Rush Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

[GutZ]

Personally not knowing the intentions of MJF, I can't say the comment wasn't out of line. I just can't imaging someone taking their own sickness so lightly. I am sure there was political aspect to it, but I can understand why he would. He wants people to take it seriously, shock does work well for that, if there was a better way to do it, I am sure he would, but looking at his position and power in society, it becomes hard not to do it. For one his life span isn't that long like most humans,and he is a great voice for others who have the sickness. If he has to go to such lengths to get people to listen, how hard will it be for others to voice their concerns. I can't imagine it being easy to show the world this side of it, but he is an actor, so...I am not totally ruling it out.

[swansont]

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.

 

Apples and oranges. The federal funding ban is not affected by a Missouri ballot initiative. It does matter what a US senator thinks if there is to be action on the federal level. That's the message I got from the ad, anyway.

[ParanoiA]

The point I've been making, which I'm sure everyone in this forum understands, and understood about 20 posts ago, is that both sides are playing semantics. This debate isn't about the first line in the Amendment 2, it's about whether or not folks believe a blastocyst is a human or not.

 

But people like bascule want to ignore that part of the debate. So when someone who doesn't know anything about SCNT hears both sides - all they hear is "It bans human cloning" or "It doesn't ban human cloning" - no one, and I mean NO ONE, goes to the trouble to explain WHY they are saying that. I had to read the entire freaking Amendment to find that little tid bit about SCNT.

 

Bascule thinks I'm choosing sides. He hasn't paid any attention to my repeated view that Amendment 2 SHOULD PASS in my opinion. I don't care if it's cloning or not.

 

What I have a problem with, is each side of this Amendment 2 initiative not explaining themselves - just repeating the same semantics over and over again.

 

If you're a "It-doesn't-ban-human-cloning" person, then you think a blastocyst is a human and therefore the language in Amendment 2 is contradictory from the first line of it. And therefore when people say "It bans human cloning", then you obviously disagree with that.

 

If you're a "It-bans-human-cloning" person, then you think a blastocyst is not a human, and therefore the language in Amendment 2 is not contradictory from the first line. And therefore when people say "It doesn't ban human cloning", then you obviously disagree with that.

 

The liberal elitists don't care to grant you the right to consider a blastocyst a human being. Bascule is a perfect example of that.

 

The conservative hypocrites don't care to listen to any logic that a blastocyst is not a human being. (And you don't see any of them picketing fertility clinics for throwing away unused fetuses, eggs and so forth - just don't take their stem cells - how stupid). I haven't seen any examples of that in this forum.

 

Most folks in this forum grant the intellectual right to challenge the status of the blastocyst as a human or not, and therefore makes interesting debate. They use persuasion and sound arguments to try to convince each other or themselves. Others would rather stroke their ego and glorify their ignorance by pretending as if it's irrelevant, which consequently also causes people to question their other views and how thought out they actually are.

[ParanoiA]

Apples and oranges. The federal funding ban is not affected by a Missouri ballot initiative. It does matter what a US senator thinks if there is to be action on the federal level. That's the message I got from the ad, anyway.

 

Well, if that's true, then I'll have to eat crow on that one. I'll look that up.

 

Now that you mention it, I'm sure you're right because at the very least they'll have to approve an 'amount' of funding.

[swansont]

Well, if that's true, then I'll have to eat crow on that one. I'll look that up.

 

Now that you mention it, I'm sure you're right because at the very least they'll have to approve an 'amount' of funding.

 

Bush vetoed a stem-cell bill a few months ago, his first-ever veto. The democrats are using that as one issue in their attempt to re-take congress, so they can try and override the next time.

[john5746]

Bush vetoed a stem-cell bill a few months ago, his first-ever veto. The democrats are using that as one issue in their attempt to re-take congress, so they can try and override the next time.

 

 

That's why I think it is most likely a moot point. I think the next President, Democrat or Republican will not veto such a bill. But, having a majority in congress couldn't hurt his goal.

[bascule]

This debate isn't about the first line in the Amendment 2, it's about whether or not folks believe a blastocyst is a human or not.

 

But people like bascule want to ignore that part of the debate.

 

So as to avoid further derailing this thread, I've created a new one in the Biomedical Ethics forum where we can continue this discussion:

 

Is a blastocyst a human being?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Finally. I was about to split this thread myself.

[ParanoiA]

Well, honestly, how much further does anybody really want to go about Rush and Fox?

[swansont]

That's why I think it is most likely a moot point. I think the next President, Democrat or Republican will not veto such a bill. But, having a majority in congress couldn't hurt his goal.

 

But two years can cover a fair amount of research, and get results two years faster.

[Ares925]

I don't want to offend anyone but I think Rush Limbaugh is full of crap. He's radical and doesn't give any room for other views.

 

So what if Fox didn't take his his meds? People can see what it's like. In my experiance, Limbaugh rarly has any evidence to back up his cliams.

[swansont]

I don't want to offend anyone but I think Rush Limbaugh is full of crap. He's radical and doesn't give any room for other views.

 

So what if Fox didn't take his his meds? People can see what it's like. In my experiance, Limbaugh rarly has any evidence to back up his cliams.

 

The narrowness of view doesn't really distinguish him from any pundit on either side of the aisle. It's that latter point that is the real problem.

[ParanoiA]

The narrowness of view doesn't really distinguish him from any pundit on either side of the aisle. It's that latter point that is the real problem.

 

I think the fact he didn't realize that Rush is a conservative explains why he would say "he doesn't give any room for other views" which tells me he's not very observant. Which, in turn, makes me doubt his point number two since he's proven to completely miss the obvious.

 

Something everyone should keep in mind, is that his family is full of lawyers and he is the most careful wordsmith I've ever listened to. He knows exactly how to say things so that he doesn't box himself in. To say he doesn't have anything to back up his claims is a gross display of ignorance. I seriously don't mean to offend, I'm being dead honest here.

 

If you don't listen to the show, you'll make those kinds of comments. The New York Times and USA Today have to retract statements and facts almost daily, which is exponentially more than Rush has ever had to, if he has ever had to.

[swansont]

Something everyone should keep in mind, is that his family is full of lawyers and he is the most careful wordsmith I've ever listened to. He knows exactly how to say things so that he doesn't box himself in. To say he doesn't have anything to back up his claims is a gross display of ignorance. I seriously don't mean to offend, I'm being dead honest here.

 

If you don't listen to the show, you'll make those kinds of comments. The New York Times and USA Today have to retract statements and facts almost daily, which is exponentially more than Rush has ever had to, if he has ever had to.

 

I think that newspapers say more things of substance, and are more worried about such things. Whether Rush doesn't retract or apologize often doesn't mean that he doesn't make false claims or engage in specious reasoning. It might just mean he has an uncritical audience. Feel free to rebut the Limbaugh sections of "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them" (and "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot" for that matter). Al Franken may be as big a gasbag as Limbaugh when Al's being a pundit, but in the books he presents actual accounts of Rush's misrepresentations.

[ParanoiA]

I think that newspapers say more things of substance, and are more worried about such things.

 

I disagree very much. News is a business and worse, this is a corporate business. If there is no news, they create news - hence, lack of substance. Emotion gets ratings. The news has little patience for substance unless it is accompanied with emotion, rage, grief, something to make us watch.

 

And they print retractions in little boxes on obsure pages rather than the same front page the disinformation appeared on. That's why most people aren't aware of them. The newspapers know this, and that's why they do it. That makes them appear infallible to the average sheep.

 

Whether Rush doesn't retract or apologize often doesn't mean that he doesn't make false claims or engage in specious reasoning. It might just mean he has an uncritical audience. Feel free to rebut the Limbaugh sections of "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them" (and "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot" for that matter). Al Franken may be as big a gasbag as Limbaugh when Al's being a pundit, but in the books he presents actual accounts of Rush's misrepresentations.

 

I agree, but what do you mean by false claims? If you mean presenting facts - I don't think he's ever had to retract anything. Usually this is because it's after the news has already had to deal with the sourcing, and he has his own fact checking staff - whatever that means. I think he approaches facts with more discipline than news organizations for a variety of reasons. But he also has the benefit of reporting these facts after they've already been circulating for awhile.

 

Specious reasoning and false conclusions are definitely in his arsenal. Like his repeated false reasoning that embryonic stem cells haven't provided any cures, despite numerous promises, while adult stem cells are already providing results. This is stupid. What about cancer? Where's the cures? By this logic, we would have quit cancer research decades ago.

[Sisyphus]

Doesn't he say all the time that "if the ice caps melted, the oceans wouldn't rise?" How is that not unambiguously false? He says false things all the time. Just because he doesn't retract them, doesn't mean they weren't wrong. It just means nobody is holding him accountable. Or, at least, nobody who can get past the call screeners.

 

Also, if most of his rhetoric consists of strongly implying that things which are false are actually true, without ever actually commiting to a lie, then, um, is that better?

 

EDIT: HERE is a fun list of Limbaughisms. Note that they're all quoted from only the 1993/1994 period.

[Sequence]

I do realize he's conservative, that doesn't mean he has to have a narrow point of view. I'm liberal and I have room for other views. That's why I don't like him. He won't even give thought to things that aren't perfectly in line with his views.

 

My statment about his evidence was based on my experiance. I don't regularaly listen to the show, in the shows I've heard, it's mostly ranting about how wrong everyone except him. Mabye all the other shows were well thought out and had excellent points, I don't know. That's why I said In my experiance.

 

I read that link and I have to say, it's funny. Unless those Limbaughisms were complete fabrication how can you imply that he has never had to retract anything? He must have a piss poor fact checking team.

[Sequence]

By the way,

 

Did you know Limbaugh publicly retracted his statements about Michael J. Fox?

 

He apolagized to anyone with the disease and said he overstated.

[ParanoiA]

By the way,

 

Did you know Limbaugh publicly retracted his statements about Michael J. Fox?

 

He apolagized to anyone with the disease and said he overstated.

 

Hmmm..that's interesting because I was listening to Rush thursday and he was laughing about how the media reported that he had apologized for his comments when he hadn't.

 

What he apologized for was that he didn't know MJF had actually over medicated himself. NOT for the comments he made. He even played this back over the air.

 

And like Rhino tried to point out, he read MJF's book which is where Rush got the idea that Fox does that. Fox wrote, in his own words, that he sometimes doesn't take his meds so the effects of his disease are more obvious. That he does this when he needs to drum up support for his cause. So, Rush got the comments straight from the source - Fox himself.

 

This is why I don't listen to supposed "quotes" from Rush. Everytime he is confronted by a caller, and plenty have been journalists as well, he proves them wrong and they've misquoted him. Over and over he has done this over the years. And I see how they do it. Because he's too damn careful with his language, at least most of the time. It's usually a lawyer's defense.

 

Most of the Limbaughism's on that link are points of view. They're a gross misinterpretation of the facts and pseudo science application. They're pretty funny. I didn't see any "facts" to be retracted though. Most of the supposed "facts" presented in that link, could be turned into threads and argued here in this forum. A true fact couldn't really be argued...since it's a fact.

 

And I agree Sequence, about the multiple points of view. I watch the liberal media, conservative media and try to figure out the truth between the two. Rush, Oreilly, Fox news are a corporate conservative direction, whereas CNN, MSNBC, Mathews are more of a corporate liberal direction.

 

If you're a radio guy doing a conservative talk show, then listening to liberal view points and adopting them would be bad for business. So, you're doomed to misery if you're looking for ideologues to be open minded to the other political wing. Your ideas of open mindedness make you more credible in my view, since, in theory anyway, you don't have an agenda. Rush and Mathews, and all of those other idealists have agendas and they'll spin everything to validate their views.

[ParanoiA]

Doesn't he say all the time that "if the ice caps melted, the oceans wouldn't rise?" How is that not unambiguously false? He says false things all the time. Just because he doesn't retract them, doesn't mean they weren't wrong. It just means nobody is holding him accountable. Or, at least, nobody who can get past the call screeners.

 

 

See, you're doing all of the cliche stuff people do when they're blinded by their hatred for an adversary. I've never heard him say that. But I only listen for about 30 mins a day, 3 or 4 days a week. But this call screener business? Please. I've heard so many people get through and start spitting out supposed Rush quotes and facts, only to get burned right on the air.

 

You have to remember, Rush is a radio guy. Ratings are in the angry callers. This is why he usually bumps the liberals to the front of the call queue. Or at least he used to do that, I don't know anymore. I listened faithfully during the first few years of the Clinton reign, and he would claim to bump them to the top of the list, and sure enough if a liberal called in they would verify a short hold time.

 

I've never heard any other radio conservative give liberals so much air time. Most of the talk show hosts I've heard just hang up on the caller after 30 seconds of frantically trying to make their point with no chance for reply.

 

Rush will go back and forth, 5 or 10 mintues of radio time arguing with somebody. He really thinks he's right. That's either amusing or impressive. I think it's a little of both.

[Sisyphus]

Well I have listened to his show a few times, and I personally heard him say that twice. As in, "silly liberals, if you melt ice in water, the water levels go down! Morons!" And while that is true, nobody is saying it isn't. The problem is with Antarctica (which is a continent, not an iceburg, Rush), and Greenland.

 

Anyway, my point was that he says grossly inaccurate things fairly often. That he doesn't retract them isn't really a badge of honor. It just means that if you don't know any better, you think he's careful with his facts, and you believe the B.S. he spouts. Hey, he never took it back, so it must be true! More often, what he will do instead of saying he was wrong is just deny that he ever said it in the first place. Hell of a guy.

 

Oh, and there's a difference between a crazy hippy, sputtering with rage (good ratings!) and a reasonable liberal who's done his homework (makes Rush look bad!).

[swansont]

Hmmm..that's interesting because I was listening to Rush thursday and he was laughing about how the media reported that he had apologized for his comments when he hadn't.

 

What he apologized for was that he didn't know MJF had actually over medicated himself. NOT for the comments he made. He even played this back over the air.

 

I missed where it was established that Fox overmedicated himself.

[ParanoiA]

I missed where it was established that Fox overmedicated himself.

 

Well, not in a bad way. I think Fox eluded to that in the latest interview. He was trying to explain why he has to take the medicine, and the trade offs for taking it. It was a great interview and I think it did more for his cause than the ad. He comes across honest and candid, which to me works better than formal and scripted.

 

Ok, so bad part is I get a phone call in the middle of this interview and apparently miss this part: He was explaining medicating himself for that ad, to be able to speak properly, without too much moving around, and actually took more than usual by the time it was done. Rush was talking about this thursday and friday. That was what his apology was about.

[ParanoiA]

Anyway, my point was that he says grossly inaccurate things fairly often. That he doesn't retract them isn't really a badge of honor. It just means that if you don't know any better, you think he's careful with his facts, and you believe the B.S. he spouts. Hey, he never took it back, so it must be true! More often, what he will do instead of saying he was wrong is just deny that he ever said it in the first place. Hell of a guy.

 

Well you have certainly lit up in here on this Rush thing huh? Look, I'm not Rush, so call him and give him a piece of your mind.

 

I never said it was a badge of honor. I'm saying it's stupid and naive to under estimate your adversary just because you dislike them so much. Anytime I hear someone trashing Rush, it's usually an asinine generalization they heard from somebody else or the result of a 15 minute listening experience that pissed them off cuz Rush made fun of feminazi's, or PMSNBC.

 

I do believe he is careful with his "facts", not his interpretations of them. So, let's see you rise above it and prove a "fact" that Rush has presented that is wrong and he should retract?

[Sisyphus]

 

I do believe he is careful with his "facts", not his interpretations of them. So, let's see you rise above it and prove a "fact" that Rush has presented that is wrong and he should retract?

 

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895