Rush Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox and Parkinson's Disease

POSTED BY: misbehaven
UPDATED: Saturday, November 18, 2006 01:39
VIEWED: 26984
PAGE 14 of 19

PREV PAGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT PAGE

MISBEHAVEN

Sunday, October 29, 2006 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Rush didn't mock anyone here, and you know it.

Yes he did, and you know it. There has been footage of Rush on every mainstream media outlet waving his arms about, as he tries to impersonate Fox's ad. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

Quote:
There was sufficient cause to clarify what MJ Fox did, and Rush was well with in his right to do so. I'm glad he did.

I agree. If you are going to appear in an ad, then people have the right to question what you are saying. Rush did not initally do that. He resorted to mocking Fox and questioning his character and motivations. Of course Rush is still wrong, because Fox's character, unlike Rush's character, is beyond reproachable. Fox also campaigned for Republicans, so there is no political motivation for either party.

Quote:
If anyone is to blame here, it's not MJ Fox, but the Democrats who used him for this pathetic sympathy ploy to get folks to vote their way. It's beyond disgraceful.

I wondered how long it would take before you blamed the Democrats for this. Yes! it is the Democrats fault. If they had not run an ad willingly featuring an admirable celebrity dying of a debilitating disease, then a typically uniformed Rush Limbaugh would not have made an ass out of himself and brought even more attention to the E.S.C. debate.

I can see why the Republicans are mad. This shines a nationwide spotlight on E.S.C. funding right before an election. It puts a recognizable face on the disesase. And it exposes most Republican Congressmen and the Bush administration for the unsympathetic panderers they are.

Quote:
P.S. I edited my comments before you posted your reply, so I don't really care about your claims of civility here.

I am touched, even if you don't care.

To the comment you did make (before you edited it out), I will let my reply stand. No need to apologize for the truth.

It's a good rule in life never to apologize. The right sort of people don't want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them.
- P. G. Wodehouse

RAZZA

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What I want to know is... did Rush make ANY attempt to address the issue of embryonic stem cell research? Any at all? Or was it all about MJ Fox? Attempting to address the issue will prevent further opprobrium from being heaped on him. Mkaing it ALL about MJ Fox simply means that Rush will be, should be, villified even further.

The fact that none of Rush's defenders have come forward to say "YES! Rush DID address embryonic stem-cell research in tha segment!" makes me think that maybe he didn't.

Sygnm:

Yes, he did talk about stem cell research in the segment. He questioned Fox's assertion that Talent wanted to criminalize it, he talked about how promising research to date has mostly come from adult stem cells, he spoke about the Missouri ammendment 2 initiative, and quite a few other points. I can see how you would assume that the few transcripts you've seen would fill an entire hour of broadcast. He would obviously have to speak very slowly for his intellectually deficient listeners to understand him in your view. The few sentences you have posted account for a small percentage of what he said. I found what I heard a little rude and inappropriate as I've said before, and I certainly wouldn't have used them myself. But the characterization that he was personally attacking Fox for no other reason than that he suffers from Parkinson's and supports democrats is just flat out wrong in my view.

As far as him flailing his arms and jerking around goes, have you never acted out an action as you speak about it? I know people who cannot talk without moving their hands about in a distracting manner. If you had listened to the show you would have heard that Rush was genuinely disturbed by Fox's appearance. He had never seen him in such a state and was taken aback by it and genuinely concerned for Fox's plight. Why is it necessary to assume that he was being cruel? And let's face it, it is an assumption on your part, and we know that because you have admitted that you have not heard all that was said in the broadcast and do not know the fully story.

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

CITIZEN

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
I am glad you decided to remain civil. But then since I have handed you your ass on every post, I can see how you might be a little upset.

Come now, those on your side of the debate, against ad hominem attacks on the diseases of the ill, really shouldn't be mocking the retarded.

Obviously I'm not calling AURaptor retarded, I'm just trying to describe the situation. People who read my posts often will understand that accusing AURaptor of being a jelly brain is as far from my mind as one could hope to be. Of course those that think otherwise are merely ignorant or attempting to further their own agenda.

Do the Limbaugh, da da da da da da da da...

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.

MISBEHAVEN

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
I am glad you decided to remain civil. But then since I have handed you your ass on every post, I can see how you might be a little upset.

Originally posted by Citizen:
Come now, those on your side of the debate, against ad hominem attacks on the diseases of the ill, really shouldn't be mocking the retarded.

After some thoughtful consideration, I find myself reluctantly agreeing. Perhaps I was too harsh with AURaptor. After all, he's only parroting Republican talking points.

“Originality is the one thing which unoriginal minds cannot feel the use of.”
-John Stuart Mill

CITIZEN

Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
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.

Sorry Razza I did read your post but I've been fair busy over the weekend.

You know I kinda got the feeling that what you were saying was that it would be (if indeed that was what Rush was doing) to say "He ain't got Parkinson's, he's a liar and fraud and he's jerking around like an idiot". It came across to me that, that is what you were defending, possibly Signym Rue and Chris saw it that way too, possibly you just dived in front of the guns I don't know.

I can't really speak to motive, but I can speak to what I saw, and frankly (sorry guys) I thought some of the responses were a might over the top, especially from Chris, not because his were the worst it's just he's usually the guy least likely to go off like that. However I also noticed that some of your replies, if they had been directed at me, would possibly have made me angrier, that very possibly was not your intention, like I said I can't speak for motive.

Which leads me to finally come in on Rush. I've had the opportunity to hear both the segment in question and see the video clip and the original with audio too. He's kind of describing MJ Fox, but you know he's kinda mocking him too. Maybe that wasn't his intent, but I think for him to be entirely truthful that he wasn't mocking even a little, and that for anyone to think different is merely 'lefty Agendas' kinda makes me think he might have an Autism like disorder. I really find it hard to believe someone really has that level of disconnecting to the subjective experiences of other people and it not be a disorder.

Quote:
By the way, is there really such a thing as a beer milkshake? I'm strangley repulsed yet intrigued at the same time.

I really don't know, it's partially a quote lifted from Red Dwarf. Although if I could ever come up with away of combining Ice Cream, Milk and Beer without it ending up as melting ice cream floating in a concoction of bitter fizzy milk I think I might try it.

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.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Rush Limbaugh is an ass.

Everything that comes out of his mouth is shite.

Why is this even a discussion?

If you're going to be so close minded and ignorant on this issue, why even post at all?

Why am I close minded? Because I don't hold the same view as you. Rush Limbaugh has shown himself repeatedly to be an ass. My opinion. He isn't really even worthy of a thread. One can only hope his 15 minutes are soon to be up. That way the airwaves will be cleared for someone with something of impoort to say.

----
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

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I thought some of the responses were a might over the top, especially from Chris, not because his were the worst it's just he's usually the guy least likely to go off like that.

It's the whole post-it's okay to torture legislation thing.
I'm disgusted with all things neo-con, and Rush is right there. My Buddha side is in the shadow of my Shaolin, and I aim to misbehave, as far as pro-fascists go.
Like Max said, I don't have a lot of patience, and what little I had is now gone.
Bush and Cheney, as well as Rush, and any who agree with him, have declared themselves officially the enemies of Human freedom and decency.
Eff 'em.
Eff 'em all.

Something new Chrisisall

RAZZA

Monday, October 30, 2006 12:49 AM

Thanks for the voice of reason. You said:

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You know I kinda got the feeling that what you were saying was that it would be (if indeed that was what Rush was doing) to say "He ain't got Parkinson's, he's a liar and fraud and he's jerking around like an idiot". It came across to me that, that is what you were defending, possibly Signym Rue and Chris saw it that way too, possibly you just dived in front of the guns I don't know.

If Rush had said something like that we would not be talking. I would be right along side Rue, Sygnm, and Chris in revulsion of such behavior. I'm not sure how you could read that from my posts, but if you did I can assure you that was not my intent in the least.

You also said:

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I thought some of the responses were a might over the top, especially from Chris, not because his were the worst it's just he's usually the guy least likely to go off like that. However I also noticed that some of your replies, if they had been directed at me, would possibly have made me angrier, that very possibly was not your intention, like I said I can't speak for motive.

I agree, especially about Chris. I was as surprised as you, I usually enjoy his lighthearted humorous quips, but I appearantly pushed a very sensitive button unwittingly. I am certainly guilty of trying to goad them a little with my replies, but the tone of their posts hardly motivated me to cut them some slack on that score. They weren't exactly interested in promoting my calm.

As I've said, I found Rush's comments rude and inappropriate, and not ones I would have use, but the demonization campaign currently ongoing is a bit on the side of overkill if you ask me.

Hmm...beer flavored ice cream, I wonder....

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

KANEMAN

Monday, October 30, 2006 1:34 AM

Wow, I love this thread. We've got everything from name calling, pissed off posts, too anti-civilized behavior. All over what? Rush's comments over MJ Fox. Rush and his cronies have every right to question the validity of MJF's tremors. Fox has admitted to doing it(misusing his medication to magnify the effects of his illness) in the past. Period. No discussion about it. They have as much right as Fox supporters have to question Rush's sobriety. Who gives a shit. Can't you assholes get along. Shit, Chrisisall is jumping around like someone slapped his mother, Ruse is telling his family's health history, and Citizen is actually being civilized. Crazy thread...just crazy, keep up the good work you freaks......Well, I hope you do......

PS.
Citz, Congratulations on Dirty McDaniel's having that "all you can eat gay night" you've been eagerly waiting for. Have fun fruit-loop.......

SOUPCATCHER

Monday, October 30, 2006 8:22 AM

A couple of general observations and then a specific response...

The claim has been made by Limbaugh supporters that the video clip that was shown on Olbermann's show (and other shows) distorts Limbaugh's actual meaning. When I first saw that clip, I recognized that it was a collection of three video clips spliced together. Which isn't usually a big deal. It's like removing text from a quote and using ... As long as you maintain the look and feel of the original work, there's no problem. In this specific instance, the edited version showed Rush Limbaugh attacking Michael J. Fox's character and mocking his physical symptoms. Based on that clip alone, I think any reasonable person comes to the conclusion that Rush Limbaugh was being an asshole.

But was that clip an accurate representation of the entire segment? Well, after first viewing the clip I went to Limbaugh's web site to see if I could find more information. Limbaugh usually has transcripts up on his site. I couldn't find the transcript for that portion of the show (it was from Monday) in the free section. It's only available to people who have paid a subsription fee. Which I am not going to do. I did find a transcript of later on in Monday's show where it sounds like Limbaugh is already back peddling after taking phone calls.

So I couldn't answer for myself whether that clip was representative. It's up to someone who has access to the transcripts to make that case. In other words, the burden of proof is on those making the claims that the video clip shown is not representative of the segment.

* edited out Barbara Cubin digression because the Billings Gazette article I referenced was very tongue in cheek. Here's the link for anyone who's interested: http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/10/29/news/local/50-light
s.txt *

Okay, now that that's out of the way.

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Soupcatcher:

I don't want to burst your bubble, but hatred is hardly limited to the conservative side of the issue. There is hatred quite evident in posts from this discussion coming from the other side, and very little that I see from my posts. Now I have great respect for your posts because you are always rational, coherent, and civil when you speak. But I fail to see how you can characterize Sygnm, Chrisisall, or Rue's responses to me as anything short of outright hatred. They are using the very same technique you attribute to the "Right Wing Assholes" who are trying to "silence the opposition". Now I know, you can argue that they were only doing so to make a point, but I don't see it. There is obvious vitriol in their posts that does not speak to a coherent intellectual motive.

As to Rush being an asshole and guilty of general assholery, I'm afraid we cannot agree on that. Just as I suspect you wouldn't agree that your three compadres have tended to engage in the same assholery.

I have no desire to silence those who disagree with me because I know such actions would be extremely harmful to myself as well as them. I want my beliefs questioned, because in so doing I they are bolstered or changed and I grow as a human being and become a better person for it. I see evidence of the same desire in your posts, but it is completely devoid in Rue's, Sygnm's, or Chrisisall's posts. It must be very comforting for them to live in a hermetically sealed self-affirming environment where anyone who disagrees with them can be easily dismissed as stupid or brainwashed by a radio talk show host.

This probably won't come as too much of a shock to you, Razza, but I don't think there's an equivalence here. Come back to me when SignyM or Rue or Chrisisall has an audience of 10 million who bob their heads in unison over every utterance. Come back to me when they are an integral part of a political party. In other words, come back to me when they're in charge of anything.

Never mistake civil discourse for lack of anger. I choose to not attack individuals. That's a style of online discourse that I feel most comfortable with.

PREV PAGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT PAGE