Liberal Media/Micheal J. Fox vs. Rush [Archive]

Decka

10-26-2006, 02:24 PM

F. de Marzipan

10-26-2006, 02:39 PM

hclager

10-26-2006, 02:49 PM

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9171/rushlimbaughoxycontingm8.jpg

The Praetorian

10-26-2006, 03:22 PM

Umm.. I'm still learning the players around here so pardon my ignorance, but you ARE being satirical here, right?
I sure thought it was funny in a rather poignant way, especially considering the Kevin Tillman thread. Satire or not (which, of course, it was), it made me chuckle either way.

Vielen Dank, Decka.

500lbguerilla

10-26-2006, 03:22 PM

Decka - Are you a fucking idiot or a worthless propagandist?

Rush is being denounced for calling Fox a faker. Not for his position.

The Praetorian

10-26-2006, 03:26 PM

Rush is being denounced for calling Fox a faker. Not for his position.
That's one of the funniest things I've ever read.

Vilepagan

10-26-2006, 05:12 PM

I sure thought it was funny in a rather poignant way, especially considering the Kevin Tillman thread. Satire or not (which, of course, it was), it made me chuckle either way.

Vielen Dank, Decka.

I doubt Decka was being satirical, and just how do you think this is related to the Tillman thread?

es347fan

10-26-2006, 06:31 PM

The best thing about Rush is his ability to open mouth & insert foot. He's a ranting buffoon.

Freethinker

10-26-2006, 07:13 PM

The funny thing is... Rush is getting all this free publicity.. plus people are seeing that he's actually right on this one.

Excuse me for asking buuut....

If you are allowed (and you are) to opine that "Rush is right on this one", then why aren't the people you are so roundly criticizing similarly allowed to voice their agreement with Fox's position and disagreement with Rush's position??

Does it make somone a raving "liberal" in your estimation simply because they hold the same poisition in regards to stem cell research that Fox is stating........???

Darth Be'lal

10-26-2006, 07:46 PM

If you are allowed (and you are) to opine that "Rush is right on this one", then why aren't the people you are so roundly criticizing similarly allowed to voice their agreement with Fox's position and disagreement with Rush's position??

Being a regular listener to Rush, I can add a couple of comments.

First off, the thrust of Rush's point, the true kernel of his argument is that Michael J Fox is trying to get people to endorse a bill that, under the guise of supporting embroyonic stem cell research, would make human cloning a constitutional guarantee in Missouri. Human cloning is illegal in a number of States and probably wouldn't fly in Missouri, if the people knew what they were voting for, dammit.

Also, Michael J Fox ASSERTS that Jim Talent is opposed to stem cell research, which is flat out false.

THEN Rush goes and points out that from time to time, Mr Fox will not take his meds when appearing before certain groups, like Congressional Commitees, to show the "true ravages" of Parkinson's disease. Something the drive by media is just absolutely throwing a fit over.

NOW, what the drive by media is doing is stating that Rush is beating up on an individual who is has suffered a terrible disease and leaving out the part that what Mr Fox is doing is misleading the people of Missouri over what they are voting for, dammit.

Rush did nothing wrong, go to his website and see for yourself, dammit.

Vilepagan

10-26-2006, 07:47 PM

Wow.. this one is hilarious....

It seems that the liberal left has annointed Micheal J. Fox as a man of infinate information... well not really, they are just soundly behind his statement of stem cell research should be legal... which he has every right to say.

Ok...so what's hilarious?

The problem isn't with Micheal J. Fox, the problem is with the liberal left, who have backed Fox, seeing that he's a vulnerable sob story..

No...I think they back him because he's right on the issue.

and now that someone has called Fox out and disagreed with him, enter Rush Limbaugh... for some reason the media has said HOW DARE YOU RUSH!... How DARE you say Micheal J. Fox is wrong!! he has PARKINSANS disease!!! you CANT disagree with him!!!!

As 500 pointed out, Rush didn't say he was wrong, he claimed Michael J. Fox was "either off his medication or acting."

It will forever amaze me why the left continues to exploit the diseased or disabled for their own political gain.

You mean like when Jeb Bush jumped on the Terry Schiavo bandwagon to score some political points? Oh yeah, he's not a liberal, so he must not have done that.

The left is HIDING behind Micheal J. Fox. Its interesting how Fox is allowed to come out and make a statement, but because he's diseased you are NOT ALLOWED to disagree with him.. you have to be some deranged, rabid, horrid human being... I flipped through channel after channel last night watching people rip Rush a new one because he merely DISAGREED with what Micheal J. Fox said.

That's just a lie Decka, and all you do when you make stupid remarks like that is ruin what little credibility you have. Rush wasn't denounced for disagreeing with Fox, he was vilified for claiming that Fox was a faker. The irony here is that Rush went on his own show and cried about how he was losing his hearing, and it turns out it was because of his drug abuse. To be honest Decka, if Rush is a man you think has integrity, your opinion of the left doesn't count for much.

Vilepagan

10-26-2006, 07:49 PM

Rush did nothing wrong, go to his website and see for yourself, dammit.

That's freaking hilarious Darth.

Darth Be'lal

10-26-2006, 07:56 PM

That's freaking hilarious Darth.

Gee Vile, I've just stated what Rush's position was in regards to this Michael J Fox argument and I've asked that people visit the Rush Limbaugh site to hear his side of the story, what's so "freaking" hilarious about that?

Vilepagan

10-26-2006, 07:56 PM

Being a regular listener to Rush, I can add a couple of comments.

First off, the thrust of Rush's point, the true kernel of his argument is that Michael J Fox is trying to get people to endorse a bill that, under the guise of supporting embroyonic stem cell research, would make human cloning a constitutional guarantee in Missouri.

Hmm..according to this source, the Missouri referendum in question specifically bans human cloning. Go figure.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/24/politics/main2121910.shtml

Vilepagan

10-26-2006, 07:58 PM

Gee Vile, I've just stated what Rush's position was in regards to this Michael J Fox argument and I've asked that people visit the Rush Limbaugh site to hear his side of the story, what's so "freaking" hilarious about that?

Just the way you phrased it. Reworded it might say "Rush did nothing wrong, just ask him."

Of course his website says he did nothing wrong. Tell me Mr. Regular Listener, what did Rush have to say about his own drug abuse?

Sparky2

10-26-2006, 08:41 PM

Sparky2

10-26-2006, 08:45 PM

The last posting was, of course, a tongue-in-cheek satire.
You know that, right?
(Exits stage-left for a moment to ingest some sort of illegal substance, and then snorts in a manner that simulates dignified indignance)

You know that, right?
:eek: :confused:

Vilepagan

10-26-2006, 08:46 PM

What's wrong with abusing drugs?
Christ, how am I supposed to get through the average Government work day, let alone suffer through all this melodrama and bickering on allforums.net without my drugs???

Can't have a Goddamned thing!
:mad:

I have nothing against recreational drugs...unless I'm out...I do have a problem with sanctimonious blowhards like Limbaugh who abuse drugs and condemn others for it.

Decka

10-26-2006, 08:46 PM

I must have been mis-informed... the shows i was watching were reporting that Rush disagreed with Fox... go figure..

Excuse me for asking buuut....

If you are allowed (and you are) to opine that "Rush is right on this one", then why aren't the people you are so roundly criticizing similarly allowed to voice their agreement with Fox's position and disagreement with Rush's position??

Does it make somone a raving "liberal" in your estimation simply because they hold the same poisition in regards to stem cell research that Fox is stating........???

absolutely not.. i'm just noticing the liberal media outlets back Fox, and make Rush look like a horrid animal of a human being... Rush is no saint, but this is nothing but a smear.

People can think what they want.. but don't lamblast them for it.. especially on the grounds that the person who STARTED the whole thing is diseased... If Fox is going to enter the political grounds spectrum.. he opens himself to be questioned...

To be honest Decka, if Rush is a man you think has integrity, your opinion of the left doesn't count for much.

To be honest right back at you... where in the hell did i say Rush is a "man of integrity"?

Just the way you phrased it. Reworded it might say "Rush did nothing wrong, just ask him."

But liberal folks or people who you happen to agree with are to be taken factual to their word.. no doubt

Of course his website says he did nothing wrong. Tell me Mr. Regular Listener, what did Rush have to say about his own drug abuse?

This kind of stuff coming from the same people who say we can't bring up monica lewinsky?

Sparky2

10-26-2006, 08:47 PM

Just kidding, of course.

I am, after all, a former altar-boy and future Gubernatorial Candidate in my home State of Alabama.

Just making sure you understood that. *snif*
:thumbs:

Vilepagan

10-26-2006, 09:08 PM

I must have been mis-informed... the shows i was watching were reporting that Rush disagreed with Fox... go figure..

They were wrong. He accused Fox of "acting".

absolutely not.. i'm just noticing the liberal media outlets back Fox, and make Rush look like a horrid animal of a human being... Rush is no saint, but this is nothing but a smear.

You're right. Rush smeared Fox because he disagrees with him.

People can think what they want.. but don't lamblast them for it.. especially on the grounds that the person who STARTED the whole thing is diseased... If Fox is going to enter the political grounds spectrum.. he opens himself to be questioned...

Questioned would be fine...falsely accused is a different matter.

To be honest right back at you... where in the hell did i say Rush is a "man of integrity"?

Right here. "The funny thing is... Rush is getting all this free publicity.. plus people are seeing that he's actually right on this one."

But liberal folks or people who you happen to agree with are to be taken factual to their word.. no doubt

No, liberal folks who don't attack someone's character because they disagree with their political views are to be believed over those that do.

This kind of stuff coming from the same people who say we can't bring up monica lewinsky?

What the hell are you talking about?

Darth Be'lal

10-26-2006, 09:17 PM

Hmm..according to this source, the Missouri referendum in question specifically bans human cloning. Go figure.

The process is called somatic cell nuclear transfer and it's a method of cloning, here's a snippet from Wikkipedia:

In SCNT the nucleus, which contains the organism's DNA, of a somatic cell (a body cell other than a sperm or egg cell) is removed and the rest of the cell is discarded. At the same time, the nucleus of an egg cell is removed. The nucleus of the somatic cell is then inserted into the enucleated egg cell. After being inserted into the egg, the somatic cell nucleus is reprogrammed by the host cell. The egg, now containing the nucleus of a somatic cell, is stimulated in such a way that it begins to divide. After many mitotic divisions in culture, this single cell forms a blastocyst (an early stage embryo with about 100 cells) with almost identical DNA to the original organism.

From what I understand, the bill before the Missouri State ballot is an up or down vote on whether or not Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer should be legal or not. Mr. Fox passes this off as stem cell research, which it isn't, it's a method of cloning that would use human eggs. Vile, I followed your link and didn't see that discussed at all, dammit. Maybe I missed something.

Just the way you phrased it. Reworded it might say "Rush did nothing wrong, just ask him."

Rush records every single word of every single program he does, it's possible to hear for yourself the EXACT words he said and, more importantly, their context. IF we're going to discuss Rush's comments about Michael J Fox's political ad, it would be worth getting his side of the story.

Of course, you'd have to become a member of Rush 24/7 to dig into the archives. Not only would you have to put up actual money, Vile, to get into the archives, but if you listen long enough, you just might wind up a conservative. Which would be a fate worse than death for you, I'm thinking, dammit.

Of course his website says he did nothing wrong. Tell me Mr. Regular Listener, what did Rush have to say about his own drug abuse?

*sigh* I did think you'd be above such hit jobs, Vile. I could just say that at least Rush didn't appear on the Ditto Cam, shook his finger at his audience and say "I didn't have sex with those drugs!", er uh I mean "I didn't abuse pain killers."

The biggest thing about my giving Rush a pass on his addiction, and it IS a pass, is that Rush didn't lie about the situation he was in. People DO overlook, forgive, let go, look the other way, ignore, pick any word you wish to Vile, it's what I did. It's something people do. It's one thing to forgive someone or give a second chance, it's quite another to follow someone who's motto is "do as I say, not as I do." THAT is something that people of all political stripes should heed, dammit.

Decka

10-26-2006, 09:30 PM

They were wrong. He accused Fox of "acting".

well.. if Fox DOES purposely NOT take his medicine before trying to raise money for his disease.. he is, in a sense, "acting"... it seems dishonest... i would hope he would tell the people. I have nothing but sympathy for Fox's condition.. and my beef isn't really with fox, its with how he is being used.

You're right. Rush smeared Fox because he disagrees with him.

Oh yea gee gosh you just summed it up...:woohoo:

The media smeared Rush last night, from what i saw, for calling out Fox. Rush might have "smeared" Fox some.. but if the whole non-medication thing is true.. then its not a smear.. its a fact.

Questioned would be fine...falsely accused is a different matter.

got evidence to back up that "falsely accused" position?

Right here. "The funny thing is... Rush is getting all this free publicity.. plus people are seeing that he's actually right on this one."

You know, it IS possible to agree with someone on an issue and not see them as a "man of integrity"... i have agreed with people who i think are hacks and complete assholes before. This is one issue, you are just trying to paint me as some Rush follower, which i am not.

No, liberal folks who don't attack someone's character because they disagree with their political views are to be believed over those that do.

Im sorry, i didnt know liberal folks dont EVERattack other people's character at all... never ever EVER!!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What the hell are you talking about?

Im talking about how you bring up Rush's former drug use out of thin air when the current situation has nothing to do with that.. and then cry bloody murder when other people bring up monica or whatever to denounce Clinton. Its either one way or the other. I dont mind bringing up Rush's drug use, it paints his past.. but for some reason we aren't allowed to bring up Kerry's past, or Clinton's past... when THEY are in the limelight...

Vilepagan

10-26-2006, 09:38 PM

The process is called somatic cell nuclear transfer and it's a method of cloning, here's a snippet from Wikkipedia:

In SCNT the nucleus, which contains the organism's DNA, of a somatic cell (a body cell other than a sperm or egg cell) is removed and the rest of the cell is discarded. At the same time, the nucleus of an egg cell is removed. The nucleus of the somatic cell is then inserted into the enucleated egg cell. After being inserted into the egg, the somatic cell nucleus is reprogrammed by the host cell. The egg, now containing the nucleus of a somatic cell, is stimulated in such a way that it begins to divide. After many mitotic divisions in culture, this single cell forms a blastocyst (an early stage embryo with about 100 cells) with almost identical DNA to the original organism.

From what I understand, the bill before the Missouri State ballot is an up or down vote on whether or not Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer should be legal or not. Mr. Fox passes this off as stem cell research, which it isn't, it's a method of cloning that would use human eggs. Vile, I followed your link and didn't see that discussed at all, dammit. Maybe I missed something.

Perhaps you did. You do seem to have missed this "snippet" from the wiki article you linked to:

This technique is currently the basis for cloning animals, such as the famous Dolly the sheep,[8] and could theoretically be used to clone humans. Although most researchers agree that cloning a human that will develop to term is not possible for the foreseeable future using this technique.

Damn, they must not want to use this for stem cell research, obviously these leftist liberals want to clone humans!

Rush records every single word of every single program he does, it's possible to hear for yourself the EXACT words he said and, more importantly, their context. IF we're going to discuss Rush's comments about Michael J Fox's political ad, it would be worth getting his side of the story.

Do you honestly believe Mr. Limbaugh would post anything on his website that would make him look bad?

Of course, you'd have to become a member of Rush 24/7 to dig into the archives. Not only would you have to put up actual money, Vile, to get into the archives, but if you listen long enough, you just might wind up a conservative. Which would be a fate worse than death for you, I'm thinking, dammit.

So...because Rush charges to read his drivel it must be worth something?

*sigh* I did think you'd be above such hit jobs, Vile. I could just say that at least Rush didn't appear on the Ditto Cam, shook his finger at his audience and say "I didn't have sex with those drugs!", er uh I mean "I didn't abuse pain killers."

Aww..since you can't deny what he did I must be doing a "hit job"...how cute.

The biggest thing about my giving Rush a pass on his addiction, and it IS a pass, is that Rush didn't lie about the situation he was in. People DO overlook, forgive, let go, look the other way, ignore, pick any word you wish to Vile, it's what I did. It's something people do. It's one thing to forgive someone or give a second chance, it's quite another to follow someone who's motto is "do as I say, not as I do." THAT is something that people of all political stripes should heed, dammit.

See Darth, I wasn't attacking him for his addiction..but of course you knew that..I attacked him for attempting to garner sympathy from his audience for his hearing loss when it's very likely he knew the cause of it...but if you wish to defend his lying about his addiction please do.

Vilepagan

10-26-2006, 09:53 PM

well.. if Fox DOES purposely NOT take his medicine before trying to raise money for his disease.. he is, in a sense, "acting"... it seems dishonest... i would hope he would tell the people. I have nothing but sympathy for Fox's condition.. and my beef isn't really with fox, its with how he is being used.

I would agree, but the fact is that neither you, or Rush, have any knowledge that Fox deliberately did this...yet the accusation is still out there.

The media smeared Rush last night, from what i saw, for calling out Fox. Rush might have "smeared" Fox some.. but if the whole non-medication thing is true.. then its not a smear.. its a fact.

Pretty big "if" Decka...got any evidence?

got evidence to back up that "falsely accused" position?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/24/politics/main2121910.shtml

You know, it IS possible to agree with someone on an issue and not see them as a "man of integrity"... i have agreed with people who i think are hacks and complete assholes before. This is one issue, you are just trying to paint me as some Rush follower, which i am not.

You're the one who started this thread and said "Rush was right on this one".

Im sorry, i didnt know liberal folks dont EVERattack other people's character at all... never ever EVER!!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You know, if you roll your eyes like that they might stay that way...please don't put words in my mouth and pretend that I said them...it makes you look desperate.

Im talking about how you bring up Rush's former drug use out of thin air when the current situation has nothing to do with that..

Of course it does. It calls Limbaugh's credibility into question, (as if he actually has any). The man lied on the air about his own drug abuse. He used it to gain sympathy from his audience after many times saying that all drug abusers should go to jail. He's nothing but a liar and a fraud, and how anyone can believe what he has to say is beyond me.

dnamertz

10-26-2006, 09:55 PM

Wow.. this one is hilarious....

It seems that the liberal left has annointed Micheal J. Fox as a man of infinate information... well not really, they are just soundly behind his statement of stem cell research should be legal... which he has every right to say.

Liberal media/Michael J Fox vs Rush??? Poor Rush, too bad he doesn't have some forum in this liberal media where he can express his point of view. Looks like its MJ Fox vs conservative celebrities/Rush. There is a political ad in Missouri taking the oppossing view on this ballot measure done by Jim Kevisel, Patricia Heaton, St.Louis pitcher Jeff Suppan, and NFL QB Kurt Warner. I'll await your condemnation of them because they are voicing thier political views instead of shutting up and acting or playing ball...I know how you hate when celebrities do that.

The problem isn't with Micheal J. Fox, the problem is with the liberal left, who have backed Fox...It will forever amaze me why the left continues to exploit the diseased or disabled for their own political gain. The left is HIDING behind Micheal J. Fox.

What??? What evidence do you have of this? Did the left kidnap Fox and make him do this? News flash...he has parkinsons. He is doing this on his own because the issue is important too him.

seeing that he's a vulnerable sob story.. and now that someone has called Fox out and disagreed with him, enter Rush Limbaugh... for some reason the media has said HOW DARE YOU RUSH!... How DARE you say Micheal J. Fox is wrong!! he has PARKINSANS disease!!! you CANT disagree with him!!!!

Its interesting how Fox is allowed to come out and make a statement, but because he's diseased you are NOT ALLOWED to disagree with him.. you have to be some deranged, rabid, horrid human being... I flipped through channel after channel last night watching people rip Rush a new one because he merely DISAGREED with what Micheal J. Fox said.

Its funny how you spin this. I seriously doubt you saw any program that ripped Fox for "merely DISAGREEING with what Micheal J. Fox said". Every one I saw that ripped him did it because of what he said which was that he accused him of faking, and the Rush actually flailled around over-exaggerating how Fox looked, mocking him in my opinion. You guys tried this same tactic when Ann Coulter insulted those 9-11 widows. She says something horrible, as Rush did, and when people call them out on it, you say "they're just disagreeing"...WRONG!!! Learn the difference between "disagreeing" and "insulting".

sedan

10-26-2006, 09:55 PM

First off, the thrust of Rush's point, the true kernel of his argument is that Michael J Fox is trying to get people to endorse a bill that, under the guise of supporting embroyonic stem cell research, would make human cloning a constitutional guarantee in Missouri. Human cloning is illegal in a number of States and probably wouldn't fly in Missouri, if the people knew what they were voting for, dammit.Even if that were 'the thrust of Rush's point' it would be wrong. I refer you to the proposed amendment, in particular Section 38(d) 2 (1) which states: No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp
Also, Michael J Fox ASSERTS that Jim Talent is opposed to stem cell research, which is flat out false.He asserts no such thing. Here's the ad:

As you might know, I care deeply about stem cell research. In Missouri, you can elect Claire McCaskill, who shares my hope for cures. Unfortunately, Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research. Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us the chance for hope. They say all politics is local, but that's not always the case. What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans, Americans like me.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610240001

Talent opposes embryonic stem cell research and federal funding for such research, both of which are 'expansions' of existing research. Fox's assertion is true, yours is false.THEN Rush goes and points out that from time to time, Mr Fox will not take his meds when appearing before certain groups, like Congressional Commitees, to show the "true ravages" of Parkinson's disease. Something the drive by media is just absolutely throwing a fit over.I have no idea what you're talking about here. Who in the media is upset about Rush saying this?NOW, what the drive by media is doing is stating that Rush is beating up on an individual who is has suffered a terrible disease and leaving out the part that what Mr Fox is doing is misleading the people of Missouri over what they are voting for, dammit.So far it's you and Rush who are doing the misleading. Everything Fox said is true.Rush did nothing wrong, go to his website and see for yourself, dammit.Here's what Rush did wrong:

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. This is the only time I have ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has. I know he's got it and he's raising money for it, but when I've seen him in public, I've never seen him betray any of the symptoms. But this commercial, he -- he's just all over the place. He can barely control himself. He can control himself enough to stay in the frame of the picture, and he can control himself enough to keep his eyes right on the lens, the teleprompter. But his head and shoulders are moving all over the place, and he is acting like his disease is deteriorating because Jim Talent opposes research that would help him, Michael J. Fox, get cured.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610240001

He accused Fox of faking his symptoms. Funny how you forgot to mention that part.

dnamertz

10-26-2006, 09:57 PM

People can think what they want.. but don't lamblast them for it..

Tell that to the Dixie Chicks.

Brooks

10-26-2006, 11:24 PM

Hmm..according to this source, the Missouri referendum in question specifically bans human cloning. Go figure.This is from a St. Louis newspaper: "The measure would negate the state Legislature's ability to ban certain forms of controversial research, such as those involving cloning technology."
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/6DE2C1497FD442C0862572000069CA79?OpenDocument

Brooks

10-26-2006, 11:36 PM

They were wrong. He accused Fox of "acting". I was listening to Rush that day. The first thing he said was that MJF was acting or pretending or something. It was a terrible thing to say.
Before he even took a call on it, after a commercial I believe, he altered it somewhat by saying he was either acting or came off his medicine.
Almost all media reports have ignored this. It's extremely relevant since MJF has stated in interviews that he does come off his medicine when he wants to make a point.
If the media is so convinced of Rush's guilt in this, why aren't they telling the whole story?

The other day Rush played a clip of Diane Sawyer asking how Rush could be so cruel as to suggest that MJF would come off his medicine for dramatic purposes.
Rush then played a clip of Ms. Sawyer interviewing MJF, in which he admits that he does this. Give me a break!

What Rush has done wrong is to violate Coulter's Law by criticizing a victim voicing a left wing point-of-view.

And what's ignored in this is the fact that it was a cheap attack ad of questionable veracity.

Decka

10-27-2006, 12:01 AM

I would agree, but the fact is that neither you, or Rush, have any knowledge that Fox deliberately did this...yet the accusation is still out there.

Pretty big "if" Decka...got any evidence?

Like Brooks said... and i had heard about it but havn't seen it... Fox has admitted to going off his meds to further portray his stance... in other words, he's acting worse off than he really is for sympathy... all i can hope is that he tells people this before trying to bait people into buying his "act". While parkinsans needs research, i dont think we need Micheal J Fox lying and misrepresenting in order to do so.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/24/politics/main2121910.shtml

i guess Fox's own words admitting he DOES go off his meds would trump this vague piece.

You're the one who started this thread and said "Rush was right on this one".

I can say Rush is right on one occasion and still not be his #1 fan and think he is a "man of integrity"... face it you can't paint me how you want, just give up.

You know, if you roll your eyes like that they might stay that way...please don't put words in my mouth and pretend that I said them...it makes you look desperate.

I never said u did.. i was merely being sarcastic because both sides do what you said.. and its retarded that you would only point out one side doing it.

Of course it does. It calls Limbaugh's credibility into question, (as if he actually has any). The man lied on the air about his own drug abuse. He used it to gain sympathy from his audience after many times saying that all drug abusers should go to jail. He's nothing but a liar and a fraud, and how anyone can believe what he has to say is beyond me.

well then.. Clinton must be INCAPABLE of telling ANY TRUTH. I guess his blow up on Fox news was ALL LIES.. i mean.. he DID lie to us about monica lewinsky.. so is he a "liar and a fraud" as well Vilepagan??? based on how you judged Rush, i would think you'd call him the same... im eagerly awaiting this one.

dnamertz

10-27-2006, 12:39 AM

well.. if Fox DOES purposely NOT take his medicine before trying to raise money for his disease.. he is, in a sense, "acting"... it seems dishonest... i would hope he would tell the people.

First of all, he has "told the people". Despite Brook's claim that the media won't mention that Fox sometimes doesn't take his medication, the media actually has mentioned that in most reports I've seen. In fact, Fox has mentioned on multiple occassions that he sometimes does not take his medication before public appearancs and he often doesn't take it while he's at home. But the fact that he does this is in no way "acting" or "dishonest".

"Acting" would be if he didn't have the disease, or wasn't experiencing any symptoms, but was shaking anyway. All Fox is doing is showing what the results of the disease are, and he experiences these syptoms when he's not on his meds, and also when he is on them. He has the disease, and this intense shaking is a result of the disease...explain how that is "dishonest". Rush can't even get his criticisms straight. He's not just claiming Fox of skipping his meds to overexaggerate the symptoms, but he's accusing him of making up the symptoms when he says "he can control himself enough to stay in the frame of the picture, and he can control himself enough to keep his eyes right on the lens, the teleprompter. But his head and shoulders are moving all over the place,". That implies that Fox actually had control of "himself" and "his eyes", but if head and shoulders "are all over the place" it must be an act.

Darth Be'lal

10-27-2006, 12:39 AM

Oh geez, back to work for me.........

Vile first.

Damn, they must not want to use this for stem cell research, obviously these leftist liberals want to clone humans!

I left out the part where most research scientists agree that using cloning methods that were successful for sheep probably wouldn't be successful in humans. The point being that there is opposition to use cloning techniques on fertilized human cells.

Do you honestly believe Mr. Limbaugh would post anything on his website that would make him look bad?

I didn't say that Rush would put stuff on his website that would make him look bad, I said that Rush records every single word he says and one is free to parse that to their heart's content. In this case, when Rush admitted he had a problem with drugs, his full "confession" was on the website for all to hear over and over and over, dammit.

So...because Rush charges to read his drivel it must be worth something?

That's a matter of opinion. What one sees as "drivel" another will see as validating their beliefs. More to the point, Rush has an audience of twenty million, Rush is broadcast on some 500 radio stations and makes some $50,000 an hour peddling his "drivel." So there are quite a few who thinks Rush's opinions are worth paying for, dammit. Dismiss him all you want, Vile, but Rush IS a powerful voice of the Conservative movement, and a thorn in the side of liberals everywhere. Speaking of drivel, Air America is going bankcrupt. You can have all the publicity and talent in the world, but in a free market society, if you can't attract an audience, you don't succeed, dammit.

Aww..since you can't deny what he did I must be doing a "hit job"...how cute.

You're the one who brought up Rush's past addiction to drugs, which clearly wasn't what the discussion of this thread was about. This thread is about about Rush's comments about some Michael J Fox commericals, not about whether or not Rush did drugs. If that wasn't about a "hit job" on Rush then what was it?

See Darth, I wasn't attacking him for his addiction..but of course you knew that..I attacked him for attempting to garner sympathy from his audience for his hearing loss when it's very likely he knew the cause of it...but if you wish to defend his lying about his addiction please do.

When did Rush lie about his addiction?

On to Sedan, dammit.

Even if that were 'the thrust of Rush's point' it would be wrong. I refer you to the proposed amendment, in particular Section 38(d) 2 (1) which states:

Yes, Sedan, I read the amendment and it does state that human cloning or attempted human cloning is illegal. BUT it the Amendment goes and defines human cloning or attempted human cloning as implanting a cloned fertilized human egg into a uterous, here's the quote...

(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

One could USE all the cloning techiques on human eggs that they wished to, you just can't plant them into a womb. THIS is what's got the pro-lifer's panties all in a bunch. Here's a quote from a Robert Novak article;

The problem is that the proposal so narrowly defines cloning as to open the door in Missouri to any cloning procedure that takes place outside the womb. If this is approved by a state that historically is a barometer of national trends and is considered a pro-life stronghold, it will be a national model for breaking popular resistance to what the scientists and biotech companies want.

As you might know, I care deeply about stem cell research. In Missouri, you can elect Claire McCaskill, who shares my hope for cures. Unfortunately, Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research. Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us the chance for hope. They say all politics is local, but that's not always the case. What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans, Americans like me.

You did read the part of my post that Michael J Fox ASSERTS Jim Talent opposes stem cell research. The key word is ASSERT, dammit.

He accused Fox of faking his symptoms. Funny how you forgot to mention that part.

Not faking, exaggerating. Seeing as how you have taking a liking to digging up Rush Limbaugh quotes, here's one for you;

Now, in terms of Michael J. Fox, I did some research today, and I found his book that was published. It's "Lucky Man," 2002, but he admits in the book that before Senate subcommittee on appropriations I think in 1999, September of 1999, he did not take his medication for the purposes of having the ravages and the horrors of Parkinson's disease illustrated, which was what he has done in the commercials that are running for Claire McCaskill and Jim Talent.

If Mike goes off his medication before he goes before a Senate subcommittee to show the horrors of Parkinson's, what's to say he didn't do the same thing for the two commericals he ran?

Dammit.

http://chatterboxchronicles.blogspot.com/2006/10/vote-no-on-missouris-amendment-2.html

dnamertz

10-27-2006, 12:49 AM

Like Brooks said... and i had heard about it but havn't seen it... Fox has admitted to going off his meds to further portray his stance... in other words, he's acting worse off than he really is for sympathy... all i can hope is that he tells people this before trying to bait people into buying his "act". While parkinsans needs research, i dont think we need Micheal J Fox lying and misrepresenting in order to do so.

Let me get this straight, you say Fox has admitted to intentionally going off his meds, yet "you hope that he tells people this"??? Sounds like he already has.

You say "he's acting worse off than he really is"...that IS how he really is with the disease. If a cancer patient appeared without a wig would you criticize them since "thats not how they really are"?

If Fox had taken his meds and appeared more in control would you be calling for him to tells everyone that he took his meds that day?

dnamertz

10-27-2006, 12:53 AM

If Mike goes off his medication before he goes before a Senate subcommittee to show the horrors of Parkinson's, what's to say he didn't do the same thing for the two commericals he ran?

Dammit.

I think Fox probably did, but no one has said what is wrong with "showing the horrors of Parkinson's".

If you want to show the horrors of lung cancer, you show a blackened lung.

500lbguerilla

10-27-2006, 02:34 AM

I must have been mis-informed... the shows i was watching were reporting that Rush disagreed with Fox... go figure.. Well then maybe you should try actually watching the clip you talking about instead of just repeating and assuming partisan talking points. Fucking christ man..I don't give a fuck what your third hand opinion or someone talking heads opinion is. I want your opinion but only if your willing to put as much effort into being informed as you are into writing it...

Darth - post a link confirming Fox goes off his meds first. Then I'll respond by saying you really think people like being drugged up all day? People want a cure, not a band aid. What about those who can't afford meds?

BTW aince when do people think its OK to fuck with someone elses health over a religious issue? To declare that dead fetusi be trashed instead of used to cure shitty diseases is BULLSHIT.

Worthless peices of shit like Rush limbaugh are EXPLOITING Fox and the issue to try and grab voters/listeners.

This is also a classic example of BULLSHIT mudslinging. Attack the messenger, not the messege. That way people don't even think about the issue. What an asshole. I also like how he say people are exploiting Fox. Yeah trying to get research to cure a disease is exlpoiting its victims...

Brooks

10-27-2006, 03:35 AM

1. Worthless peices of shit like Rush limbaugh are EXPLOITING Fox and the issue to try and grab voters/listeners.
Attack the messenger, not the messege. That way people don't even think about the issue.
2. Yeah trying to get research to cure a disease is exlpoiting its victims...1. A lot of Rush's commentary was about the validity of the commercial, Talent's record on the issue, etc. Very little of it was about MJF. Unfortunately if you didn't hear the show, you have to rely on the filtered version from Katie Couric or Diane Sawyer.

2. No, this is about trying to get this particular candidate elected. I wonder how many times she and MJ have appeard together in the past to try to raise funds and awareness about Parkinson's Disease.

Vilepagan

10-27-2006, 06:26 AM

This is from a St. Louis newspaper: "The measure would negate the state Legislature's ability to ban certain forms of controversial research, such as those involving cloning technology."
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/6DE2C1497FD442C0862572000069CA79?OpenDocument

I don't know what the paper is referring to when it says "cloning technology", but if you read the text of the amendment it clearly bans "human cloning".

Vilepagan

10-27-2006, 06:35 AM

I was listening to Rush that day. The first thing he said was that MJF was acting or pretending or something. It was a terrible thing to say.

Ok. We agree it was a terible thing to say.

Before he even took a call on it, after a commercial I believe, he altered it somewhat by saying he was either acting or came off his medicine.

Maybe he realized he'd taken a cheap shot at Fox.

Almost all media reports have ignored this. It's extremely relevant since MJF has stated in interviews that he does come off his medicine when he wants to make a point.
If the media is so convinced of Rush's guilt in this, why aren't they telling the whole story?

He said what he said, and even you thought it was terrible thing to say. I don't think Rush is "guilty" of anything more than being an asshole.

What Rush has done wrong is to violate Coulter's Law by criticizing a victim voicing a left wing point-of-view.

What Rush did wrong was make fun of someone with a terrible disease strictly for the purpose of scoring a political point.

And what's ignored in this is the fact that it was a cheap attack ad of questionable veracity.

"Cheap" is a subjective term, but if you think the ad was a cheap shot then I assume you think Rush's comment was too. As to the accuracy of the ad, I suppose that's a debateable point.

The Praetorian

10-27-2006, 11:24 AM

Pretty big "if" Decka...got any evidence?
Yeah...

Him shaking harder than he does on his goddamned shows.

es347fan

10-27-2006, 11:47 AM

Yeah...

Him shaking harder than he does on his goddamned shows.

Parkinsons is not a constant condition in that one gets a set of symptoms & they remain the same for 20 years. There are good and bad days. The condition worsens. Listen to the message with your eyes closed if need be.

The Praetorian

10-27-2006, 12:28 PM

Actually, I'm all for stem cell research. Hell, I hope we clone animals, splice goats with dogs, and blow the whole world away with our technology. I wouldn't mind it in the slightest if you could pay for a service that takes your reproductive cells and manipulates the genome structure to weed out fatness, stupidity, alcoholism, Alzheimer’s, brown eyes, dark hair, etc., etc.

I personally believe we should be doing those things RIGHT NOW!

Freethinker

10-27-2006, 12:49 PM

Rush IS a powerful voice of the Conservative movement

He most certainly is.

In fact, i'd say Mr Limbaugh is the very epitome of Conservative ideology and Conservative thinking.

(I invite all who recognize that to take it for what it's worth.)

Brooks

10-27-2006, 05:57 PM

1. Ok. We agree it was a terible thing to say. Maybe he realized he'd taken a cheap shot at Fox.
2. What Rush did wrong was make fun of someone with a terrible disease strictly for the purpose of scoring a political point.
1. Yes. But before the controversy started he amended what he had originally said. Now once the rush hit the fan, shouldn't the media have focused on his corrected statement? Well they didn't.

2. How did he make fun of him?

Vilepagan

10-27-2006, 06:24 PM

1. Yes. But before the controversy started he amended what he had originally said. Now once the rush hit the fan, shouldn't the media have focused on his corrected statement? Well they didn't.

Perhaps they should have if Limbaugh apologized and retracted his original statement. Did he?

2. How did he make fun of him?

By imitating his tremors on the video broadcast of his show.

es347fan

10-27-2006, 07:09 PM

I've never given Rush Limbaugh any more than 15 minutes of my time at any one setting, and virtually none in the past 10 years. Regardless of my being a registered Republican for many moons, that lard ass does not speak to my beliefs. While I still subscribe to conservative type platforms, I remain fully independent and open to listening to anyone but a klinton neophyte / clone.

Brooks

10-27-2006, 07:11 PM

Perhaps they should have if Limbaugh apologized and retracted his original statement. Did he? On another thread you rightfully got annoyed when someone talked about "liberal" behavior, but here's a perfect example.

The "apology" would make no material difference in the story, but it means so much some people. But it means nothing.
Does the NY Times apologize with their corrections/retractions?

Vilepagan

10-27-2006, 07:22 PM

On another thread you rightfully got annoyed when someone talked about "liberal" behavior, but here's a perfect example.

The "apology" would make no material difference in the story, but it means so much some people. But it means nothing.
Does the NY Times apologize with their corrections/retractions?

I really have no idea what you're getting at here Brooks. We don't apologize in order to make a "material difference", we apologize as an act of atonement for committing some transgression, or in recognition that we have uneccessarily hurt another. As to the NYT, I would have to see the correction/retraction to judge for myself if it was "apologetic" or not.

Freethinker

10-27-2006, 07:34 PM

Does the NY Times apologize with their corrections/retractions?

Sometimes.

They did later come back and apologize for having helped the Bush Administration disseminate the huge amount of false information that was being put forward by that Administration that helped convince the unknowing populace into supporting the unwarranted and ill-advised Iraq war.

sedan

10-27-2006, 08:01 PM

Oh geez, back to work for me.........Yes, a Rush apologist's work is never done.One could USE all the cloning techiques on human eggs that they wished to, you just can't plant them into a womb. THIS is what's got the pro-lifer's panties all in a bunch.You mean these cloning techniques could be used on cells that will be discarded anyway? And that the cells by law can never be allowed to develop into a fetus? Oh noes!! This will mean the end of us all!

Seriously Darth, your original claim was that the amendment "would make human cloning a constitutional guarantee in Missouri." There's a huge difference between scientists using cloning techniques on individual human cells and scientists cloning humans. The amendment allows the former while making the latter illegal. The simple fact is that under it's provisions no humans can be cloned, not even a human fetus. Your claim, therefore, is false.You did read the part of my post that Michael J Fox ASSERTS Jim Talent opposes stem cell research. The key word is ASSERT, dammit.I'd think you were joking if I didn't know better. What Fox correctly ASSERTS is that Talent opposes the EXPANSION of stem cell research. When you remove the word 'EXPANSION' from his sentence you completely distort his meaning. But hey, don't let that stop you. It never stops your lying blowhard hero, that's for sure.Not faking, exaggerating."And it's purely an act," continued Rush. Quibble over semantics all you like, it's clear what he meant. He meant that Fox was faking.Seeing as how you have taking a liking to digging up Rush Limbaugh quotes, here's one for you;

Now, in terms of Michael J. Fox, I did some research today, and I found his book that was published. It's "Lucky Man," 2002, but he admits in the book that before Senate subcommittee on appropriations I think in 1999, September of 1999, he did not take his medication for the purposes of having the ravages and the horrors of Parkinson's disease illustrated, which was what he has done in the commercials that are running for Claire McCaskill and Jim Talent.

If Mike goes off his medication before he goes before a Senate subcommittee to show the horrors of Parkinson's, what's to say he didn't do the same thing for the two commericals he ran?Why shouldn't he? He's trying to make a point through a visual medium, a picture says a thousand words and all that. As long as he wasn't faking his symptoms what's the problem? The truth??

Freethinker

10-27-2006, 08:22 PM

You did read the part of my post that Michael J Fox ASSERTS Jim Talent opposes stem cell research.

I read it.

It was a lie.

You've been busted.

And so has your porcine demigod, El Rushbo.

Brooks

10-27-2006, 09:37 PM

I really have no idea what you're getting at here Brooks. We don't apologize in order to make a "material difference", we apologize as an act of atonement 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.

Brooks

10-27-2006, 09:39 PM

They did later come back and apologize for having helped the Bush Administration disseminate the huge amount of false information....Now let's wait for the first round of apologies for Fitzgerald's BS about the Plame case.
But I digress.

Vilepagan

10-27-2006, 09:51 PM

And so has your porcine demigod, El Rushbo.

I like the "porcine demigod" line.

I actually listened to his show today at work, and he discussed the Fox flap a bit. He quibbled a lot, and claimed that Fox's commercial was false of course, and he mentioned that he would never make fun of someone with a terrible disease because he understands what it's like to have a medical condition that's debilitating to a degree. He was, of course, referring to his much publicized hearing loss, and he made a point to say that he doesn't whine or complain about it because it's "just one of those things". What he failed to mention, naturally, was the fact that it's very likely his drug addiction is the cause of his hearing loss. I wonder why he doesn't mention that?

Darth Be'lal

10-27-2006, 10:55 PM

'kay sedan, I just know your DYING to hear from me, dammit.

Yes, a Rush apologist's work is never done.

I see myself more of a defender of Rush rather than an apologist.

You mean these cloning techniques could be used on cells that will be discarded anyway? And that the cells by law can never be allowed to develop into a fetus? Oh noes!! This will mean the end of us all!

Seriously Darth, your original claim was that the amendment "would make human cloning a constitutional guarantee in Missouri." There's a huge difference between scientists using cloning techniques on individual human cells and scientists cloning humans. The amendment allows the former while making the latter illegal. The simple fact is that under it's provisions no humans can be cloned, not even a human fetus. Your claim, therefore, is false.

Think about the implications. That Missouri Amendment merely defines cloning as putting a manipulated human egg in a womb. A scientist can do anything you want to a potential human life, they just can't plant it in a uterus. Scientists have been treading very, very carefully around this particular field for good reason as ethical questions do pop up about manipulating what can be called a potential human being and when a person can be considered a person and entitled to rights. That Ballot Measure states right up front that it's illegal to "clone" humans then buries that little idea that one is free to use any cloning technique possible with human eggs that people can come up with, just don't plant it in a fetus. It's confusing to say the least and possibly disingenuous. The least that needs to be done is to make it clear what WILL be allowed if that ballot measure is passed. And don't tell me it's already in the ballot, it's legal gobbledegook that one has to pick over with a fine tooth comb to figure what's going on, dammit.

I'd think you were joking if I didn't know better. What Fox correctly ASSERTS is that Talent opposes the EXPANSION of stem cell research. When you remove the word 'EXPANSION' from his sentence you completely distort his meaning. But hey, don't let that stop you. It never stops your lying blowhard hero, that's for sure.

Nope, do all the research you want, you just can't use Federal dollars to do so. THAT goes far beyond the State of Missouri and should be a national debate over the issue of using federal monies, which that STATE ballot measure calls for, to fund research using embryonic stem cells for research. I think it's better and more honest to put this issue before the nation than try to sneak it through a state ballot initiative, dammit.

"And it's purely an act," continued Rush. Quibble over semantics all you like, it's clear what he meant. He meant that Fox was faking.

Your snippet is almost purely out of context. Rush STATED that he had never seen MJF move like that before these commericals, he's also read that MJF went off his meds before he went to before a congressional committee. I'd not call it lying or quibbling, I'd call it suspicion, dammit. Read back to the quote you posted here in this thread earlier. Rush WAS saying that he had never seen MJF do that before.

Why shouldn't he? He's trying to make a point through a visual medium, a picture says a thousand words and all that. As long as he wasn't faking his symptoms what's the problem? The truth??

If there's a clear difference between the severity of MJFs symptons when he is off his medication and when he is medicated, and if he came before Congress without taking his meds and not telling the committee he had not taking those meds to show the full affects of Parkinson's, one can state that he WAS being disingenuous because he's exagerating the symptoms he has to live with. It's best if one is competely above board when discussing sensitive issues like Parkinson's before Congress, that way no one can question one's integrity, dammit.

dnamertz

10-28-2006, 12:57 AM

If there's a clear difference between the severity of MJFs symptons when he is off his medication and when he is medicated, and if he came before Congress without taking his meds and not telling the committee he had not taking those meds to show the full affects of Parkinson's, one can state that he WAS being disingenuous because he's exagerating the symptoms he has to live with.

Its NOT disingenuous!!! Should he have to wear a sign saying if he's on his medications or not? Fox has stated that he often is off his medications while at home, so in fact these "exagerated" symptoms ARE what he has to live with. If Fox had appeared before Congress while on his medication you wouldn't be saying he was disingenuous because he's covering up the symptoms, and I know you wouldn't be whining that he didn't disclose that he was medicated. What is it about the affects of Parkinson's that you don't want people to know about?

If Fox had appeared on this ad while on his medication, all the people who aren't informed or familiar about Parkinson's would have said "he looks fairly normal" or "he only shakes a little, what the big deal?". There is nothing wrong with informing them about what the disease does, and the best way is to show them. Unless you have evidence that Fox skipped his meds but claims he took them, then your calling him disingenuous is just you embarrassing yourself.

Again, I'll use the example of a cancer patient. If someone is going thru chemotherapy and lost their hair, they have a "fix" for that (a wig), just like Fox has a "fix" for his symptoms (meds, with some side-effects). If this cancer patient made an anti-smoking ad and appeared without the wig, it would not be disingenuous for her to show how she looks without the "fix". Only a fool would say "this person doesn't really have to live with being bald, she can wear a wig to solve that".

Zer0k

10-28-2006, 05:00 AM

just to give people a different view on it im going to ask the following questions

1 how much do the medications to keep symptoms of Parkinsons cost

2 how much of those medications are covered by your average "medical insurance provider" (ie medicare)

3 If the average person with Parkinsons is unable to ubtain said medication is Fox's not taking them a potrail (i suck at spelling) of what the "average" person with parkinsons look like

personly i agree with stem cell reaserch and mild cloning...i dont want to even start dealing with cloning whole humans...but the cloning of parts of humans that are most needed for transplantation would be a great thing.. but hey...its my opinion :-)

Decka

10-28-2006, 10:36 AM

dnamertz

10-28-2006, 11:16 AM

I have no problem with Fox going off his meds if people KNOW he's off his meds and its just to show what he's like naturally...

BUT

where is the line??? How fucked up is it that Fox even HAS to go off his meds just to get people to give money???
Does seeing him shake make the disease somehow "worse"???

To those who don't know what the disease does, then it gives them a better idea.

Does seeing babies that used to be embryonic stem cells make embryonic stem-cell research "worse"??? How fucked up is it that President Bush HAS to go out of his way to bring in a bunch of these babies to give a speech against embryonic stem-cell research with them behind him??? Are you pissed that Bush didn't tell people that he brought them him for the sole purpose of attaining more sympathy? He could have just told us the cells become babies.

If Fox is diseased, and people know it, shouldnt that be enough?

If these stem cells can become babies, and people know it, shouldn't that be enough? No, both Bush and Fox went out of their way to create some sympathy for their side, and I have no problem with it.

sedan

10-28-2006, 01:15 PM

Think about the implications. That Missouri Amendment merely defines cloning as putting a manipulated human egg in a womb. A scientist can do anything you want to a potential human life, they just can't plant it in a uterus.They might even (gasp!) plant it in a trash bin.Scientists have been treading very, very carefully around this particular field for good reason as ethical questions do pop up about manipulating what can be called a potential human being and when a person can be considered a person and entitled to rights.That's why the amendment bans human cloning.That Ballot Measure states right up front that it's illegal to "clone" humans then buries that little idea that one is free to use any cloning technique possible with human eggs that people can come up with, just don't plant it in a fetus. It's confusing to say the least and possibly disingenuous. The least that needs to be done is to make it clear what WILL be allowed if that ballot measure is passed. And don't tell me it's already in the ballot, it's legal gobbledegook that one has to pick over with a fine tooth comb to figure what's going on, dammit.If you want to oppose the amendment because you find it confusing, that's fine. Just don't claim it constitutionally guarantees a right to human cloning when in fact it specifically and exactly does the opposite.Nope, do all the research you want, you just can't use Federal dollars to do so.Federal funding would greatly expand embryonic stem cell research. Talent opposes this expansion. The use of cloning techniques will also expand stem cell research. Talent also opposes this expansion. What this means is that Talent opposes the expansion of stem cell research which is exactly what Fox said. You accused Fox of making a false assertion. He didn't. It is your accusation that has been proven false.THAT goes far beyond the State of Missouri and should be a national debate over the issue of using federal monies, which that STATE ballot measure calls for, to fund research using embryonic stem cells for research. I think it's better and more honest to put this issue before the nation than try to sneak it through a state ballot initiative, dammit.I'm not sure what you're saying here, Darth. Are you suggesting that if the Missouri amendment passes federal funds will then be used for embryonic stem cell research? It doesn't work that way -- states can't just take federal money and use it however they like. They are free, however, to spend their own money as they like. The voters of California, for example, recently OK'd some $10 billion to be spent on embryonic stem cell research in their state. Is this an area where you think state's rights should be curtailed? Does your reasoning extend to the recent South Dakota abortion legislation? It seems odd to hear a conservative argue the primacy of the federal government in these matters.

As to whether this should be a national debate, it already is (in case you haven't noticed). The Senate passed funding for embryonic stem cell research by a vote of 63-27 (Talent voted 'nay'). President Bush vetoed the bill (to date the only veto of his entire tenure in office).

As for the 'sneaky' ballot initiative I have to ask: what the hell are you talking about? This is as 'sneaky' as a 747 landing on top of your house.Your snippet is almost purely out of context. Rush STATED that he had never seen MJF move like that before these commericals, he's also read that MJF went off his meds before he went to before a congressional committee. I'd not call it lying or quibbling, I'd call it suspicion, dammit. Read back to the quote you posted here in this thread earlier. Rush WAS saying that he had never seen MJF do that before.He said what he said, Darth. He said Fox was exaggerating his symptoms. He said that it was an act. There is no context that can alter the meaning of his statements. They are what they are. Get over it. On a side note it's funny as hell that you try to justify Limbaugh's remarks with Fox's congressional testimony. Rush didn't know about Fox not taking his meds on that occasion until the next day. And yet you pretend this is part of the 'context' from which Rush spoke -- in the same post that you accuse Fox of being disingenuous. Good job.

DanF

10-28-2006, 02:00 PM

I certainly hope that no one is under the impression that any U.S. legislation will effect experimentation with cloning, or stem cell research.

If the U.S. government sees benefits to either process it will use covert operations, either here, or in other more receptive countries.

The same with big business. People seem to forget just how convenient international brick and mortar fronts are.

We the people, have no idea where all federal monies are spent, and most certainly not where private funds are used.

Vilepagan

10-28-2006, 03:31 PM

I have no problem with Fox going off his meds if people KNOW he's off his meds and its just to show what he's like naturally...

BUT

where is the line??? How fucked up is it that Fox even HAS to go off his meds just to get people to give money??? If Fox is diseased, and people know it, shouldnt that be enough? Does seeing him shake make the disease somehow "worse"??? In reality.. i think it does.. and while its f'd up, Fox DOES sadly have to "put on an act" in order to get money for the disease.

Firstly, Fox wasn't "off his meds" when he shot the commercial. According to what he said in the Katie Couric interview the shaking he exhibited is called dyskinesia and is the result of too much medication. At this stage in his disease he says he can't go off the meds or he wouldn't be able to speak. Before you shout "AHA! he must have deliberately taken too much to make himself look worse"...it is apperently difficult to control the dosage accurately.

NOW... while someone earlier hinted that Fox is acting bi-partisan and isn't on either side.. he is actually on democrat commercials down south in Missouri. So he IS on one side and HAS chosen a side. It was interesting to see the media report Fox saying disease is a "bi-partisan issue" when Rush said it to begin with. I guess the media CANT report that.

You might have a point except for the fact that Fox did a political ad for Arlen Specter in 2004. In case you're unaware, Specter is a Republican.

Decka

10-28-2006, 05:47 PM

Firstly, Fox wasn't "off his meds" when he shot the commercial. According to what he said in the Katie Couric interview the shaking he exhibited is called dyskinesia and is the result of too much medication. At this stage in his disease he says he can't go off the meds or he wouldn't be able to speak. Before you shout "AHA! he must have deliberately taken too much to make himself look worse"...it is apperently difficult to control the dosage accurately.

Its seems mr. fox has said just about everything.. i've heard about 50 different renditions of what he said.. i've heard him say he goes off the meds when he does commercials.. i've heard him say he goes on meds.. i've heard him say he takes too much meds for his commercials... ummm yea. I'll just come to the conclusion that MJF took some notes from John Kerry from the last election.. because wow he does AND he doesn't take meds for commercials... now THAT is talent.

You might have a point except for the fact that Fox did a political ad for Arlen Specter in 2004. In case you're unaware, Specter is a Republican.

people change their political views.. it seems now that Fox supports the democrats... no?

sedan

10-28-2006, 05:57 PM

Its seems mr. fox has said just about everything.. i've heard about 50 different renditions of what he said.. i've heard him say he goes off the meds when he does commercials.. i've heard him say he goes on meds.. i've heard him say he takes too much meds for his commercials... ummm yea. I'll just come to the conclusion that MJF took some notes from John Kerry from the last election.. because wow he does AND he doesn't take meds for commercials... now THAT is talent.Instead of telling us how things 'seem' to you why don't you find us a source that backs up your claim? What's that? Can't find one? I wonder why.people change their political views.. it seems now that Fox supports the democrats... no?It 'seems' he supports candidates who favor embryonic stem cell research. Seeing as how he is dying of a disease that might be cured by said research this 'seems' like a reasonable thing for him to do ... no?

dnamertz

10-28-2006, 06:00 PM

Brooks

10-29-2006, 11:17 PM

Did anyone see MJF on "This Week" today? After a direct challenge by Stephanopoulos, he reluctantly admitted he didn't even read the proposal he'd been referring to!
It was embarassing.

sedan

10-30-2006, 12:35 AM

Did anyone see MJF on "This Week" today? After a direct challenge by Stephanopoulos, he reluctantly admitted he didn't even read the proposal he'd been referring to!I think you are referring to this exchange:

Stephanopoulos: In the ad now running in Missouri, Jim Caviezel speaks in Aramaic. It means, "You betray me with a kiss." And his position, his point, is that actually even though down in Missouri they say the initiative is against cloning, it's actually going to allow human cloning.

Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly.

But I've made this point before, and I really am sincere in it, that anybody who's prayed on this, and thought about it, and really considered it and can't get their mind around or their heart around the idea of embryonic stem cell research, I'd go to war for your right to believe that. And you're right to feel that. I respect it. I truly do.

My point is, and our point as a community, is we have a very good and supportable conclusion that a vast majority of people in this country are in favor of science playing a leading role in making changes in the future and believe in embryonic stem cell research.

So we're just saying, know that we have prayed on it, too, and we have thought about it, and we are good people, and we are family people, and we are people that take this very seriously, and we're as concerned as you are.

And we've decided that we would like to take this step and to do it with caution and to do it with oversight and to do it with the strictest adherence to ethics and all of the principles this country stands for.

But, allow us to do that without infusing the conversation with inflammatory rhetoric and name-calling and fear-mongering. It doesn't help.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=2613377&page=2

I don't see how you can call this a direct challenge by Stephanopolous. He doesn't even come close to asking 'Have you read the initiative?'. Nor may Fox's reply be considered in any way 'reluctant'. He freely volunteers the information without being asked. Nor did he make any reference to the proposal earlier in the interview as you claim. You really lose me when you make statements like this, Brooks. It shows how you filter information to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion despite obvious evidence to the contrary.It was embarassing.For the Rushevites no doubt it was.

DrewM

10-30-2006, 12:37 AM

When Fox is acting in Boston Legal he looks perfectly stable with no shaking whatsoever, so it's clear that he came off some meds or did something differently for those ads.

But, that's hardly the point. The issue is clear - Fox has parkinsons, it makes him shake, it gets worse every year, stem cell research is the best option for diseases like that. We should be funding such research at full speed. We can apparently kill thousands of Iraqi's without losing any sleep or let 3000 American soldiers get killed for nada, yet we can worry about some fertilized eggs that have only 1 future - the trashcan. It's pure insanity.

As for Rush Dipshit - well that guy is a crack addict scumbag of the first degree. I listen to him sometimes in the car & that guy is nothing more than a mindless hypocrytical sack of shit windbag. Anything he says can be immediately ignored.

dnamertz

10-30-2006, 01:12 AM

Did anyone see MJF on "This Week" today? After a direct challenge by Stephanopoulos, he reluctantly admitted he didn't even read the proposal he'd been referring to!
It was embarassing.

When did he refer to the proposal? The ad was for a candidate in Missouri who supports stem cell research...not this proposal. They are 2 seperate issues. By the time that candidate wins or loses the election, the proposal would've been voted on. If he wanted to refer to this proposal, he would have said in the ad to "vote yes on propsal ###".

Bill O'rielly was talking about this Missouri proposal last week and he, and the lawyer he had on his show, admitted they couldn't understand this long complicated proposal.

Vilepagan

10-30-2006, 07:55 AM

Did anyone see MJF on "This Week" today? After a direct challenge by Stephanopoulos, he reluctantly admitted he didn't even read the proposal he'd been referring to!

That's because the commercial he did endorsed a candidate, not a ballot initiative, or a referendum, or whatever this "proposal" might be.

It was embarassing.

Why were you embarrassed?

Brooks

10-30-2006, 09:34 AM

[INDENT][I] Stephanopoulos: ....his point, is that actually even though down in Missouri they say the initiative is against cloning, it's actually going to allow human cloning.

Fox: .....I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly.
I feel very bad for him in this exchange. Cloning is an issue in this debate that was bound to come up.
This sounds like he made these commercials without being fully informed.
The candidates, being politically experienced, had to know he would have to answer for these claims.

In fairness, what sounded like reluctance on his part may have been his difficulty in speaking

funnyguy

10-30-2006, 08:22 PM

I have no problem that Rush disagrees with Michael J Foxx. I do have an issue that he claims that Michael J foxx was playing up his illness, even going as far as saying that he didn't take his medication. The meds start to loss their effectiveness the longer they are used. Rush needs to stick to the issue and not someone's creditability. I used to respect his opinion until he lied about drugs and viagra.

American

10-30-2006, 10:02 PM

Darth Be'lal

10-30-2006, 10:37 PM

Sedan's work.......

They might even (gasp!) plant it in a trash bin.

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.

That's why the amendment bans human cloning.

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. 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. 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.

If you want to oppose the amendment because you find it confusing, that's fine. Just don't claim it constitutionally guarantees a right to human cloning when in fact it specifically and exactly does the opposite.

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.

Federal funding would greatly expand embryonic stem cell research. Talent opposes this expansion. The use of cloning techniques will also expand stem cell research. Talent also opposes this expansion. What this means is that Talent opposes the expansion of stem cell research which is exactly what Fox said. You accused Fox of making a false assertion. He didn't. It is your accusation that has been proven false.

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. 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. And for your information, stem cell research, using adult stem cells, has been used very successful in medical research, dammit.

He said what he said, Darth. He said Fox was exaggerating his symptoms. He said that it was an act. There is no context that can alter the meaning of his statements.

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?

Good job.

I did just that this time, dammit.

http://breakingnews.redstate.com/blogs/redlightgrnlight/2006/oct/22/michael_j_fox_is_wrong_jim_talent_supports_stem_ce ll_research

dnamertz

10-31-2006, 01:19 AM

I feel very bad for him in this exchange. Cloning is an issue in this debate that was bound to come up.
This sounds like he made these commercials without being fully informed.
The candidates, being politically experienced, had to know he would have to answer for these claims.

Can you just not read, is that what your problem is?

Which "commercials" are you talking about, because we're all talking about the commercial where Fox didn't mention, or ellude to, the Missouri proposal. He's speaking in favor of stem cell research, and the candidate running in Missouri. In regards to the initiative, notice how he said "On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly". You quoted that statement when you replied to Sedan, so I assume you read it.

Travh20

10-31-2006, 10:56 AM

I doubt Decka was being satirical, and just how do you think this is related to the Tillman thread?

I see how its related to the Tillman thread. Once again the democrats are reaching for the bulletproof argument. How could we possibly say anything bad about a guy who is shaking like a leaf while he tells us about the wonders of stem cell research? only a real bastard woudl even think this guy anything other then a poor victim of the drastic cuts in stem cell research by the evil bush administration. Seriously, the democrats have no postitions so they go after people who they feel are the most likely not to be questioned about what they say. You want to bash the war? bring in a grieving mother or some war hero. You want to talk stem cells? bring in someone witha disease that you can watch on TV. Then, sit back and wait for someone to try and criticize the position these people take in the name of the minority party and watch the media attack them for being insensitive and heartless. Soon, all talk of actual ideas and isssues dissapear and people go to the polls determined to vote out that mean bastard who dare go agaisnt a woman who lost her son, or a war hero with a piece of rice in his ass, or the guy shaking on TV.

LionelHutz

10-31-2006, 12:19 PM

You're probably right to some extent, Trav, but about 10 times every night for the past month some little old lady has been coming on my TV and extolling the virtues of my republican Senator and saying how much the democrat hates old people. No one can argue with a little old lady either.

Travh20

10-31-2006, 12:59 PM

thats true, they all do it, but the democrats seem to use it as the centerpiece of thier strategy.

Decka

10-31-2006, 02:07 PM

I see how its related to the Tillman thread. Once again the democrats are reaching for the bulletproof argument. How could we possibly say anything bad about a guy who is shaking like a leaf while he tells us about the wonders of stem cell research? only a real bastard woudl even think this guy anything other then a poor victim of the drastic cuts in stem cell research by the evil bush administration. Seriously, the democrats have no postitions so they go after people who they feel are the most likely not to be questioned about what they say. You want to bash the war? bring in a grieving mother or some war hero. You want to talk stem cells? bring in someone witha disease that you can watch on TV. Then, sit back and wait for someone to try and criticize the position these people take in the name of the minority party and watch the media attack them for being insensitive and heartless. Soon, all talk of actual ideas and isssues dissapear and people go to the polls determined to vote out that mean bastard who dare go agaisnt a woman who lost her son, or a war hero with a piece of rice in his ass, or the guy shaking on TV.

Such a good point by Trav.. i couldn't agree more... and while both sides may DO it... the democrats ALWAYS do it...

Micheal J Fox was in Ohio yesterday at a Sherrod Brown(D) rally... and of course he was taking things to the extreme and misinforming and misrepresenting what is going on...

"As you may know, this past week I had a little run-in with a less than compassionate conservative," Fox said.

Here we go.. EXACTLY what trav was talking about. Fox has labeled Rush as "less than compassionate" only because he questioned what he said. So now it's the evil republicans vs. the do-good democrats.. hilarious! Why is this stuff even reported?

"I guess I'm not supposed to speak with you until my symptoms go away. Or maybe I'm just supposed to go away. But I'm not going to go away."

Noone said you can't talk while you have symptoms Fox.. just be honest about them. You have admitted in your book and on TV that you go off your meds to appear more sympathetic.. so quit bullshitting the people.. mr. fox.

And noone wants you to go away either... you are allowed to say what you want.. you can have any opinion you want on anything.. just don't be suprised if someone disagrees with you... heaven FORBID anyone disagree with MICHEAL J FOX!!!!!

The Praetorian

10-31-2006, 02:29 PM

Vilepagan

10-31-2006, 07:46 PM

But who do you see employing the use of that stratagem at a 9:1 ratio, Lionel? I mean, c'mon...your shit's local.

Politicians Prae, politicians. The democrats have no monopoly on this tactic by any means. Ever watch a State of the Union address? Somewhere during the speech the President will point up to the gallery where there'll be a war hero/widow/crippled person sitting with a smiling First Lady and then the President will tell you the sad story that brought them there. In Wisconsin next week, we're having a gubernatorial election along with the Senate races that are going on, and in addition to that we have state constitutional amendment referendum on the ballot regarding the gay marriage issue. The radio ads that are being run by the opposition groups feature emotinally appealing persons (old ladys and fearful parents) suggesting this should pass in order to protect the children. Protect them from what they don't say, (perhaps rampaging mobs of married gays), but the tactic's the same. How can you argue against protecting children?

BTW, in the case of the Fox ads, it has been pointed out that he's done ads for Republicans who're in favor of stem cell research, so how you can claim this is a tactic used mostly by Democrats is beyond me.

I think the truth is that when we agree with a candidate or position that's portrayed with an emotional ad we see it as "powerful", "moving", "direct", and "spot on". We focus on the message. When we disagree however, we see the ad as "manipulative", "hyperbolic", "misleading", etc. We focus on the messenger rather than the message in this case, and because of that, we only see "the other side" employing misleading messengers.

Vilepagan

10-31-2006, 07:59 PM

While we're on the subject of using emotionally appealing persons to make political ads, I'd like to ask...what's wrong with that?

If you're trying to convince people to take a certain position on a certain issue politically, wouldn't you couch that issue in the most favorable terms possible, which would include choosing the most effective messenger to deliver your message?

Vilepagan

10-31-2006, 08:07 PM

thats true, they all do it, but the democrats seem to use it as the centerpiece of thier strategy.

That's just another way of saying they're better at it. ;-)

Brooks

10-31-2006, 10:10 PM

Can you just not read, is that what your problem is?
... we're all talking about the commercial where Fox didn't mention, or ellude to, I'm always amazed by the pervasiveness of the glass house syndrome around here when one questions another's intelligence.

dnamertz

10-31-2006, 10:17 PM

I see how its related to the Tillman thread. Once again the democrats are reaching for the bulletproof argument. How could we possibly say anything bad about a guy who is shaking like a leaf while he tells us about the wonders of stem cell research? only a real bastard woudl even think this guy anything other then a poor victim of the drastic cuts in stem cell research by the evil bush administration. Seriously, the democrats have no postitions so they go after people who they feel are the most likely not to be questioned about what they say. You want to bash the war? bring in a grieving mother or some war hero. You want to talk stem cells? bring in someone witha disease that you can watch on TV. Then, sit back and wait for someone to try and criticize the position these people take in the name of the minority party and watch the media attack them for being insensitive and heartless. Soon, all talk of actual ideas and isssues dissapear and people go to the polls determined to vote out that mean bastard who dare go agaisnt a woman who lost her son, or a war hero with a piece of rice in his ass, or the guy shaking on TV.

I'll just have to assume you are dense, or not paying attention. The democrats didn't "bring him on"...he has Parkinson's so he's chosen to campaign for things he think might lead to a cure.

For the one-millionth time, NO ONE IS SAYING YOU CAN'T DISAGREE WITH THESE PEOPLE!!! Let me know when you've finally comprehended that FACT. Please, please show me one example of anyone saying "Rush said he disagrees with Fox on stem-cells, he can't do that". He's being criticized for mocking Fox and accussing him of faking. To give you an idea of what I'm talking about, assume someone who opposed the war said something negative about the troops, then everyone on the Right demanded an apology. Now imagine if that person said "apology??? All I did was disagree with the war...I'm not allowed to disagree with the war because it might offend the military?" See the difference between "disagreeing" and "insulting"?

Brooks

10-31-2006, 10:21 PM

No one can argue with a little old lady either.
They all use actors portraying old people or little league coaches or mom's unloading groceries, but this use of real-life, sympathy-wrenching victims is a uniquely Democrat phenomenon.

Vilepagan

10-31-2006, 10:45 PM

They all use actors portraying old people or little league coaches or mom's unloading groceries, but this use of real-life, sympathy-wrenching victims is a uniquely Democrat phenomenon.

Horsehockey. Are you telling me that the Republicans inviting war heroes to the SoU address, or invoking images of 9/11 in political ads isn't the same thing?

Do I have to mention again that Fox has done ads for Republicans?

Brooks

10-31-2006, 10:55 PM

While we're on the subject of using emotionally appealing persons to make political ads, I'd like to ask...what's wrong with that?
There's nothing wrong with using these people (they are usually actor-portrayals). The problem is that when real-life sympathetic people put themselves in the middle of politics, they are vulnerable to questioning. BUT.... when you question them...well, you know the rest.

And now John Kerry has joined their ranks. His insults against our troops can't be questioned because he "wore the uniform".

Brooks

10-31-2006, 10:57 PM

Horsehockey. Are you telling me that the Republicans inviting war heroes to the SoU address, or invoking images of 9/11 in political ads isn't the same thing?
Ab-so-lute-ly different. The smiling faces in the gallery may evoke sympathy, but they don't go out the next day and attack the opposition.
HUGE difference.

And the 9/11 ads are simply that. Ads. They are questioned and they don't fight back.

Vilepagan

11-01-2006, 07:12 AM

Ab-so-lute-ly different. The smiling faces in the gallery may evoke sympathy, but they don't go out the next day and attack the opposition.
HUGE difference.

And the 9/11 ads are simply that. Ads. They are questioned and they don't fight back.

Nice job ignoring the fact that the Republicans have made use of Fox's sympathy factor too.

Vilepagan

11-01-2006, 07:15 AM

And now John Kerry has joined their ranks. His insults against our troops can't be questioned because he "wore the uniform".

What?...His "insults" have been questioned since he uttered them. You're not going to suggest that Kerry's service has somehow granted him some sort of immunity from being questioned are you?

Travh20

11-01-2006, 11:01 AM

What?...His "insults" have been questioned since he uttered them. You're not going to suggest that Kerry's service has somehow granted him some sort of immunity from being questioned are you?

no, but he likes to think that it should. why else would every defense he puts up for his stupid comments mention how those who are questioning him didn't serve? The only reaason he would do that would be to imply that he shouldnt be questioned by anyone who wasnt in the military. I am pretty much convinced the only reason he went to vietnam was so he could use it to bash people over the head with later.

I think we should send Bush and Kerry to Iraq right now. Give them both a rifle company and see who does better. I have a feeling war hero Kerry would gather 3 purple hearts in the first week and be on his way home

Decka

11-01-2006, 03:52 PM

What?...His "insults" have been questioned since he uttered them. You're not going to suggest that Kerry's service has somehow granted him some sort of immunity from being questioned are you?

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.

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

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

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

dnamertz

11-01-2006, 08:13 PM

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

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

Question them all you want. Insulting them is a different story. That goes for John Kerry as well.

Brooks

11-01-2006, 09:22 PM

Nice job ignoring the fact that the Republicans have made use of Fox's sympathy factor too.I never heard about it. In this particular commercial did he say not to vote for the Democrat because Republican cared more?

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

Brooks

11-01-2006, 10:32 PM

What?...His "insults" have been questioned since he uttered them. You're not going to suggest that Kerry's service has somehow granted him some sort of immunity from being questioned are you?No, that's not how Coulter's Law works. Certainly anyone is physically capable of questioning somebody's views. What kicks in is the reactions of that person's compatriots.

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.

Darth Be'lal

11-01-2006, 10:58 PM

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.

Yes, the idea of the "infallible critic." Someone like Sheehan who lost a son in Iraq or Michael J Fox who has Parkinson's. Because someone suffered a tragic loss or has a devestating disease doesn't grant them license to criticize a particular political party or a President's policy with impunity. If one steps into the political arena, then one has to expect a response to their criticisms. I do NOT advocate lampooning their loss or the symptons of one's disease, but such advocates should expect sincere and thoughtful criticism of their views.

Usually, debate, thoughtful debate anyway, will lead to the correct answers to most problems most of the time, dammit.

Overdose

11-01-2006, 11:47 PM

Because someone suffered a tragic loss or has a devestating disease doesn't grant them license to criticize a particular political party or a President's policy with impunity.
No one has said they are exempt from criticism. Who specifically are you referring to? I’m rather curious. 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.

Darth Be'lal

11-02-2006, 12:23 AM

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.

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.