't get private spending on something because either it doesn't constitute a good investment, or it doesn't constitute a popular enough cause. In other cases it may be because the end result is so far off that nobody is able to invest in such a long-term strategy -- you need federal spending to lay the groundwork (this is the territory where ESCR lies).

 

But again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong in any of this.

[ParanoiA]

This...... seems to contradict this: Probably just an honest mistake but if not I guess I'll need some clarification.

 

If I understand you, I am open to your criticism if I am against the war and I introduce to my audience some amputee soldiers who lost limbs in Iraq. Would you insist that I make them wear the prosthetics that make them look more or less normal? Would you fight for the right to criticize these people for using an infirmity for political motivation? They are still just people, and it does seem like you are attacking them personally just because they happen to have something that makes them a vivid example of why people should think about voting a certain way.

 

I don't see the one-way street thing either. MJF certainly can't get away with saying just anything because of Parkinson's. If he started stumping for Communism I'd make him defend his reasoning like anyone else.

 

Ok, to clarify, I don't expect your amputee soldiers to wear prosthetics and I would take issue with those who would. However, I do think it's fair to make that challenge. They've made themselves a part of a political message, so we must insist on the intellectual right to challenge their methods used to convey that message. In your particular example, I would see no reason to challenge that method.

 

Now, if an amputee was trying to raise money for disabled gulf war veterans, then I see no political message there, but a certain degree of intellectual right to challenge that method ought to exist too, because what if they exaggerate their injuries? Or what if they inflate the numbers of disabled to get more money?

 

I guess, I haven't clarified anything, rather taken a harder line on this than I originally did. Although, my latter example is closer to being personal and offensive than your example.

 

It's always going to come across as offensive and will hurt people's feelings. There's no way around that, and I don't blame them, but it doesn't make it ok to elevate them to infallible either.

[ParanoiA]

Absolutely. It's been a few years since I looked at this, and I imagine others here can give some more accurate info here, but if memory serves the biggest federal bucks go to cancer and AIDS research, mainly through the National Science Foundation.

 

The numbers are huge, but their value goes beyond the dollar amounts. One of the points that often comes up in these discussions is that federal dollars help lead the way to greater corporate and private contribution levels. Often you can't get private spending on something because either it doesn't constitute a good investment, or it doesn't constitute a popular enough cause. In other cases it may be because the end result is so far off that nobody is able to invest in such a long-term strategy -- you need federal spending to lay the groundwork (this is the territory where ESCR lies).

 

But again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong in any of this.

 

Well then I'm all for federal spending on it and I'm hoping they'll be able to grow new bodies to transplant our brains into before I get old and die...

[john5746]

I've never heard him mock McCain, particularly for the fun of mocking McCain. No one is going to enjoy that. I imagine what he probably did do, is mock McCain trying to use his POW history to create the "one-way street" scenario above. But I've never seen McCain do that either, so I highly doubt any of this has happened.

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409100006

 

http://sodsbrood.com/pilgrim/2004/11/12/i_was_mr_gray_part_three

 

 

An excerpt from the above:

 

During the 2000 primary season, on the radio Rush Limbaugh spent the better part of his program attacking John McCain. I could not believe what I was hearing. Other Republicans aparently felt the same way, because some McCain supporters would call in and argue with Rush about the way he was treating McCain. Limbaugh basically asserted every single day that McCain was off his rocker. He implied that McCain was mentally deranged from his years in captivity in Vietnam. He repeated the assertion, not explicitly put on the market of ideas by the Bush campaign, but certainly helping their campaign, that McCain had given in to north Vietnamese torture and given propagandist statements to his captors to use against other POWs. Republicans, with Limbaugh at the head of the parade, waged a vile war of defamation against a man who had spent the better part of the sixties in captivity in North Vietnam, while Limbaugh, Cheney, George Bush, and so many others,had been home pursuing their “other priorities’ (to quote Dick Cheney).

 

I remember Limbaugh doing it and that was one of the reasons I quit listening, that and boredom over Clinton railings.

 

No, I reject the notion that sick crippled people can't be criticized for using their sick and crippled attributes to further their cause, politics, etc. If it's for their cause, generating some money, I don't think anyone would have a bad thing to say. But inject yourself into a political debate, then you take your licks like the rest of them. And by Fox's own admission, he's a big boy and can take it, so what's the problem?

 

So what's the problem? For you nothing maybe, for the majority they think Rush is being a jerk. He wasn't fired for it, just told it was inappropriate. Then he cries. Who's the baby?

[bascule]

I reject the notion that sick crippled people can't be criticized for using their sick and crippled attributes to further their cause, politics, etc.

 

You also reject the notion that Senator Talent strawmanned the amendment that set this all off in the first place.

 

So it's wrong for someone with a degenerative disease to use said disease to drum up support for fighting it?

[bascule]

I noticed that Bush used the same line as Talent in opposing stem cell research:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/politics/main696810.shtml

 

"I'm very concerned about cloning," the president told reporters in the Oval Office during a photo opportunity with the prime minister of Denmark. "I worry about a world in which cloning becomes accepted."

 

These bills are not, and have never been about cloning. The Missouri amendment specifically bans cloning.

 

But getting the same line from the President and someone like Talent, a complete and baffling non-sequitur which carries an air of "truthiness" for its intended target demographic, it sounds like one of those well-orchestrated GOP talking points that if they keep saying enough, people start believing is true.

[ParanoiA]

I remember Limbaugh doing it and that was one of the reasons I quit listening, that and boredom over Clinton railings.

 

Yeah, I quit listening about the same time and for similar reasons, but moreso for inconsistent ideology on Rush's part. And those are some tongue in cheek comments by Rush, but not heartless and cruel. Bad taste? Definitely. Kinda like some controversial Southpark moments - bad taste, but still funny and point taken.

 

I wasn't listening at all during this time period, otherwise I'd be plenty pissed at Rush. I liked McCain. I thought he was in. GWB ruined it, in my mind. I was excited about McCain being the replacement for Clinton when all of the sudden I hear he's dropping out of the race. Now, I see, that perhaps the golden microphone played a role in that.

 

So what's the problem? For you nothing maybe, for the majority they think Rush is being a jerk. He wasn't fired for it, just told it was inappropriate. Then he cries. Who's the baby?

 

The majority thinking Rush is a jerk is exactly the poison dart Fox presented by doing the ad. Anyone who criticizes him is a jerk. That Rush suggested he was "acting" is the inappropriate comment. Do you really believe that if Rush had said everything short of that comment that no one would think he is being a jerk? Please. I think this all has to do with criticizing the sick. And they knew this making the ad.

 

Thanks to this debacle, I think we'll see more and more of this. Parading sick and deformed sad cases of "heros" to promote or denounce this or that and scorning those who oppose them in any way for being cruel and insensitive.

 

 

 

You also reject the notion that Senator Talent strawmanned the amendment that set this all off in the first place.

 

What are you talking about?

 

So it's wrong for someone with a degenerative disease to use said disease to drum up support for fighting it?

 

A) No, not when they're honest.

B) Yes, when they're not honest.

[ParanoiA]

These bills are not, and have never been about cloning. The Missouri amendment specifically bans cloning.

 

But getting the same line from the President and someone like Talent, a complete and baffling non-sequitur which carries an air of "truthiness" for its intended target demographic, it sounds like one of those well-orchestrated GOP talking points that if they keep saying enough, people start believing is true.

 

Yeah, like amendment 2 specifically bans cloning. Just keep saying that.

 

Meanwhile, the itty bitty words that no one cares to read says it's just fine to remove the nucleus from an egg cell and replace it with the nucleus of someone's body cell to create a genetically identical blastocyst....or cloning. Whichever you prefer.

 

But hey, keep pretending it doesn't say that at all and just repeat yourself over and over again like everybody else so that way we never get anywhere with the debate...

 

Republicans and democrats...can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em...

[swansont]

The majority thinking Rush is a jerk is exactly the poison dart Fox presented by doing the ad. Anyone who criticizes him is a jerk. That Rush suggested he was "acting" is the inappropriate comment. Do you really believe that if Rush had said everything short of that comment that no one would think he is being a jerk? Please. I think this all has to do with criticizing the sick. And they knew this making the ad.

 

Criticizing the sick when they are advocating a potential cure for the sickness is tough. You can only attack on the facts if you don't want to be (and be seen as being) mean-spirited, so as long as Fox is supporting a candidate who wants federal funding for stem-cell research, and the opponent supports the ban, what is there to criticize?

 

As was said earlier, if MJF had been advocating something else, his sickness would be a non-issue.

[ParanoiA]

Criticizing the sick when they are advocating a potential cure for the sickness is tough. You can only attack on the facts if you don't want to be (and be seen as being) mean-spirited, so as long as Fox is supporting a candidate who wants federal funding for stem-cell research, and the opponent supports the ban, what is there to criticize?

 

As was said earlier, if MJF had been advocating something else, his sickness would be a non-issue.

 

Because whether or not the opponent supports the ban or not is irrelevant since it isn't up to them. It's a ballot initiative - so we get to vote on it ourselves. It doesn't matter what McCaskill or Talent thinks - it matters what the voters think. So, instead, he's doing McCaskill's bidding for apparently no good reason or he was misled into thinking McCaskill would have more to do with it.

 

This, to me, is just like having some kid with down syndrome do an ad saying to vote for Talent because "he cares" for the disabled. It's meaningless and mentally aligns politicians with worthy causes they really have no contribution to at all. It's low down and disgusting.

 

By the way, if he was doing an ad to promote passing Amendment 2 - the stem cell bill - then it would be consistent with pushing his cause. I don't think anybody would have a problem with that - well maybe Rush...but you'll never shut him up.

[bascule]

Yeah, like amendment 2 specifically bans cloning.

 

Yes, it does:

 

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

 

Just keep saying that.

 

Okay:

 

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

 

Meanwhile, the itty bitty words that no one cares to read says it's just fine to remove the nucleus from an egg cell and replace it with the nucleus of someone's body cell to create a genetically identical blastocyst....or cloning.

 

By that very sophomoric definition I think you can argue that mitosis counts as human cloning. Quick, better ban mitosis.

 

And you're ignoring this:

 

(3) No stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst more than fourteen days after cell division begins

 

So they're "cloning" blastocysts which they can use up to 14 days. What kind of horrible slippery slope makes you think 14 day old blastocysts are anywhere close to a human being?

 

Cloning Dolly is much more of an ethical concern than 14 day old blastocysts.

 

But hey, keep pretending it doesn't say that at all and just repeat yourself over and over again like everybody else so that way we never get anywhere with the debate...

 

You're doing exactly the same thing. The difference is you keep arguing that I haven't read the bill when it's pretty clear either:

 

1) You haven't read the 14 day old provision

 

- or -

 

2) You have a very misguided idea of what constitutes a human being

[bascule]

A) No, not when they're honest.

B) Yes, when they're not honest.

 

And how do you feel about James Talent's rampant dishonesty?

 

How specifically was Fox dishonest?

 

I guess he should've said Talent lied about stem cell research, rather than trying to criminalize it.

[ParanoiA]

(3) No stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst more than fourteen days after cell division begins

 

Right, meaning you can't take stem cells from it. Doesn't say anything about what else to do with it does it? So, I could let cell division continue long after 14 days, I just can't take stem cells from it anymore. Gee, kinda sounds like I can continue to let the "cloned" blastocyst grow huh?

 

You're doing exactly the same thing. The difference is you keep arguing that I haven't read the bill when it's pretty clear either:

 

1) You haven't read the 14 day old provision

- or -

2) You have a very misguided idea of what constitutes a human being

 

The 14 day old provision means nothing and yes I read it, since it comes before the SCNT freebie provision.

 

I don't have a view on what constitutes a human being. I'm not being intellectually dishonest about it either. You're just as bad as the politicians. You don't want to admit that this comes down to whether you believe a blastocyst is a human being or not. If you do, then it's cloning a human which contradicts the first line of the amendment. If you don't, then it's cloning a blastocyst, which isn't a human and therefore no contradiction in the amendment.

 

When you repeat yourself by repeating the first line of the amendment only, then you're being disingenuous about the debate, which equates you to a spinster...like Rush.

[bascule]

I don't have a view on what constitutes a human being.

 

Clearly you do, or you wouldn't be making an issue about it.

 

I'm not being intellectually dishonest about it either.

 

I beg to differ.

 

You're just as bad as the politicians.

 

Yay, when you don't have substance to your arguments, insults do wonders.

 

You don't want to admit that this comes down to whether you believe a blastocyst is a human being or not. If you do, then it's cloning a human which contradicts the first line of the amendment.

 

I've already stated my position. A blastocyst is not a human being.

 

If you don't, then it's cloning a blastocyst, which isn't a human and therefore no contradiction in the amendment.

 

Do human beings have a nervous system? Yes or no?

[ParanoiA]

Clearly you do, or you wouldn't be making an issue about it.

 

This ignorant reply comes from a lack of depth on your part. If you're going to pretend to be an intellectual, at least read the posts you reply to. I'm not going to spoon feed you on this one. Post #75 made my views quite clear. This is the second or third time I've caught you shooting your mouth off because you didn't read something - and this is just one thread. I've lost most of any respect I had for you.

 

Yay, when you don't have substance to your arguments, insults do wonders

 

That was an analysis that you deleted except for that sentence - which makes it an insult out of context. But I'll take the credit anyway.

 

I've already stated my position. A blastocyst is not a human being.

 

Thank you for proving your obvious self absorbed conceit that the universe revolves around you - I was actually referring to the heart of the amendment that voters need to consider. You missed the entire point if that's your answer. Again, you don't appear to have any depth to your thinking. I shouldn't have to spell that out for you.

 

Do human beings have a nervous system? Yes or no?

 

I would say so. Do human beings have cells? Do human beings have a unique genetic identity? Do human beings have boogers? Do human beings repeat themselves over and over until people quit listening? Yes they do.

 

And unlike other human beings, I'm not going to rush to judgement on my decision on when I think a human becomes a human. And asinine one liners aren't going to convince me of anything.

[bascule]

(insults)

 

Yawn

 

(accusations)

 

Still looking for substance

 

(more insults)

 

That's quite a large post for lacking any substance

 

And now we get to the only bit of substance in your post...

 

I would say so.

 

If you believe that human beings have a nervous system, then why do you think the amendment allows human cloning?

 

I'm not going to rush to judgement on my decision on when I think a human becomes a human.

 

Oh wait, you just want to argue the point, even though you refuse to even take a position.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yay, when you don't have substance to your arguments, accusations based on quotes taken out of context do wonders.

 

Let's stop the petty arguing. You're not even close to being on topic anyways.