Rush Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox and Parkinson's Disease
POSTED BY: misbehaven
UPDATED: Saturday, November 18, 2006 01:39
VIEWED: 26984
PAGE 9 of 19
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Not in my original post, but now I'd say yes; you use words well but you're not very smart, and demonstrating it as you have been is damaging my calm.
Originally posted by Razza:
While I usually lurk, I felt like entering the discussion for a change, but if this is the reaction I can count on in the future, I'm not sure it is worth the effort. Was that your intention?
My advice is stay on the entertainment side of things-
or just go listen to Rush some more.Chrisisall
Couldn't help yourself again? Now I'm just stupid. What a great counterpoint. Chalk up another one to the ad hominem attackers.
-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
---Napoleon Bonaparte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't understand, you were saying it had a proper place in political debate, now you say it doesn't.
Originally posted by Razza:
Sygnm:
Again, I haven't attacked anyone ad hominem, I leave that to you and Rue. For people who seems to think it's such an abhorrent technique you sure have trouble refraining from doing it yourself. As I told Rue, if attacking me makes you happy, then by all means please continue to do so. I don't do it, and never will. It isn't a very good tool for convincing people to your point of view. All it does is divide people and force them to take an opposing view in repulsion of your arguement.
What I mean is some of the admitted ad hominems from sig were in responce to the idea that such things were a part of healthy political debate: "if thats what you think then I can say this about you..." kinda thing.
If it's a part of debate for Rush against MJ why is it bad for use by Sigynm against you?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:I don't understand, you were saying it had a proper place in political debate, now you say it doesn't.
Originally posted by Razza:
Sygnm:
Again, I haven't attacked anyone ad hominem, I leave that to you and Rue. For people who seems to think it's such an abhorrent technique you sure have trouble refraining from doing it yourself. As I told Rue, if attacking me makes you happy, then by all means please continue to do so. I don't do it, and never will. It isn't a very good tool for convincing people to your point of view. All it does is divide people and force them to take an opposing view in repulsion of your arguement.
What I mean is some of the admitted ad hominems from sig were in responce to the idea that such things were a part of healthy political debate: "if thats what you think then I can say this about you..." kinda thing.
If it's a part of debate for Rush against MJ why is it bad for use by Sigynm against you?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
Hey Citizen!
I have never advocated that ad hominem personal attacks are above board. I have said that a person is not immune from criticism simply because they suffer from a debilitating disease. Especially when they inject themselves into the debate. Rush questioned Fox's performance in the ads not based on a personal animosity, but on Fox's own words which he wrote in a published book. Rue, Chrisisall, and Sygnm have attacked me personally for no other reason than they don't like me. That's okay, but it doesn't really get us anywhere does it? How is that healthy? I realize that people believe Limbaugh was attacking Fox out of hatred or cruelty. I disagree with that assumption as I've said before. He has apologized a couple of times for some of his comments because of that perception, which he says was not his intent.
I used this example before and I think it is a good illustration of when personal information is relevant to a discussion.
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
If someone's personal life has a bearing on the discussion, then it should absolutely be fair game. If Rush Limbaugh were espousing the belief that pain killers should be sold over the counter at the drugstore and in schools so little kids can become addicted. I'd want to know that he has billion dollar stake in the pharmaceutical company that produces the pills and is prodigious pill popper himself. That doesn't mean I think it's okay to attack him just because I think he's fat and deserves it.
By the way, is there really such a thing as a beer milkshake? I'm strangley repulsed yet intrigued at the same time.
-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
---Napoleon Bonaparte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It's sad that a person's political ideology can run so deeply, that he feels justified in verbally attacking someone who's suffering from a debilitating disease just because he disagrees with the other guy's politics.
That's not at all what Rush has done, but many on the Left feel just fine about completely distorting the issue. Rush is 100% justified in answering the false claims in the CAMPAIGN AD that Michael J. Fox appears in, mainly because the underlying premise of these ads is flat out false.
But leave it to some to completely lie about the issue and then cry when someone calls them on it. Classic.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
That's not at all what Rush has done, but many on the Left feel just fine about completely distorting the issue. Rush is 100% justified in answering the false claims in the CAMPAIGN AD that Michael J. Fox appears in, mainly because the underlying premise of these ads is flat out false.
But leave it to some to completely lie about the issue and then cry when someone calls them on it. Classic.
So are you saying that Rush didn't attack Fox's character? From what I've seen, he accused Fox of exaggerating his condition; going off his medication; and possibly outright faking symptoms to generate sympathy. I'd hardly say that I was distorting things.
First of all, Fox's condition has worsened, as Parkinson's disease is progressive in nature. Secondly, Fox wasn't off his medication. In point of fact, he was on it and that's what causes the shaking. If he wasn't taking his medication, then he likely would appear nearly immobile. Thirdly, to accuse him of faking symptoms to generate sympathy is grotesque, but not as grotesque as Rush's "impersonation" of Fox. I'm sure you've seen the video clips, as they've been all over the news.
As for the ad, what part of it is false? All Fox did was endorse candidates who support embryonic stem cell research, and not all of the candidates he has endorsed are Democrats. He also supports Sen. Arlen Specter, a Republican. So the notion that he's just stumping for Democrats isn't true. And embryonic stem cell research might potentially yield cures for Parkinsons, Diabetes, and Alzheimers, so Fox wasn't lying about that either. And, yes, the majority of the Republican leadership opposes federal funding for stem cell research. That's true as well.
I'll tell you what is, however, classic. Republican pundits attacking the character of someone, because they can't defeat him on the facts. The overwhelming majority of people in this country support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research; it passed both houses of congress only to be vetoed by Bush. Not only are Bush and Rush on the wrong side of this fight, you are as well.
The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation.
-Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay,
I went and watched the ad, and then I watched Fox's show.
The movements were more exaggerated in the ad, true. Fox said
"the producer of the show does a lot more takes to get the less exaggerated movements"
"I was on my meds when i made the add, and didn't make purposeful conscious exaggerations"
"I have the right to back a political candidate"
Sure. All of those things are undoubtedly true. What Fox did was he failed to do the number retakes needed to get the smaller shakes, which he says go up and down, and are sometimes are less than in the ad, but also sometimes a lot worse.
But should he have to subdue the symptoms, or fake subduing the symptoms by a lot of retakes when he's addressing the disease?
Fox's show isn't about someone with Parkinsons, it's about someone with OCD, which is neurochemicially really the opposite of parkisons. It's not appropriate or likely that an OCD person would exhibit parkinson's symptoms. Subduing those symptoms in the show makes Fox's character more believeable, and he's pretty convincing.
That's not what he's trying to do here.
We shouldn't be arguing this. Michael J Fox has the right to back a democrat, which is what's really going on here. Republicans who took issue with that and attacked him were amazingly dumb. What they should have done is sit back and say "Hmm. That's clever. Who can we get that's this sympathetic who we can get to back the republican?"
A personal attack against Fox is petty and got the backlash it royally deserved. And there's nothing conservative about this sort of rhetoric. Dale Carnegia and Rush Limbaugh clearly didn't live on the same planet, socially speaking.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza, Auraptor, Finn, and Hero- What Rush SHOULD have said was: "As sad as it is to watch Michael, and as much as we would all want to help him, embryonic stem cell research is a bunch of hooey. Adult stem cells show much more promise and don't destroy another human life."
THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID. Stop trying to re-interpret what Rush said into what he meant or what he should have said, He said what he said and he was completely and irretrievably callous, cruel, and... wrong.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rush Limbaugh is an ass.
Everything that comes out of his mouth is shite.
Why is this even a discussion?
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RAZZA, you said
Quote:Just a taste of Rush's medicine. Because I can question your motives, your family history, the veracity of anything you say without any factual basis on my part, simply because you've entered a political debate. Right? If that's not the case, show me how Rush and I differ.
Sygnm: Again, I haven't attacked anyone ad hominem, I leave that to you and Rue. For people who seems to think it's such an abhorrent technique you sure have trouble refraining from doing it yourself. As I told Rue, if attacking me makes you happy, then by all means please continue to do so. I don't do it, and never will. It isn't a very good tool for convincing people to your point of view. All it does is divide people and force them to take an opposing view in repulsion of your arguement.
But then, I'm just a lying right wing tool who makes up sick relatives to get my rocks off. What do I know?
AURAPTOR: I'll bet this will be another one of those threads where I repeatedly ask you to back up your claims and you eventually slink away. You said
Quote:WHICH underlying premise are you referring to and how is it false?
Rush is 100% justified in answering the false claims in the CAMPAIGN AD that Michael J. Fox appears in, mainly because the underlying premise of these ads is flat out false.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So are you saying that Rush didn't attack Fox's character? From what I've seen, he accused Fox of exaggerating his condition; going off his medication; and possibly outright faking symptoms to generate sympathy. I'd hardly say that I was distorting things.
What Rush did was correctly point out that MJ Fox DID indeed alter his medication so as to appear worse while testifying in front of Congress. Fox admitted to doing exactly that, and for the specific purpose of showing folks what the disease is doing to him. But what he DIDN'T do was fess up to his audience that he altered his meds for this display. But none of that was the point of Rush's issue w/ MJ Fox or his meds. It has to do with the underlying implication of the DNC ads which falsly try to paint the GOP as being against a cure for such diseases as Parkinsons and Alzheimers.
Rush responded to Fox's ( and the DNC's ) purely political ad, because that's how politics works. Parkinson's diseas does not grant Mr Fox or anyone a shield against other's answering their unfounded accusations. Just as Cindy Sheehan is not granted immunity from those to counter her anti - Bush rhetoric simply because her son died in Iraq. If their positions have any merrit, then the facts, and not pure sentimentality, will be what gather's the most attention.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME