Real World Event Discussions

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

POSTED BY: misbehaven
UPDATED: Saturday, November 18, 2006 01:39
VIEWED: 26984
PAGE 6 of 19

RUE

Friday, October 27, 2006 10:55 PM

Razza,

What you said was that a well known person should be personally attacked if they express an opinion. You defend ad hominem attacks. You believe in ad hominem attacks. Even if they are pure slander and implication and have nothing to do with issues, or facts or truth.

Is it any wonder people think you're an asshole? I mean, really. What did you expect?

RAZZA

Friday, October 27, 2006 11:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:

Sorry? When did I belittle someone with Parkinsons's?
"Their health condition does not exclude them from
criticism, nor should it."

BUT LIMBO ATTACKED HIS DISEASE-OR LACK THEREOF-AND PERSONAL
CREDIBILITY. Not stem cell research, or celebrity endorsement. To
defend the indefensible (Rush) you destroy your own position (And piss
off those tired of the endless bullshit).

But by your logic, Rush should be excused due to his oxycontinaholism,
a degenerative disease in it's own right, correct?

Actually, Rush never attacked his disease or lack thereof and
repeatedly expressed his sympathy for Fox's plight, but he certainly
questioned his credibility and Fox's position on stem cell research.
He did so on the grounds that his statements were false or misleading,
not on the fact that he suffers a terrible disease. He conjectured
that Michael J. Fox may have been off of his medication, was
exaggerating his symptons, or possibly acting. Limbaugh did so based
on statements Fox made himself in his book where he admits that he has
deliberately not taken his medication in the past when making public
appearances. Rush Limbaugh explained extensively why he believes that
the substance of Fox's statments in the ad were misleading and wrong,
but appearantly that doesn't matter since he's just a moron with a
degenerative disease called oxycontinaholism.

I'm not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, but that doesn't mean I close my
ears when he speaks like so many people who disagree with him do. I
generally disagree with everything Rue says, but I don't just scroll
through her posts and ignore them wholesale. (I leave that for PN's
drivel) I believe one of the reasons civil discussion in our society
is in such decline is precisely because we have stopped listening to
one another. We don't want to hear something that challenges our
beliefs and so its easier to just categorize those who disagree with
us as suffering from oxycontinaholism or are just plain stupid.

But hey, I'm just full of

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
...f***ing bull***t,...[\QUOTE]

What do I know?

-----------------
"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

RAZZA

Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Razza,

What you said was that a well known person should be personally attacked if they express an opinion. You defend ad hominem attacks. You believe in ad hominem attacks. Even if they are pure slander and implication and have nothing to do with issues, or facts or truth.

Is it any wonder people think you're an asshole? I mean, really. What did you expect?

Rue:

I never said it was okay to conduct personal attacks on any public figure, but I did say it was okay to question their statements. You would have a lot more credibility with you arguement about ad hominem attacks and sidetracking the issues if you weren't so glaringly guilty of it in this discussion. You have attacked me personally and failed to address the issues of this discussioin with each of your posts.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Largely I suspect it's because you argue out of both sides of your mouth.

And because you think it's OK to belittle someone's integrity and politics because they have Parkinson's.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Is it any wonder people think you're an asshole? I mean, really. What did you expect?

Luckily, I'm pretty thick skinned and quite frankly, don't much care what you think of me. Bottomline, you still haven't goaded me into insulting you in return, but by all means keep trying if it makes you happy.

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

---Napoleon Bonaparte

RAZZA

Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:34 AM

Soup:

First off, thanks for [Edited later to include] "NOT" starting out with derogatory insult, how refreshing to have someone actually talk to me instead of at me.

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Hmmm. Been trying to post this for a while now. Let's see if the X time is the charm...

What was fascinating, to me, is that he appears to be going out of his way to steer clear of the entire topic of stem cell research. I went to each of the candidates web sites to see what their positions were. Claire McCaskill appears to be making this a primary issue of her campaign. Lots of stuff. Jim Talent? Not so much. In fact, I couldn’t find one mention of stem cell research on his site ( http://www.talentforsenate.com ).
* edited because I realized his site hadn't been indexed at all *
Compared to around a couple dozen on McCaskill’s.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.claireonline.com+stem&
btnG=Google+Search
You’d think he’d at least hype his co-sponsorship on S.681. Nada.

I don't find that surprising at all. It's a contentious issue, and what politician is actually going to tell what they think if they don't have to? I'm pretty conservative and I'm on the fence on this one, and I suspect a lot of people are. Why risk pissing off your base by taking a stance they may not like in hopes of luring fence sitters like me. Vice versa, why risk losing fence sitters by making your right wing cowtowing so evident?

Quote:
I read what Rush had to say. I actually watched the feed from the crooks and liars link that I posted above (which was from Olbermann’s show). His gesturing was mimicking Michael J Fox. There’s no other reasonable explanation for that. He posited, in his statements, that Michael J Fox was either off his medication or acting. That’s calling Fox a faker, in my book.

I’m sure you’re right that there are Rush fans who don’t think Fox was being mocked. I can only speak from personal experience. I used to listen to Rush. Spent years doing it, as a matter of fact. One of the reasons was because he would attack and make fun of those on the left. I loved that. And, based on the callers who interacted with him on the show, a lot of his listeners felt the same way. Rush’s main value to the modern American conservative movement is that he operates on the other side of the decency boundary. He attacks their opponents. He gets down and dirty. Other conservatives can appear more rational because Rush does the dirty work.

Interesting take! You may BE giving more credit than is due here though. I think it has more to do with promoting Rush Limbaugh and his show than anything else. Free advertising so speak.

Quote:
But Rush didn’t question Fox’s position. He didn’t say anything, as far as I heard, about what Fox actually said. He wasn’t debating at all on the level of the spoken message. Because Rush, for all his faults, is not dumb. He realizes, as the Republican leadership realized as soon as they saw this ad, that this was a damn powerful ad precisely because of what is seen on the ad. Not what is said. That’s why it was necessary for Rush to attack what was seen. His main goal was to convince his millions of listeners that what they saw was not accurate. Because what they saw was pretty damn convincing. Here we had a young, good looking and talented man looking like shit on the basis of his disease. My first thought when I saw the ad was, “Damn. Michael J Fox sure has deteriorated.” I called over my partner telling her, “You’ve got to see this. It’s powerful.”

I disagree, I happened to be listening on the way to work and he specifically addressed the ads content as well as questioning Fox's behavior. He was most vociferous on the very same thing you and I can seem to find any support for. Fox's claim that Talent would like to criminalize the research, but he more or less spoke to each point you brought up. He basically even had the same thing to say as you on the first two points. They are kind of hard to fin

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:36 AM

You:
When a public figure injects himself into the political debate, they are fair game.

Me:
As is Rush. So Rush's addictions, impotence, credibility, motivations, and basic humanity are all fair game. Right? And that belongs in a political debate about the issues. Right?

You:
Absolutely!

You:
I never said it was okay to conduct personal attacks on any public figure ...

RAZZA

Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:41 AM

Rue:

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.

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

---Napoleon Bonaparte

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:52 AM

So since Fox suffers from Parkinson's - which is an unequivocal fact - and supports ANY politician who publicly supports stem cell research - he should be accused of - what? Faking his disease to further some hidden political agenda? That's where you lose me. Fox has no hidden agenda. He put it out there for everyone to see.

RAZZA

Saturday, October 28, 2006 1:14 AM

And I'm glad he did! I don't deny he has every right and some damn good motivation to do so, but that does not make him immune to criticism from those opposed to his point of view on the issue. It was shrewd of those democratic candidates who used his ad as support to do so. He is a compelling advocate.

I realize you believe Limbaugh mocked him, but I don't think he did nor that it was his intent to do so. You and I disagree on that point, but let's just agree to disagree since it's clear we are unlikely to come to concensus on it. Fox's past actions as he describes with his own words in his book give Limbaugh the right to speculate about his behavior in the ad. It may be a little inappropriate and rude, but hardly an act deserving of such gaping condemnation.

Let's get past Limbaugh and address the issues in the ad as Soup and I have attempted to do. What are your stands on the misleading statements Fox made? Is it okay to criticize him for those, or am I required to give him a pass on those because of his illness as well?

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

---Napoleon Bonaparte

JAYNEZTOWN

Saturday, October 28, 2006 1:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Originally posted by JaynezTown:
As Rush Predicted
http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/messages?msg=32604.6

He's still a pig, yeah. And your point is....?

Confused Chrisisall

I think the link was wrong
http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/messages?msg=32604.6
http://forums.prospero.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=foxfirefly&msg=3260
4.1
Look some people you will never convice on this stem-cell issue.

poor Adam, he's a great actor but he's going to be a die-hard GOP conservative no matter what the cause

and perhaps that's too bad because not all Republicans are like this

Nancy Reagan currently resides California, where she had tended to the former President who, before his death on June 5, 2004, was debilitated by Alzheimer's disease. She also urged President George W. Bush to support embryonic stem cell research, in the hopes that such research would lead to a cure for Alzheimer's disease. She has not been successful in changing the opinion of Bush.

RUE

Saturday, October 28, 2006 1:51 AM

THIS IS WHAT RUSH SAID:
He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting.

Rush said Fox was SHAMELESS. That was purely a personal attack that had NOTHING to do with the issues. So I'm not quite ready to get past Rush.

"It may be a little inappropriate and rude, but hardly an act deserving of such gaping condemnation." REALLY! Rush said Fox was 'exaggerating the effects of the disease.' It was highly ignorant. It was cruel to anyone who has Parkinson's and is facing certain - and gruesome - death. It belittled the agony of families who have to deal with suffering members.

Those symptoms are inevitable. They are as frightening, debilitating and painful as they look.

So why do you stick up for Rush's ignorance and cruelty, and take Fox to task for his ad?