So much for the media giving liberals a "pass".
This is such old ground we are covering here, but I'll try to explain it once again.
When I say someone is getting a pass, it doesn't mean no one questions them. It means that when someone does question them one or both of the following will happen:
1. The person doing the questioning will be called mean or cruel or not as qualified to speak to the subject
or
2. The defenders will explain how these people can't be questioned because of their past difficulties due to this particular issue.

The most salient examples are obvious: Cindy Sheehan, the Jersey Wives, etc.

That banner was originally written for the 2004 elections.

He seems to think so... if anyone questions him who hasn't served, they automatically aren't credible. But i thought being "stuck in iraq" meant you were uneducated, didnt try hard, and didnt do well for yourself? Thats what he said.. i just want to know which one it is.

Whichever one makes a useful argument for you at the moment Decka.


I mean, we werent allowed to question that crazy lady who stalked Bush at his ranch because she lost her son...

Of course you were and of course you did, in that "comapssionate" way conservatives are famous for. I mean, here's a person who you disagree with politically, so you refer to her as "crazy", and a "stalker", and then you cry about how you weren't allowed to "question" this woman. Grow up.


we aren't allowed to question Fox without being labeled "less than compassionate" by Fox...

You can't make an argument without twisting the facts, can you? People objected to Rush Limbaugh imitating Fox's symptoms, and accusing him of acting, but since you can't argue that point without looking like an asshole, you pretend people were upset because Rush "disagreed" with Fox. Lame.


Its a nice set up the democrats and the media have.. they scratch each others backs all day long.

More Republican whining about the "liberal media". I've noticed that when the Republicans on this board have nothing of substance to say they tend to blame the media for not letting them say it.

So whereas Bill O'Reilly can criticize Cindy Sheehan's views all he wants, when David letterman responds by saying "C'mon, she lost her son" that's just not a fair argument.

No doubt you think it's "fair" to call someone "crazy" or a "stalker" because you disagree with her political views. Your sense of fairness leaves a little to be desired. I expect this kind of attitude from some here Brooks, but not you.

I never heard about it.

It was mentioned and discussed earlier in this thread.


In this particular commercial did he say not to vote for the Democrat because Republican cared more?

No, he said "you can elect" Claire McCaskill, and that she "shares his hope for cures" and that "Jim Talent opposes expansion of stem cell research".


And in fairness, I guess you just ignored my answer to the State of the Union gallery point.

I didn't ignore it Brooks, I just think you're splitting hairs. I see little difference between an emotionally charged ad that uses actors and one that uses a real person.

BTW, we've got a real winner of an ad running here in Wisconsin. The compassionate conservatives have seen fit to run an ad against the gay marriage amendment in which young children (around four or five years old it would seem) look at the camera and tell you how confused they'll be about marriage if the amendment is defeated and gays are allowed to get married. Talk about low. It's this kind of disgusting behavior that makes your arguments that Democrats do it more than Republicans ring false.

Uhm, sedan, some people are more than a little uncomfortable with taking fertilized human eggs and throwing them in the garbage, after manipulating those eggs to one's heart's content of course.Then here's what they, and presumably you, should do: find women who are willing to host these embryos until they are born. Then you and the rest of your merry crusaders can raise the children into adulthood. Failing that, these embryos will be treated as medical waste. If that makes you uncomfortable then that's just too damn bad. It's the reality we face. We have a choice between making potentially life-saving advances in medical science or tossing these clumps of cells unused into the dumpster. I know which one makes sense to me.That ballot Amendment does NOT ban human cloning, it doesn't. The only thing that the Amendment DOES ban is taking a CLONED human egg and growing that egg to full term in a uterus.I don't know why you continue to argue with plain English:

No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.It's like saying that a law bans the making of pipe bombs THEN defining the "making" of a pipe bomb as settting one off. You can make the bomb, you can make the explosive, the timing device, you can assemble it, but you can't set it off.Analogies are always suspect but this one is just plain stupid. A better one is that the law allows the regulated production of the explosive (cloned human cells) but forbids it's use in the making of a bomb (a cloned human).Same thing with this "ban" on cloning. A scientist can pull an egg out of a uterus, they can fertilize it, use any cloning technique under the sun, you just can't GROW it to full term. It just doesn't make sense, dammit. Sorry, Sedan, but that law is a sneaky end-around the entire cloning issue.There is a difference between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. They have completely different goals. The goal of reproductive cloning is to create an organism that is genetically identical to the donor cell. This is clearly prohibited by the Missouri amendment if that organism is a human. The goal of therapeutic cloning is to reproduce cells, a procedure considered essential to embryonic stem cell research. This is what the Missouri amendment allows. And when you say things like "you just can't GROW it to full term" it turns out that you are the one who is being 'sneaky'. The amendment expressly prohibits the creation of human fetuses. It's pretty hard to grow an embryo into a full-term baby without it ever being a fetus.Oh, PUHLEEEEZE Sedan, don't hand me that garbage. You had thought you had me good and nailed when you dug up the actual ballot initiative and lifted the quote that states cloning would be banned. I DID have to dig around and find out what all the hub-bub was about. On the one hand, the law states that cloning in banned, on the other hand the law opens the door to using cloning techniques to a scientists heart's content.Therapeutic cloning, yes. Reproductive cloning, no. Is this really so difficult for you to understand? There will not be any cloned humans walking around 20 years from now as a result of this law. In fact, the law makes sure that doesn't happen. You can try to color the debate by conjuring allusions to mad scientists run amok but that isn't really very rational -- nor helpful. P.S. you're still nailed.You damn near had me nailed on that one. The problem is that the issue isn't about EMBRYONIC stem cell research, but on "expanding" stem cell research. Note the part where embryonic has been taken out. It's about using ADULT stem cells rather than embryonic stem cells, dammit. I did a bit of digging around and I reviewed Michael J Fox's commercial. Fox doesn't state that Talent is against EMBRYONIC stem cell research, but against "expanding" STEM CELL researchs, sans embryonic. Very important distinction right there. Talent does support the "expansion" of stem cell research, just not embryonic stem cell research. So my assertion IS true, it's just that I didn't dig around enough to find out exactly what kind of stem cell research Talent opposes.Yes, embryonic stem cell research is a kind of stem cell research. Talent opposes it and voted against funding it. This means he opposes the expansion of this kind of research.I allowed myself to get cornered into arguing over embryonic stem cells, which isn't the issue at all. It's not the issue because MJF didn't bring it up in that McCatskill commerical he ran.Of course it's the issue. What the hell do you think everyone is arguing about? No one that I know of opposes adult stem cell research, Talent included. Adult stem cell research is clearly not the issue here.And for your information, stem cell research, using adult stem cells, has been used very successful in medical research, dammit.Let's see. You "DID have to dig around and find out what all the hub-bub was about" and now you're lecturing me on the benefits of adult stem cell research? Sorry, Darth. You come off as singularly misinformed on this issue and I can do without your commonplace banalities, thanks. If you'd like to seriously discuss the matter further I suggest you post in the stem cell thread: http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=16773&highlight=stem+cell

We've been down this road before, Sedan. Rush was voicing a suspicion that Fox was exagerating his symptoms mainly because Rush had never seen MJF move like that before. Also, Rush did a bit of research and finds that MJF has gone off his meds before appearing in front of a congressional committee. How many times do you wish to have this circular conversation?Funny how you can't tell the difference between 'voicing a suspicion' and making an outright accusation. Shall we review?

Now, this is Michael J. Fox. He's got Parkinson's disease. And in this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking. And it's purely an act.

You keep running up against the unmistakable meaning of his words. He meant what he said and he said what he meant. He even sort of apologized for it later. Did he apologize for nothing? That would be very unlike Rush, don't you think?

My point is this. I asked why the media was still covering Rush's first statement when his amended explanation better explained his position. You said maybe it was because he didn't apologize, although you now acknowledge it doesn't make any "material difference".

If the media were doing an honest piece about the controversy, they would consider his amended statement as the more recent and accurate and the apology aspect of this would be irrelevant to them. This has nothing to do with an apology.Now that Kerry has 'apologized' does this same reasoning apply to him as well?

Not sure why I bother to ask ...

So whereas Bill O'Reilly can criticize Cindy Sheehan's views all he wants, when David letterman responds by saying "C'mon, she lost her son" that's just not a fair argument.And when Cheney says that those who oppose the war are helping the terrorists, that just is a fair argument?

Sorry, Brooks, but when someone makes an argument you don't like you should disagree with them and say why you do. Don't hide behind this silly Coulter syndrome and whine about how unfair it is. And please don't start bragging about how much courage it takes to argue with the 'infallible critics' like Rush does (all the while his ratings are going through the roof). This is one of the worst BS arguments you guys have ever come up with. You portray yourselves as victims because (supposedly) you cannot defend yourselves from the victims. Then you proceed to mercilessly trash the victims anyway and pat yourselves on the back for being so brave. Hey, that deserves a cigar!

Maybe you guys wouldn't have this trouble if your President was on the right side of an issue for a change. If the President had supported an independent investigation into 9/11 there wouldn't have been the Jersey Girls. If he hadn't vetoed funding for embryonic stem cell research there probably wouldn't have been any Michael J. Fox commercials. And of course, no Iraq war would mean no Cindy Sheehan. If these people are a problem for you they are problems you've brought upon yourselves.

Okay, I'll bite.

Let me give you an example. There is a New York Post columnist named Ralph Peters. When the Iraq war started, he was behind it 100%. He believed in getting rid of Saddam, he believed that the Iraqis could establish a democracy, most importantly, he believed in the U.S. troops over in Iraq. He has been there and he has stated that our soldiers are doing one hell of a job there. Now after three years of war, Mr Peters has become skeptical. He sees the Iraqis as being more than willing to fight one another rather than the "insurgents." He derides the Iraqi government and the Iraqi police for being corrupt and he is beginning to ask if the Iraqis would rather kill one another and the the government is not going to step up to the plate and get things going on the right track, then what are we doing there? He is starting to say that either the Iraqis start getting it together or it's time for the U.S. to go home.

The thing about Ralph Peters, the reason why I give that man opinion's weight is because he IS sincere. He wasn't declaring a quagmire six days into the war, he isn't accusing the President of "rushing" into war, he's not saying that Iraq would be better off under Saddam. He didn't go to foreign countries and state that he's ashamed that Bush is from Texas. He's not going to Venezuela hanging out with Chavez and bashing Bush. He doesn't nit pick over every single little thing that goes wrong in Iraq. And he sure as hell didn't go before a group of students and state either you study hard or you "get stuck" in Iraq. Ralph Peters is also very well aware of the consequences of failure in Iraq.

Peters sincerity is the reason I listen to him. His criticism is about protecting our troops and America's interest. It's not about using the Iraq war as a political weapon to try and discredit Bush.

I WILL listen to sincere arguments, I WILL listen to the criticisms of those who DO wish for America to succeed in Iraq, I give weight to those who put the interests of our soldiers in Iraq FIRST and I'll accept the arguments of those who wish for the defeat of the Jihadists. Everything else is absolute garbage, dammit.
Nice rant, but it was totally off-topic and didn't apply to what I was saying.

No doubt you think it's "fair" to call someone "crazy" or a "stalker" because you disagree with her political views. Your sense of fairness leaves a little to be desired. I expect this kind of attitude from some here Brooks, but not you.By "you" I guess you mean the collective "Children of the Damned" commonthought that all conservatives share.
Anyway, if your president can be called "stupid" or "Hitler" or "chickenhawk", I'm surprised those who criticize a "crazy stalker" get under your skin so.

1. It was mentioned and discussed earlier in this thread.
2. No, he said "you can elect" Claire McCaskill, and that she "shares his hope for cures" and that "Jim Talent opposes expansion of stem cell research".
3. I didn't ignore it Brooks, I just think you're splitting hairs. I see little difference between an emotionally charged ad that uses actors and one that uses a real person.
4. young children look at the camera and tell you how confused they'll be about marriage if the amendment is defeated and gays are allowed to get married. Talk about low.
1. "Mentioned and discussed" would also include Dop's theories on the Pentagon. I was more interested in a link to a video or a transcript.

2. If MJ had said the more accurate "Jim Talent opposes government subsidization of a specific type of stem cell research that utilizes embryos" it'd be more truthful.
Also when he says "Claire McCaskill "shares my hope for cures but unfortunately Jim Talent opposes expansion of stem cell research" it is a cheap trick to fool the stupid. This suggests that Talent doesn't want those cures by subjectively equating embryonic stem cell research directly with cures. Cheap. Cheap and dishonest.
Suppose I said "I want a safe America and a peaceful Middle East but unfortunately VilePagan doesn't support President Bush".

3. The commercial actors say their piece, people critique it and that's the end of it.
The jersey wives recite the Dem talking points, bring their heart wrenching stories to talk shows, get interviewed on television, write books, make radio commercials and all the while you are mean or cruel if you criticize them.
If you don't see the distinction I'm really surprised.

4. Well, I'm prepared to get decapitated on this one but here goes.
If gay marraige becomes law, wouldn't 4 or 5 year olds be confused?
Keep in mind, I'm for gay marraige, I just don't see how suggesting that young children would be confused by gay marraige is a difficult concept.

1. And when Cheney says that those who oppose the war are helping the terrorists, that just is a fair argument?
2. Sorry, Brooks, but when someone makes an argument you don't like you should disagree with them and say why you do. Don't hide behind this silly Coulter syndrome and whine about how unfair it is.
3. Then you proceed to mercilessly trash the victims anyway and pat yourselves on the back for being so brave.
4. If the President had supported an independent investigation into 9/11 there wouldn't have been the Jersey Girls.
5. If he hadn't vetoed funding for embryonic stem cell research there probably wouldn't have been any Michael J. Fox commercials.
6. And of course, no Iraq war would mean no Cindy Sheehan. 1. I agree that that is an unfair thing to say on the Vice President's part, but it's not anything like what we were talking about.

2. I only refer to the Coulter syndrome when it fits the argument. And what you are referring to as "silly" is a well practiced tactic. And would conservatives use it? Maybe, but it requires copious amounts of media cooperation that is just not available to them.

3. You mean "you" general and not "you - Brooks", right?
Just lay off the cliches a little. These people are not "mercilessly trashed" and no one is patting themselves on the back.
(and will you and Vile please stop saying "you")

4. Among other things the Jersey Girls said in an interview was "Why did President Bush continue to sit there and read The Little Goat?" This goes beyond their belief that there should have been a commission set up. This is an unnecessarily partisan recitation of Dem talking points.
They exploited their victim status and the DNC exploited them.

5. You're still missing the point. Michael J Fox can say whatever he wants, but he has to be as accurate as everyone else and if he is criticized for it, his illness shouldn't even enter into the discussion.

6. What's the point of that?

1. The person doing the questioning will be called mean or cruel or not as qualified to speak to the subject
or
2. The defenders will explain how these people can't be questioned because of their past difficulties due to this particular issue.

The most salient examples are obvious: Cindy Sheehan, the Jersey Wives, etc.

Now you can add "the military" to that group as well.


5. You're still missing the point. Michael J Fox can say whatever he wants, but he has to be as accurate as everyone else and if he is criticized for it, his illnes

If by "criticized" you mean his views on the issue can be disagreed with, then I agree. But when "criticized" means being mocked or called a faker, then thats pathetic behavior...but hey, be pathetic if you want just don't expect to not be called on it.

Gee Overdose,

Not to mention, many conservatives preach about the idea that you cannot question the troops and their actions because they are “putting their life on the line” and they are the one’s who “see the action first-hand” basically making them exempt from any criticism or questioning. So honestly, if you want to play this game, go ahead because I see conservatives do the same thing you are accusing liberals of doing.

You're the one who started it, dammit.

You're the one who started it, dammit.
You started talking about one man who has an opinion and why you respect his opinion. I, on the other hand, was talking about the hypocrisy the right-wing spews and the double standard they have.

I also asked for an example of when a liberal has and or proof of the majority of liberals saying you cannot attack someone's opinion who has had their son or daughter die in Iraq.

2. If MJ had said the more accurate "Jim Talent opposes government subsidization of a specific type of stem cell research that utilizes embryos" it'd be more truthful.
Also when he says "Claire McCaskill "shares my hope for cures but unfortunately Jim Talent opposes expansion of stem cell research" it is a cheap trick to fool the stupid. This suggests that Talent doesn't want those cures by subjectively equating embryonic stem cell research directly with cures. Cheap. Cheap and dishonest.
Suppose I said "I want a safe America and a peaceful Middle East but unfortunately VilePagan doesn't support President Bush".

Now you've got it Brooks. Disagree if you want and be specific, no problem. Just don't tell me you weren't allowed to say that because a liberal will jump on you for attacking Fox.


3. The commercial actors say their piece, people critique it and that's the end of it.
The jersey wives recite the Dem talking points, bring their heart wrenching stories to talk shows, get interviewed on television, write books, make radio commercials and all the while you are mean or cruel if you criticize them.
If you don't see the distinction I'm really surprised.

Go ahead and criticize them. Tell your story on a talk show, go on TV, write a book, make a radio commercial if it suits your fancy. You can do all those things and I could give a rat's ass. If you can't do those things without being mean and cruel you'll be called mean and cruel. I'm surprised you can't see the difference.


4. Well, I'm prepared to get decapitated on this one but here goes.
If gay marraige becomes law, wouldn't 4 or 5 year olds be confused?
Keep in mind, I'm for gay marraige, I just don't see how suggesting that young children would be confused by gay marraige is a difficult concept.

I could care less if you wish to make that absurd suggestion, but when you use a four or five year-old to recite a prepared text that is obviously beyond their understanding that's just low. I don't care what issue you're trying to support.

BTW, here's that link you wanted:

COURIC: You have said before this is a bipartisan problem that requires a bipartisan solution.

FOX: No, disease is a nonpartisan problem that requires a bipartisan solution.

COURIC: Would you support a Republican candidate?

FOX: I have. Arlen Specter is my guy. I have campaigned for Arlen Specter. He has been a fantastic champion of stem cell research. In the meantime, separate and apart from my political involvement, I’ve started a foundation that has raised $85 million for research and is the second leading funder of Parkinson’s research after the federal government.

And, you know, it’s not — I’m not a Johnny-come-lately. Nobody plucked me off the apple cart to come and do this. I mean, I believe in this cause. I put a lot of my life and energy into it, and I’m serious about it.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/27/fox-limbaugh/

I guess you're right though...only a liberal democrat would use someone with a disease in a political ad so you can't argue with the ad is strictly a Democrat tactic.

1. Just don't tell me you weren't allowed to say that because a liberal will jump on you for attacking Fox.
2. I could care less if you wish to make that absurd suggestion....
3. only a liberal democrat would use someone with a disease in a political ad so you can't argue with the ad is strictly a Democrat tactic.
1. O'Reilly: Cindy Sheehan went too far
Letterman: C'mon, she lost her son

2. What absurd suggestion - that a five year old would be confused by gay marraige?

3. The two ads in question were very different. The one for Specter is pretty straight forward and positive. There's really nothing in there that can be argued. The one for McCaskill makes unfair statements about the opponent that would put any candidate on the defensive.

1. O'Reilly: Cindy Sheehan went too far
Letterman: C'mon, she lost her son

Brooks, if David Letterman represents liberals or democrats to you...I don't know what to say.


2. What absurd suggestion - that a five year old would be confused by gay marraige?

Yeah.


3. The two ads in question were very different. The one for Specter is pretty straight forward and positive. There's really nothing in there that can be argued. The one for McCaskill makes unfair statements about the opponent that would put any candidate on the defensive.

So now you're saying the problem is that the ad makes unfair statements about the Republican. What happened to the argument that it was wrong to make the ad because he's got Parkinson's and no one can possibly disagree with him? If you want to complain that the ad was unfair, start another thread. You've been saying all along it's wrong for the Democrats to use Fox in an ad because he's unassailable, and now when it's pointed out that a Republican did it too, you say the ad was "different" so that makes it ok.

1. What happened to the argument that it was wrong to make the ad because he's got Parkinson's and no one can possibly disagree with him?
2. You've been saying all along it's wrong for the Democrats to use Fox in an ad because he's unassailable, and now when it's pointed out that a Republican did it too, you say the ad was "different" so that makes it ok.1. I checked this thread, I checked the Kerry thread and I checked two old Coulter threads and I can't find one instance where I said it was wrong to make these types of ads.
My complaint is, and has always been, that the critics of these pieces are criticized not just for their views, but for treating them as adversarial pundits (which they are) rather than sympathetic victims.

2. Again, I didn't say it was wrong.

Brooks, if David Letterman represents liberals or democrats to you...I don't know what to say.Leno, Letterman and Stewart influence more people than Howard Dean. Does he represent liberals and Democrats? Not necessarily. But if he has O'Reilly on his show and defends Cindy Sheehan, than it is a political discussion with him taking the Democrat side.

I only refer to the Coulter syndrome when it fits the argument.Which happens to be when anyone who has gained a measure of notoriety by suffering from a Bush policy has the temerity to criticize that policy. Then you can lump them all together and dismiss them as just another liberal ploy.And what you are referring to as "silly" is a well practiced tactic.Practice it all you like. It's still silly.And would conservatives use it? Maybe, but it requires copious amounts of media cooperation that is just not available to them.You ... can ... not ... be ... serious!! Are we in parallel yet different universes or something? This administration has received more media co-operation than any since JFK's! There's a veritable panoply of media outlets that would gladly trumpet the story of anyone victimized by Democratic folly. What makes this problematic is that they're not calling the shots right now -- Bush is. And the shots he's calling are hurting people.You mean "you" general and not "you - Brooks", right?Yes, as in "you guys".Just lay off the cliches a little. These people are not "mercilessly trashed" and no one is patting themselves on the back.I'm sorry. I thought you said you listened to Rush on occasion. You'd hear lots of trashing and back-slapping (not to mention clichés) if you did.(and will you and Vile please stop saying "you")It's hard not to see you in the same light as Decka and Darth and Rush and Ann when you're all saying the same thing (about the myth of the 'infallible critic' anyway).Among other things the Jersey Girls said in an interview was "Why did President Bush continue to sit there and read The Little Goat?" This goes beyond their belief that there should have been a commission set up. This is an unnecessarily partisan recitation of Dem talking points.How do you know? Maybe it's only one among thousands of questions they had that led them to think an independent investigation was warranted. Or maybe they only started saying things like this to embarass Bush because he opposed the investigation (before he approved of it).They exploited their victim status and the DNC exploited them.Big freaking deal. No one forced them to go on TV, and the odds are pretty good that they really wanted to know about the chain of events led to the deaths of their husbands. But it doesn't matter to you that what they wanted was a true accounting. What matters to you is that they made the President look bad (as though he needs any help). And exploitation? Bush exploits 9/11 damn near every time he opens his mouth. The RNC exploits the troops for political gain every chance they get. I never hear you crying about that.You're still missing the point. Michael J Fox can say whatever he wants, but he has to be as accurate as everyone else and if he is criticized for it, his illness shouldn't even enter into the discussion.How am I missing this? Rush is the one who brought his illness into this by claiming Fox was putting on an act. And I can't help but notice that you've chosen to completely ignore the point I made; namely, that without the awful decisions made by Bush we'd not even be discussing these people.What's the point of that?Point of what? No Iraq, no Sheehan? I'm pretty sure we would never have heard of her if it weren't for the war.

1. Which happens to be when anyone who has gained a measure of notoriety by suffering from a Bush policy has the temerity to criticize that policy. Then you can lump them all together and dismiss them as just another liberal ploy.
2. about the myth of the 'infallible critic' anyway.
3. No one forced them to go on TV, and the odds are pretty good that they really wanted to know about the chain of events led to the deaths of their husbands.
4. The RNC exploits the troops for political gain every chance they get.
....without the awful decisions made by Bush we'd not even be discussing these people.1. I've really tried to explain myself on this. I don't blame the victim-as-;undit when the criticism starts. The full blame for the Sheehan/Tillman/Jersey Girls violation falls squarely on the shoulders of the over-reactive defenders of these people. And out of all of the president's critics, I save this criticism for a select few. So your suggestion that I use this "when anyone" criticizes is not accurate.

2. It's not a myth.

3. Yes, and derisively bringing up "My Pet Goat" was meant to help achieve those ends. Sure.

4. Who is saying otherwise? The Republicans exploit situations also.
This discussion we're having is about this specific tactic which is not employed by the Republicans.

This discussion we're having is about this specific tactic which is not employed by the Republicans.

Because according to you, when the Republicans use this same tactic it's "different". Fox made an ad for Arlen Specter. No matter the content of the ad, don't you think Specter was using Fox's alleged unnassailability just as the Democrats supposedly did?

If your only point is about the reaction to those ads, don't you see any difference between "questioning" the opinion of the person in the ads and "insulting" the maker of the ads?

I know Decka can't seem to make the distinction, or is unwilling to, but surely you see the difference. I seem to recall you making several posts in the past which mention the decline of the level of "political discourse" in this country. Is attacking MJF for "acting" and imitating his symptoms acceptable political discourse in your mind?

If your only point is about the reaction to those ads, don't you see any difference between "questioning" the opinion of the person in the ads and "insulting" the maker of the ads?


No. By now I have to assume he doesn't see the difference because its been explained repeatedly but yet each time another person gets called out for "insulting" someone, they say "were not allowed to question?".

They can't even find an example of someone saying "you can't disagree with MJFox"...they have to go back about 9 months to find a Letterman example.

They can't even find an example of someone saying "you can't disagree with MJFox"...they have to go back about 9 months to find a Letterman example.
Good point.

They can't even find an example of someone saying "you can't disagree with MJFox"...they have to go back about 9 months to find a Letterman example.mertz, Rush said some terrible things but then corrected himself. The rest of his comments were about the content of the ad. People conveniently ignore those statements because, I guess, they felt he was vulnerable on the first things he said.
He didn't change his statements because of the controversy, he changed them before it started. But still the critics go back to his original, amended statements.
So maybe it's harder to see it in the MJF case, but being unable to argue with Rush on the content of his criticism, they are clinging to the first things he said.

And if 9 months is too far back for you to remember, Google the other examples I gave. Get Today Show transcripts when Matt Lauer defended the Jersey Girls, among other examples.
Since my cited example is too far back for you to remember doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I don't blame the victim-as-;undit when the criticism starts.Unless it's Kevin Tillman.The full blame for the Sheehan/Tillman/Jersey Girls violation falls squarely on the shoulders of the over-reactive defenders of these people.We see things differently. When Rush Limbaugh accuses MJF of faking his symptoms I place the blame squarely on Limbaugh's shoulders. Similarly, when Ann Coulter says the Jersey Girls are enjoying their husband's deaths I place the blame on her. And when Decka says that the death of Cindy Sheehan's son is the best thing that ever happened to her I think we should find out who dropped him on his head when he was little.And out of all of the president's critics, I save this criticism for a select few. So your suggestion that I use this "when anyone" criticizes is not accurate.The suggestion was "when anyone who has gained a measure of notoriety by suffering from a Bush policy has the temerity to criticize that policy." As in Sheehan, the Jersey Girls, Kevin Tillman and Michael J. Fox. Perfectly accurate.It's not a myth.It sure can't be a reality: how can you have 'unassailable' critics who are remorselessly attacked? The whole notion defies rational thought. Yes, I know, big mean Wetterman was unfair to poor O'Weilly, get a grip over there, Brooks. All O'Reilly had to say is there are lots of other parents whose kids are dead too, most of whom (at that time anyway) disagreed with Sheehan.Yes, and derisively bringing up "My Pet Goat" was meant to help achieve those ends. Sure.Here's the thing. You and I can argue whether it helped or not. Just don't say they are enjoying their husbands' deaths and we'll be fine.Who is saying otherwise? The Republicans exploit situations also.
This discussion we're having is about this specific tactic which is not employed by the Republicans.It isn't a tactic employed by Democrats either. When people are hurt by what the President does, and when they decide to take a stand and speak out against his decisions and policies, that isn't anything Democrats have any control over. Sure, they can (and should) take political advantage of people who are honestly expressing themselves but they don't create these people or coerce them in any way. Seems to me Republicans had no problem using Debra Burlingame's tears to adorn their 2004 National Convention either.

mertz, Rush said some terrible things but then corrected himself. The rest of his comments were about the content of the ad. People conveniently ignore those statements because, I guess, they felt he was vulnerable on the first things he said.
He didn't change his statements because of the controversy, he changed them before it started. But still the critics go back to his original, amended statements.
So maybe it's harder to see it in the MJF case, but being unable to argue with Rush on the content of his criticism, they are clinging to the first things he said.

The reason people only focus on Rush's one comment is because the media likes to focus on controversial or titilating things. Rush makes points about things 3 hours a day, but its not going to make news unless he says something controversial or scandalous. If there is a fight in a sporting event, or a crash in a auto race, it makes the highlights. This is what the media does...and not just to conservatives. Did anyone talk about or argue with the comments Natalie Maines made leading up to her one quote about Bush? No, because the one quote was all the media focused on because it was the shocking quote. Have you been able to argue with Kerry on any other point he made in that speech last week? No, because you conveniently ignore those comments and focus on the one that makes him vulnerable. It wasn't until Friday that I learned that Kerry made a comment about Bush immediately before his comment that everyone is focusing on, making it more clear that his botched joke was intended at Bush. But the 10 or 12 times I've heard the quote, the media only played the part that made it look scandalous.

And if 9 months is too far back for you to remember, Google the other examples I gave. Get Today Show transcripts when Matt Lauer defended the Jersey Girls, among other examples.
Since my cited example is too far back for you to remember doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I can't find complete copies of the Today Show interview you're talking about (I assume its the one with Ann Coulter). I've found parts of it in articles, but I only saw Lauer upset about Coulter's cruel statements, nothing where he says she can't disagree with them. Maybe you can provide that quote.

I said nothing about these examples not existing if I don't remember them. My point is the people claiming they exist aren't providing examples that they exist...especially in the MJ Fox/Limbaugh case.

It wasn't until Friday that I learned that Kerry made a comment about Bush immediately before his comment that everyone is focusing on, making it more clear that his botched joke was intended at Bush. But the 10 or 12 times I've heard the quote, the media only played the part that made it look scandalous.I spent more than an hour over several days looking for a transcript of the original speech. Eventually I found one article (an AP one, luckily) that contained this information. Today I finally saw it on TV for the very first time (The McLaughlin Group which I believe was taped Friday night). So the whole time this story was dominating the news a crucial fact was being omitted by the major media outlets -- just as Bush and McCain and Snow and Rush and Sean and probably every local talk show host in the country were running around telling everybody that Kerry had insulted the troops.

Liberal media bias? No sign of one around here.

I spent more than an hour over several days looking for a transcript of the original speech. Eventually I found one article (an AP one, luckily) that contained this information. Today I finally saw it on TV for the very first time (The McLaughlin Group which I believe was taped Friday night). So the whole time this story was dominating the news a crucial fact was being omitted by the major media outlets

so what were the differences between the "story" being told by the republicans and the "actual" story being told by you?

so what were the differences between the "story" being told by the republicans and the "actual" story being told by you?

The fact that you cannot figure that out illustrates why the Rightwing Propaganda Ministry (a.k.a. the mainstream Media) is so unbelievebaly effective.

The fact that you cannot figure that out illustrates why the Rightwing Propaganda Ministry (a.k.a. the mainstream Media) is so unbelievebaly effective.

the fact that you can bite into something without being able to explain it illustrates that the Liberal media is quite effective itself.

I saw Michael J Fox on the Donnie Durtch show last night. He was jumping around like a Mexican jumping bean. He was not faking how dare Limbaugh open up his big mouth.

Hi loukins...

i think the charge.. or suspicion.. is that Mr. Fox purposely goes off medications, or now takes TOO MUCH medications, in order to exaggerate his symptoms normally.. and then who knows to what end he does on his own.

Unfortunately, in today's (here we go again) "ultra-sensative society"... i have to make disclaimers like such in order to not be labeled a "less than compassionate conservative": I hope Mr. Fox can get additional funding and i am all for Mr. Fox speaking out about his condition.. informing people about the disease, and getting money in order to combat it.

With that being said.. This could also be a "jackass syndrome" type deal... am i calling Micheal J Fox a "jackass"?? No sir.. im talking about the MTV SHOW "Jackass"... you see guys like Johnny Knoxville on there doing stunts, stupid and funny ones at that.. and while you are for sure wondering what the show "Jackass" has to do with Micheal J. Fox .. let me get to the point:

On Jackass.. guys will do a stunt.. lets say they go "surfing" on a sled down a really steep hill. Now, some stunts on that show are clear-cut painful encounters. BUT, other ones.. like the one i'm talking about, sometimes come up lame. In order to compensate for the lameness of the act, i often see these "jackass" members EXAGGERATE the fall, rolling and trying to make something out of a stunt that just wasn't "all that".. so to say. Its OBVIOUS that they are TRYING and PERFORMING in order to make to "save" the lame stunt... but i see right through it.

That is called acting. And the thing about it is.. the reason they DO exaggerate is because they have their "asses" on the line. Its THEIR show.. so the content HAS to be good. They will "save" the stunt by over-acting on the fall.. and even have everyone else laugh even though its not that funny. I mean.. if all the jackass members laugh.. it must be funny right? Both of these instances are overreacting to things and basically just trying to save THEIR ass without being completely truthful to the viewer.

So back to Micheal J... we have heard him say he goes off meds in order to seem more "sympathetic".. and now we hear him say he takes TOO MUCH meds.. i dont doubt Fox suffers from symptoms.. but with all the cloudiness around him now; is he on meds? is he on TOO MUCH meds?... he very well could be, dare i say, exaggerating his symptoms??? i mean, only he and the person who's political commercial he appears on are the ones who have anything to gain from it.. and nothing to lose. So while media-types will blast rush and anyone else who HINTS the notion.. its actually possible that he DID put on a little act.. and while it really doesn't mean that much, it IS still what it is...

I thought Rush advocating taking too many pills...by example no less...

I thought Rush advocating taking too many pills...by example no less...
Yeah, toooooooooo many, not enough, none at all...the stupid shits have no idea about the disease.......they guess and then state it as fact...nice huh!

The real outrage is Bush and the religious nutters and their War on Science!
Parkinson's is terrorism! This was a bi-partisan bill! D Dubya I had a chance to make a pre-empptive strike against this & other terrifying diseases, and he genuflected to the far-right fringe loons when he vetoed it. All the stupid things on which the GOP-infested Congress pisses away our money, with earmarks tripling since '94, and Bush kills this. What, was he for the research before he was against it, just like he was for staying the course before he was agin' it?
Don't tell me about a "decent society" when the Immoral Majority in the House was sweeping John Mark Foley under the rug when these guardians of morals and ethics should have thrown him under the bus.
Sure, a cure probably won't be discovered yesterday. It could take years! But does anyone ever notice how defeatist the far-right becomes whenever it's about something they oppose? Maybe we should stop the War on Terror! It's gonna take too long and cost too much!
I hope no one in the Bush or Limbaugh family gets Fox's ailment. But if they do, and there's a cure derived from stem cells, don't participate!
As for the #3 midday host in Chicago, maybe he should give MJ some of his pills. Whatta class act!

Hi loukins...

i think the charge.. or suspicion.. is that Mr. Fox purposely goes off medications, or now takes TOO MUCH medications, in order to exaggerate his symptoms normally.. and then who knows to what end he does on his own.

Unfortunately, in today's (here we go again) "ultra-sensative society"... i have to make disclaimers like such in order to not be labeled a "less than compassionate conservative": I hope Mr. Fox can get additional funding and i am all for Mr. Fox speaking out about his condition.. informing people about the disease, and getting money in order to combat it.

With that being said.. This could also be a "jackass syndrome" type deal... am i calling Micheal J Fox a "jackass"?? No sir.. im talking about the MTV SHOW "Jackass"... you see guys like Johnny Knoxville on there doing stunts, stupid and funny ones at that.. and while you are for sure wondering what the show "Jackass" has to do with Micheal J. Fox .. let me get to the point:

On Jackass.. guys will do a stunt.. lets say they go "surfing" on a sled down a really steep hill. Now, some stunts on that show are clear-cut painful encounters. BUT, other ones.. like the one i'm talking about, sometimes come up lame. In order to compensate for the lameness of the act, i often see these "jackass" members EXAGGERATE the fall, rolling and trying to make something out of a stunt that just wasn't "all that".. so to say. Its OBVIOUS that they are TRYING and PERFORMING in order to make to "save" the lame stunt... but i see right through it.

That is called acting. And the thing about it is.. the reason they DO exaggerate is because they have their "asses" on the line. Its THEIR show.. so the content HAS to be good. They will "save" the stunt by over-acting on the fall.. and even have everyone else laugh even though its not that funny. I mean.. if all the jackass members laugh.. it must be funny right? Both of these instances are overreacting to things and basically just trying to save THEIR ass without being completely truthful to the viewer.

So back to Micheal J... we have heard him say he goes off meds in order to seem more "sympathetic".. and now we hear him say he takes TOO MUCH meds.. i dont doubt Fox suffers from symptoms.. but with all the cloudiness around him now; is he on meds? is he on TOO MUCH meds?... he very well could be, dare i say, exaggerating his symptoms??? i mean, only he and the person who's political commercial he appears on are the ones who have anything to gain from it.. and nothing to lose. So while media-types will blast rush and anyone else who HINTS the notion.. its actually possible that he DID put on a little act.. and while it really doesn't mean that much, it IS still what it is...



The Jackass example would be valid if the accusation was that Fox was intentionally making himself shake when he actually wasn't shaking. But he was shaking, and no matter what amount of meds he was taking, those symptoms were real symptoms of the disease. So, its not "a little act". A better example would be if the Jackass guy gets hit by a car. Whether its an accident or part of a stunt, the blood and pain are still real.

I have diabetes, and I take good care of it (I try to eat right and take the correct amount of insulin). So, much of the time my blood sugar is in a fairly normal range. But at times my blood sugar gets too high, and it would be wrong and rude for someone to say "every time I've seen him his blood sugar is normal, so now that its high he must have intentionally not taken his insulin". And even if I did intentionally not take it to show somone that my blood sugar actually gets high, that would not be faking since it can get high even when I'm taking the correct amount of insulin. Its a symptom of the diseas, just like shaking is a symptom of Parkinson's and I don't see anything wrong with demonstrating that.

If Fox skipped his meds and said "I'm on my meds and see how bad I shake while on them"...then you'd have a point.