Democrats & Liberals Archives

How low is low? Rush's despicable message.

Okay… so Rush Limbaugh isn’t known for his studied and articulated commentary, but what happened last week, with his ignorant, misguided and maligned attack on Michael J. Fox goes beyond poor taste. What Rush Limbaugh did goes well beyond poor judgment and hateful discourse.

What Rush Limbaugh, when he flailed his well-fed body around in his autographed chair making fun of Michael J. Fox and everyone suffering from Parkinson's disease, was something that should, finally, remove him from the airwaves.

For those who haven’t followed this story, Rush Limbaugh accused Michael J. Fox, who appeared in a political ad supporting Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Senate candidate who supports stem cell research, of exaggerating the effects of his disease for the sake of the 30-second TV spot. Limbaugh went on further to infer that Michael J. Fox, went off of his medication specifically to exaggerate the effects of Parkinson’s Disease. If you can stomach Rush’s despicable attack on those suffering from this illness, you may do so here. (link)

Forget about the fact that Michael J. Fox has been pretty much party-blind when it comes to this topic. He’s supported Democrat and Republican candidates alike, anyone that supports Stem-cell Research; he supports.

Forget about the fact that the effects that you see in the McCaskill ad are the effects of taking the medication, not going off of the medication.

And forget about the fact that Rush Limbaugh knows far too much about exploiting and exaggerating medical problems to drive a specific agenda than most. (In Rush’s case, his agenda was to get high.)

But is this what the conservative right has become: the disease-bashing party?

Each political season many ask the same question: “How low is low?” From the Max Cleland attack ads to racist push-polling to the swiftboating of a highly decorated veteran and now making fun of people with a horrible disease in hopes that such attacks help their candidate win. The bar keeps getting lower and lower.

But now, the bar has finally been lowered underground.

Rush’s attack on Michael J. Fox and his campaign for Stem-cell Research is no different from the Swift Boat group. Rush’s intent is to gain support for his candidate and bash the other candidate, in a ‘all’s fair in love and politics’ world of modern-day politics; it’s a purely political move. Rush’s antics are playing to the Republican, specifically the Evangelical Republican base.

But Is this what the Evangelical’s want? Do they really think that it’s just politics as usual, when a radio personality makes fun of a person with Parkinson’s disease? Is this where we’ve evolved to?

The sponsors of Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, at this point, should be boycotted. The companies and organizations that support Rush Limbaugh’s show and tangentially support Rush’s drug-fueled lifestyle, should understand that it’s never ‘okay’ to bash people with Parkinson's or any other disease. Those companies should hear loud and clear that the people suffering from this disease or others like it, are not a tool for a political party to smear and poke fun. Those companies should hear loud and clear that there is a line and that Rush clearly crossed it. Support Michael J. Fox and others with disease by boycotting Rush's show and his sponsors.

ESPN heard Americans when they said “enough is enough” and pushed Rush off of their show. It’s now time for Americans to do the same in syndicated radio.

Posted by john trevisani at October 26, 2006 7:47 AM
Comments
Comment #190412

John:

Excellent idea. My grandfather, my mother, and now my aunt all suffer/suffered from Parkinsons. The cure can be worse than the disease.

Since I pay no attention to Rush, and have no idea where to find out who his sponsors are, if you know and post them I will happily make my feelings known.

Great post!

Posted by: womanmarine at October 26, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #190417

John, I am in 100% agreement with your thoughts expressed. However, I suspect boycotting Rush will not work becuse the people who listen to him are so wrapped up in his agenda that he can do no wrong in their eyes. I doubt they even think what he said was in any way morally wrong. As I see it the problem is that if you have a political agenda that is totally one-sided, you must by nature eradicate and destroy anything that does not agree with your agenda. Hence Michael J Fox must be ridiculed and silenced. Personally I prefer an agenda that says let’s look for the best possible solution to any problem, and let’s keep our agendas out of the discussion. Sadly that will never happen in our political system and current political climate.

But for what it’s worth I will continue to not listen to his show. :)

And also since I had to vote absentee yesterday, I voted for Claire McCaskill and Amendment 2.

Posted by: SteveK at October 26, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #190418

What a piece of garbage! I’ve always thought poorly of Rush Limbaugh, but this takes the cake.

Sad to see that someone can be so out of touch about what one does not understand. Instead of admitting he doesn’t know everything, he takes pot shots at others. Sad!!!

I also think that Rush’s listeners, I ‘ve known a few, are so dogmatic in their “faith” to him.

Lastly, the Anti-Stem Cell ad which is supposed to run during the World Series (last night if not rained out), leaves me with an even worse taste in my mouth regarding Jeff Suppan (for that fact the Cardinals) and Patricia Heaton. How can these seemingly normal and likeable people be so mislead?

Posted by: Steve Levine at October 26, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #190419

SteveK:

It was boycott the sponsors, not Rush himself.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 26, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #190420
even worse taste in my mouth regarding Jeff Suppan (for that fact the Cardinals)

Hey, don’t take it out on the whole team.

I’m in St. Louis, and I heard a bit of the morning drive-time conversation on the radio station that does Cardinals games (and is partly owned by the Cards), and the debate of the hour was whether it was ok for Suppan to been in this commercial onthe night he was pitching for the hometown team in the World Series.

Personally, I think he has every right to be in whatever political commercial he wants, but I agree with you that his message is (knowingly or not) misleading.

Go Cards!

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #190424

Sorry, but this is out of character for Rush…..how? He’s a close-minded scuz, always has been always will be, and my only surprise at this is that he was not more straightforward about his opinion that MJF was faking. What it comes down to is that the Right is in trouble this election, and so they are doing all they can to get their coveted white-evangelical-suburbanite base energized. Celebrity bashing is old hat to them, and all we can hope is that it comes back to bite them in the ass.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at October 26, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #190425

John

Funny how this blog wants reasoned discourse but then blows out of proportion Rush’s statements. he has sinced apologized. What you don’t address is the fact that the Michael J Fox ad is misleading. Being against federal funding for new stem cell research is a far cry from being against all stem cell research. The fact that the Bush administration was the first and only admin. to pass federal funding for stem cell research seems to be conveniently swept under the rug. You ignore the premise (should the Federal Government subsidize this research), then pose your own incorrect one (Talent is against stem cell research). I am not stupid enough to fall for your hyperbole. I suspect that the majority of the American people aren’t that stupid either.

keith

Posted by: keith at October 26, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #190426

John,

What do you expect from a party who proclaims to want to protect Americas children from child predators, while covering up the fact that one of their own child predators is stalking the page dorm drunk and looking for young boys?
What do you expect from a party who calls Democrats elitists and that claim to be “good-ol-boys” while at the same time they tax the middle and working class to death, while doling out tax welfare to the wealthy?
What do you expect from a party that claims to be “in with God”, all the while taking gifts and kick backs from PACs who want to expand on line gambling?
What do you expect from a party who is responsible for the deaths of potentially hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, and that has ignored the Genocide in Africa since it came to power?
What do you expect from a party that promotes it’s moral superiority, while being one of the most corrupt and morally bankrupt administrations, houses and senates in recent history?
Rush(Oxicodon) Limbaugh is the mouthpiece for the current GOP hypocrites as much as Bill(sexual harassment) Oreilly and Anne(attack 9/11 widows) Coulter.
If the current GOP members can be hypocrits why not the mindless sheep hearders who spread their message to the folks who keep voting for them.
I love a good rant.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 26, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #190427

Micheal J. Fox admits in his book that he goes off his meds to illustrate his point.

The bill Michael J Fox supports in Missouri is a pro-cloning bill. Only the title of the bill mentions Stem Cell.

Stem Cell research is already being done in Missouri, certain Embryonic, adult, and Umbillical cord stem cells.

I personally have not made up my mind about this issue. But if you go to Ruchlimbaugh.com, you can at least read the entire transcript then come up with your own conclusion. What better way to combat your opposition by knowing exactly what they said, and everything they said so you can counteract them with knowledge.

As Don Vito Corleone said “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”

Help youselves in this effort by becoming 100% informed of what your opposition is saying.

If you only react to the sound byte then your opposition is going to run ciricles around you because you are not fully informed.

Posted by: JEiden at October 26, 2006 10:58 AM
Comment #190428
he has sinced apologized

Really?

“I stand by what I said. I take back none of what I said. I wouldn’t rephrase it any differently. It is what I believe; it is what I think. It is what I have found to be true.” [source]

Get your own facts straight before accusing others of hyperbole.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #190430
The bill Michael J Fox supports in Missouri is a pro-cloning bill. Only the title of the bill mentions Stem Cell.

No, the proposed amendment explicitly bans human cloning; check out part 2.1. And check out that the content is nearly completely about stem cell research.

If you only react to the sound byte then your opposition is going to run ciricles around you because you are not fully informed.

Thank you for demonstrating your point, however unintentionally.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #190431
Being against federal funding for new stem cell research is a far cry from being against all stem cell research.

No, it’s not a far cry unless you want everyone to believe the opponents are just deficit hawks and happened to pick this tiny line-item to make their stand.

Yes, Rush retracted his attack but still went on to attack him for being a democratic shill. So it’s okay to campaign for a democrat as long as you are not perceived as effective.

Rush has a job to do in training a new generation of listeners how to make facts and reason fit a pre-ordained dogma. Independent minded individuals are insulted for rejecting this and allowing their outlook to be shaped by fact and reason.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 26, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #190433

blockquote>Being against federal funding for new stem cell research is a far cry from being against all stem cell research.

Huh? That’s like saying I’m not against people buying guns, only people buying guns in the future.

The fact that the Bush administration was the first and only admin. to pass federal funding for stem cell research seems to be conveniently swept under the rug.

This is sheer sophistry. First of all, he was the only president who really had the option. It’s like saying that Clinton was the first president to let people use the World Wide Web. Damn you Reagan, why didn’t you have the vision?


Secondly, if embryonic stem cell research is good, then Bush should keep funding it. If stem cell research is murder, then Bush is a murderer. You can’t have it both ways! You can’t give Bush credit both for banning it and allowing it.

Micheal J. Fox admits in his book that he goes off his meds to illustrate his point.

This is an obvious lie. Are you saying that Fox ran off and published a book after filming the ads?

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 26, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #190436

(1) People do not have a right to NOT be offended.
(2) The MJ Fox ad isn’t really that bad. True, its misleading, as JE points out, but I don’t see any reason to get upset about it. Maybe because I’m in favor of it, I don’t know.
(3) John is right, Rush and the Swift Vets are alot alike. They both stated their opinion and the left wants them censored.

Don’t you guys think you would have better luck if you just ignored Rush and concentrated on the important things?

Posted by: kctim at October 26, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #190438

To all:

Rush was absolutely unjustified in his attack on Fox. What he said was abhorrent. There is no excuse for questioning Fox’s committment or his disease.

On the other hand, too many people use the term “stem cell research” without recognizing the difference between embryonic stem cell research (EST) and adult stem cell research. There is no moral question with regard to adult stem cell research, or umbilical cord stem cell research etc.

There is a legitimate moral question about embryonic stem cell use, and there are intelligent people on both sides of the argument. But lets not forget that Embryonic stem cells have yet to cure ANYthing. Its a theory that might pan out, but so far….nothing.
Adult stem cells have cured many things.

No one has a problem with adult stem cells—its only the embryonic cells that cause moral concern over when life begins. The problem is that Fox and other supporters of embryonic stem cell use don’t make any distinction. They make it appear that those who disagree with EST use disagree with ALL stem cell use—and its just not correct.

Why are so many people resting their faith on a theory that has yet to be proven? Especially when adult stem cells are actually working right now!! Lets put our money, time and effort into a process that works now, and that eliminates any moral conundrums.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 26, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #190440
Adult stem cells have cured many things.

They have been useful, but the anti-ESCR folk realy, really overstate the case. For example, one of the leading lights of the movement, David Prentice, claims that 65 diseases have been treated with adult stem cells. However, a follow-up study showed that only 9 of the 65 claims held up under scrutiny. Basically, the spin is to include papers in which adult stem cells are just mentioned, not those in which benefits have actually been seen.

Why are so many people resting their faith on a theory that has yet to be proven? Especially when adult stem cells are actually working right now!!

Because embryonic stem cells have significant properties that adult stem cells don’t have. So far, scientists have managed to get adult stem cells to grow into only 5 different types of tissue. In contrast, embryonic stem cells can grow into 200 different types. The problem so far has been in getting them to grow predicatbly and healthily.

There’s simply much more potential for certain diseases and problems using embryonic stem cells.

joe, you make an invalid comparison when you imply that we could use one or the other, so let’s just use the adult ones; there are major differences in the cells.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #190441

Joe:
This piece is not about the moral conundrums of stem-cell research; it’s about how low will you go to support your chosen political party. It’s about how low some will go to smear and ridicule someone’s disease in order to advance a political agenda.

kctim:
i will say this once. i never advocated censorship in any way, shape or form; to say so is a complete fabrication that i will expect you to retract.

What i did say was that it is time for Americans to stand up and tell the advertisers of such shows that there is a line and that Rush and his ilk have crossed over that line. A boycott is not censorship.

Keith:
Please view the video of his comments. If you do not view this video clip as vile and abhorrent behavior unbecoming anyone with half a brain, then let’s just agree to to disagree. But let’s be honest here, after viewing the video-clip, i’m not blowing anything out of proportion. (in fact, if you go to rushlimbaugh.com you’ll see an image of MJF. it’s a very unflattering picture intended to support Rush’s assertion.)

Posted by: john trevisani at October 26, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #190444

First of all Mr. Fox did admit in an interview with Diane Sawyer that he went off his meds when he testified before congress to acenuate the affects of the disease.

Second, this is the basic MO of the democratic party. Let’s bring out victims of something and have them shill for us. When they or the message is attacked, slam the attacker as being heartless or mean spirited. It worked with the 4 9/11 widows, they tried to use it with John “He’s a war hero you can’t say anything about him” Kerry and they’ve tried it with others.

Also Rush did say he would apoligize if Mr. Fox said he didn’t do that (not take his meds). He didn’t admit deny it.

If Mr. Fox was making a commercial for Parkenson’s research, I could see the uproar. He wasn’t. He was making a political ad for a democratic candidate. It’s fair game for any opposing views.

Posted by: Keith at October 26, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #190445

Please not the difference between keith and Keith

Thanks

Keith

Posted by: John T at October 26, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #190446

I saw the Michael J. Fox ad. My heart goes out to him. I don’t think he was “off his meds” or “faking” it. Every time I see a TV show on Discovery or some other channel about Parkinson’s, I think about MJF and how much I would like to see his illness brought under control or cured.

I do, however, take issue with the content of the ad. Stem cell research is NOT…and has NEVER been…illegal. The ad was very misleading…misleading to the point of outright lying. It’s just symptomatic of today’s political ads. Disgusting.

Lawnboy…

“All I’m saying is I’ve never seen him the way he appears in this commercial for Claire McCaskill,” says Limbaugh. “So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act, especially since people are telling me they have seen him this way on other interviews and in other television appearances.”(emphasis mine)

This is from Lim-nut’s web site. Somebody left out the rest of what he said.

Who would have done THAT?

Posted by: Jim T at October 26, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #190447

I think I figured out now why Rush is so mad at Fox for allegedly going off his meds. As we all know, when the doctor gives you good sh%t like that you should take as much as possible…

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 26, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #190449
Also Rush did say he would apoligize if Mr. Fox said he didn’t do that (not take his meds). He didn’t admit deny it.

Actually, the movements seen in the video are are the result of taking medication to treat the disease, which would otherwise result in rigidity.

“When you see someone with those movements, it’s not because they have not taken medication but because they probably have taken medication for some time,” an official of the National Parkinson Foundation said. “If you don’t take the medication, then you freeze.”

Limbaugh’s claim is based on an essential lack of understanding of the issue at hand. What a shock.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #190450
I do, however, take issue with the content of the ad. Stem cell research is NOT…and has NEVER been…illegal.

And that’s not what the ad claimed. He said that Talent tried to make it illegal. I don’t know whether Talent did that or not, but you should focus your content attacks on the actual content of the ad.

I don’t understand the rest of your point. He said he would apologize if necessary, and someone claimed his did actually apologize, but he never actually did apologize.

Am I missing something?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #190451
I do, however, take issue with the content of the ad. Stem cell research is NOT…and has NEVER been…illegal. The ad was very misleading…misleading to the point of outright lying. It’s just symptomatic of today’s political ads. Disgusting.

Did Fox ever say that stem cell research is actually illegal? If he did, that does undermine his credibility. But I suspect that you are the one who is misleading.

It’s fair game for any opposing views.

There’s a difference between someone being “fair game” for reasoned argument and being “fair game” for vicious insults. (Lest you call me a hypocrite, Rush has insulted a whole slew of people for years.)I know some people find that distinction hard to grasp…

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 26, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #190460

OK OK OK.

I’ll back up…I was wrong and I’m big enough to admit it.

Here’s the link to the video…

Michael J. Fox

In it, he says that “Talent opposes expanding stem cell research…”.

What that means is…he opposes government funding of stem cell research. Drug companies (who charge an arm and a leg for ANY medicine…and who would be the PRIMARY beneficiary of any drug or cure developed) should be the ones to fund research.

Claire McCaskill thinks the goverment SHOULD fund stem cell research…and, of course, once these cures are developed, the American people get screwed in the pocketbook. You think the drug companies are going to pay back any of the government money given to them? Are you smoking crack?

Aren’t you in the blue column the ones that are saying we SHOULDN’T subsidize big business?

Drug companies ARE a big business, you know.

Oh, I see. No contradictions here…

Posted by: Jim T at October 26, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #190462

John
You want the “public” to boycott those who endorse Rush because you were offended by what he said.
With this boycott, you hope to have Rush taken off the air, silenced.
You are advocating for the “public” to censor Rush because it is not legal for the govt to do it for you, yet.

I’m not against public boycotts at all, but don’t even try to pretend you don’t want Rush silenced for his differing opinion and for “offending” you.

Posted by: kctim at October 26, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #190466
What that means is…he opposes government funding of stem cell research.

Unfortunately, there are two different political campaigns that are being conflated here.

One is the proposed amendment, which would prohibit the Missouri legislature from banning research that was legal on the federal level. The amendment doesn’t require any government spending on the research at all.

The other is the Senate election between Talent and McCaskill. Talent floated ideas of supporting ESCR, but backed away after the conservative base slammed him. He now officially opposed government funding of ESCR, and he opposes the amendment. McCaskill officially supports government funding of ESCR, and she supports the amendment.

Drug companies … should be the ones to fund research.

Are you saying that you think that all government funding of medical and scientific research should be abolished? Much of the reasearch funded by the government is done at universities, so it is not the drug companies that directly benefit.

We’re not subsidizing drug companies, we’re supporting basic and advanced research that could lead to life-saving cures.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #190470

Micheal J. Fox admits in his book that he goes off his meds to illustrate his point.

This is an obvious lie. Are you saying that Fox ran off and published a book after filming the ads?

No - What I’m saying is that when he testified before Congress, he purposefully went off his meds to illustrate and demonstrate the full effects of his affliction. This is what he said in his own book.

I am undecided on this specific issue. I’m just pointing out what Fox said in his own words.

To Lawnboy - I purposefully wrote the email to illustrate my point about not knowing all the facts.

As I said, I am undecided.

Posted by: JEiden at October 26, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #190473

JEiden,

What email? I’m confused.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #190475

Woody Mena,

I think you mischaractirize Bush when you say that he is a murderer for his support of pre-existing embryonic stem cell lines. In point of fact, since these lines existed already and the embryo they were harvested from had already been killed, it made no sense to destroy those lines and lose any potential benefits they might yield. That being said, the debate over embryonic stem cell research has profound moral and ethical implications, especially when combined with cloning technology. For example, if a person needed a heart transplant, would they be justified to kill another person for their heart? Embryonic stem cell research essentially does that, it terminates a life for the sake of a potential benefit for another. In the same fashion, is it ethical or moral to grow a clone of yourself to kill it and harvest his organs? What about making hundreds or thousands of clones specifically for the purpose of harvesting stem cells? Even aside from Judeo-Christian morality, these are very serious ethical questions that must be addressed. I found Bush’s compromise on this issue insightful and correct. The idea that a potential cure is justification for destroying another human life is abhorrent. Of course, we as a society have been told for over 3 decades now that until a child is born its just a glob of tissue with no rights, so I suppose I’m not surprised that callous attitudes that say press ahead whatever the cost rule. Progress means having the introspection to say that just because we can do something it does not follow that we must do that thing.

Oh, and yes, I ripped that last line off of the Federation President from Star Trek VI.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 26, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #190477

Fuzz Lintball has always used this tactic. The big lie wrapped around a little truth. The truth is that Fox is making a political appeal about something he is very passionate about (for obvious reasons) and he is having trouble controlling his muscle movements primarily because of the effects of the medication. All of the rest,the ugly body gestures and the spite filled words, are the lies and rantings of a despicable political hack. Fox has also made adds for republican candidates who support ESR.

This is typical of the republicans. In Tennessee, the republican message is, we know that you people are a bunch of redneck, racist hillbillies so we have tailored our adds for your pleasure. We have a uppity nxxxr tv spot for you and a nice little jungle bxxxy drum beat in our radio spot. These adds are brought to you by Kenny Melbum and the RNC ( Racist National Committee of the republican party.) So vote for our candidate ( the one with the white hood behind his name on the ballot) and send us some of your money to pay for your adds.

Posted by: jlw at October 26, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #190478

it is shocking how the republicans can take ANYTHING and turn it into a democrate conspiracy or labeling something unamerican. this is low. what rush has said should never be forgotten, and should follow him in shame the rest of his life.

things turned at the republican national convention in 2004 when republicans were walking around with band-aids on their arms which read “purple heart”. referring to kerry’s purple heart medals. this coming from people who received deferrments, or “enlisted” in the national guard. national guard meaning no war action.

the party which touts christianity, and more over “compassionate conservatism” really need to spend more time in church, or reading the bible. better yet, read the dictionary look up the words christianity, and compassion.

now, i know republicans, and they do not stand for putting former military personnel down, they do not stand for preying on children, they do not want to kick sickly people while they are down. to republicans who despise these tactics, it is time for you to vote for change. tell the republicans who are saying these things, that’s it, i know you are lying, and i will no longer vote for you, or your party. it is really up to republicans themselves to draw the line. how low will this line have to go before they alienate all truly compassionate conservatives? hint: this should be that line.

Posted by: mar at October 26, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #190480
Embryonic stem cell research essentially does that, it terminates a life for the sake of a potential benefit for another.

That’s one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that the blastocysts to be used for lifesaving cures are (for the most part) blastocysts that were created in fertility treatments and are no longer used. So, if they are not used for potentially life-saving purposes, they are going to be thrown away.

Is there really a moral advantage to throwing away a blastocyst instead of making productive use of it?

This doesn’t even get into the issue of whether an 8-cell clump of undifferentiated cells is morally equivalent to a human life. You invoke the idea that abortion has desensitized us to the point of not caring about unborn babies. I think that the abortion debate conversely has clouded us from being able to see the simple truth that an 8-cell undifferentiated clump is in no way a person.

In the same fashion, is it ethical or moral to grow a clone of yourself to kill it and harvest his organs?

That’s a red herring. The amendment in play specifically says

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.
(2) No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.

With ESCR, we’re not talking about creating people to kill them. In the alternate approach to using fertility-treatment cells, we’re talking about transferring the nucleus of one cell into another cell, and then using that modified cell for research. In no sense is that modified cell a cloned person - it’s just a single cell.

The idea that a potential cure is justification for destroying another human life is abhorrent.

And it’s a complete distraction from the actual issues involved in the debate.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #190482

Mar
“to republicans who despise these tactics, it is time for you to vote for change”

Does that not say something about the Dem party? I mean, you know Republicans who wouldn’t stand for that stuff, but still, they would rather vote for them instead of the Dem party.
Maybe BOTH parties need to straighten up their act before they can expect people to support them.

Posted by: kctim at October 26, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #190484

Womanmarine: I can’t boycott his sponsors unless I listen to him. So if you have a list of his sponsors I would be happy to boycott them. :) Seriously, please post them. I am more than willing to do my part.

Posted by: SteveK at October 26, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #190486

Just FYI I stumbled across a bit more Michael J. Fox bashing while researching a reply to Paul Seigel’s thread: Obama: A Democratic Star,

Michael J. Fox is a cannibal, by Jill Stanek
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41010

Stanek says, “And in an altered past, Fox would have allowed the dissection of his days-old embryonic children so he could surgically ingest them in an effort to cure his own ailments – high tech cannibalism.”

Watch out everyone, the liberals are coming to eat your kids.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at October 26, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #190487

Silly discussion. Everyone writing on this blog with an IQ equal to that of an ant knows this is just a reason to blast Rush L. And all of you, who actually have hear Rush discuss this issue, know what he meant. Please don’t parse this into something it isn’t. I am a moderate conservative, I listen to CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. and can easily tell the difference between B.S. and pandering. So can you!!!

Posted by: Jim at October 26, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #190489

Maybe so Jim, but they want every vote they can scare up.

Posted by: kctim at October 26, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #190490

So, Jim,

Was this B.S. or pandering or something else?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #190495

Keith, my B.S. or pandering comment was in the same sentance referring to the major TV networks. A common problem with many posts here is the writer’s inability to comprehend what they are reading as their mind is preoccupied with how they can slam the writer and parse what he/she is saying. Jim

Posted by: Jim at October 26, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #190500

kctim - we all know how masterful republicans can be with words. your post proving it. the fact remains i am trying to get people to vote for democrats. that is what this democrat and liberal site is for. if a republican votes for a democrat, that is the change i am talking about. really, is it that hard to understand? did you gloss over the other facts? the disrespect for our soldiers, and former soldiers? did you miss that part? did you not see the republicans making a mockery of the purple heart? please soak it all in before calling me and other democrats out. thank you.

Posted by: mar at October 26, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #190501
A common problem with many posts here is the writer’s inability to comprehend what they are reading as their mind is preoccupied with how they can slam the writer and parse what he/she is saying

Such as you responding to me thinking that I was Keith? :)

I actually understood your point, but I was asking a follow-up question. You said “And all of you…know what he meant.” and “I…can easily tell the difference between B.S. and pandering. So can you!”

I was wondering what you thought Rush’s comment was. Was it B.S? Was it pandering? Was it something else? You say we know what he meant, but what do you think it meant?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 1:43 PM
Comment #190506

Actually Mar, I was asking for your opinion on the matter and I am far from being masterful with my words or from being a Republican.

I know the change you want and was asking if YOU were open enough to accept that maybe the Dems aren’t the answer either and thats why people will just stick with the Reps.

And “glossing” over the other “facts?” Hardly.
I served in the military throughout the 90’s and believe me, I know what disrespect for our soldiers and former soldiers is like.
So no, I did not miss that part, I lived it.

Did I see them making a mockery of a purple heart?
No, I saw one person give HIS account of what happened and I saw others give THEIR account of what they saw.
I wasn’t there so I can’t say which side is right.
Neither can anyone else who wasn’t there.

Posted by: kctim at October 26, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #190510

good for you kctim. thanks for serving. have you found out yet that when you need medical attention, or dental work done that they take veterans last? you will.

and i did see the white women walking around w/band aids on their arms which read “purple heart”. wish i could pull it up some how so you could see it w/your own eyes too. i am not a liar, nor am i making this up. yes i am democrat, and proud of it. i would never say “i’m not really democrat or republican”, i am democrat. i have found that those who say “i’m not really republican” are always republican. i guess they are finding it hard to justify their last vote. no, i’m not openminded, nor do i have to be. republicans suck, and i hope all of them lose their jobs on november 7th. now, please spare me you have to give equal chance or you vote uninformed. if i get anymore informed by your bunch of republicans i’m going to have to get antibiotics.

Posted by: mar at October 26, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #190513

“I was wondering what you thought Rush’s comment was. Was it B.S? Was it pandering? Was it something else?”

It was pandering B.S., spoken like a true Cretin.

Posted by: jd at October 26, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #190515

SteveK: Sorry, I don’t know who they are, I was asking myself, as I don’t listen to Rush.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 26, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #190516
I think you mischaractirize Bush when you say that he is a murderer for his support of pre-existing embryonic stem cell lines. In point of fact, since these lines existed already and the embryo they were harvested from had already been killed, it made no sense to destroy those lines and lose any potential benefits they might yield.

I wasn’t really calling him a murderer, because I’m not against stem cell research.

The “already killed” argument is lame. If Clinton had tried it his critics would take it as evidence of how morally bankrupt he is.

Plus, Bush lied about the number of cell lines that were actually available.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 26, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #190517

call your local station. better yet, call the offices who own the stations - like emmis corp. maybe that will work.

Posted by: mar at October 26, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #190521

emmis communications: headquarters - 317.266.0100 ask for “radio” email: ir@emmis.com

Posted by: mar at October 26, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #190524

“good for you kctim. thanks for serving. have you found out yet that when you need medical attention, or dental work done that they take veterans last? you will.”

Actually, I found that out in 1997 when I first got out. Surely you don’t think this just started happening under Bush?

“and i did see the white women walking around w/band aids on their arms which read “purple heart”. wish i could pull it up some how so you could see it w/your own eyes too.”

Um, I did see that too, got a good laugh out of it.

“i am not a liar, nor am i making this up.”

I didn’t nor would I call you a liar, I don’t know you.
I was saying we weren’t in Nam at the time and neither one of us really knows what happened. We only have the accounts of kerry and the Vets.

“yes i am democrat, and proud of it. i would never say “i’m not really democrat or republican”, i am democrat. i have found that those who say “i’m not really republican” are always republican.”

Really?
How many Republicans do you know that support unconditional gay-marriage rights? Are an atheist? Pro-choice? Didn’t support going to war in Iraq? Didn’t vote for Bush? Should I go on? Boxing all who differ from you into one box may be convienent, but it leaves you clueless.

“i guess they are finding it hard to justify their last vote.”

Not voting for kerry probably more than justifies their last vote.

“no, i’m not openminded, nor do i have to be. republicans suck, and i hope all of them lose their jobs on november 7th.”

Now thats real liberal of you isn’t it.

“now, please spare me you have to give equal chance or you vote uninformed. if i get anymore informed by your bunch of republicans i’m going to have to get antibiotics.”

Aw, I wouldn’t sweat it too much, it can’t be any worse than the liberal antibiotics I got back in the late 90s.

Posted by: kctim at October 26, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #190525

Lawnboy,

You make a good point about the idea of blatocysts, which is why I said that there should be a debate about this issue. The cost/benefit analysis should transcend embryonic stem cell research and look at our use of technology to affect human life at the pre-born level as a whole. I disagree with your assessment of a single fertilized cell. In point of fact, if left alone under normal circumstances, that cell will develop into a human child. Also, I can see where you misunderstood my point, but I wasn’t arguing that the bill in question authorizes cloning, I was tying the idea of cloning into stem cell research. Also, in point of fact, several researchers proposed an assembly line approach of cloning embryos specifically to harvest the stem cells, so that was relevant though admittedly ambiguous. Finally, you say that the idea of whether or not a potential cure is worth destroying another life a complete distraction to the debate. I disagree and feel that that question is indeed at the very heart of the debate.

As far as the propriety of Rush’s comments goes, which was, I believe, the topic of this post, what Rush said was cold and cruel. I don’t know if there’s any truth to his claims or not. I have read that Fox stated that he got off of his medications before public appearances to point out his condition, but that’s neither here nor there. On the other hand, its increasingly the Democrat modus operandi to try and find victims to carry thier message because it is so much harder to criticize them. Ironically enough, it was Republicans, usually in my mind a party far more friendly to military service, that trashed Kerry for his own service. But the fact that Kerry felt his military record was above scrutiny is another indicant of this trend within the Democratic party, as is Cindy Sheehan. Having an honest debate is one thing, using someone who it is felt is above criticism is another.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 26, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #190529
In point of fact, if left alone under normal circumstances, that cell will develop into a human child.

No, it would have to be implanted in a woman’s womb, which is far from being “left alone”. That cell created by stomatic nuclear cell transfer could not develop into a human child because the amendment expressly prohibits the process that would be necessary for allowing it to do so.

Also, I can see where you misunderstood my point, but I wasn’t arguing that the bill in question authorizes cloning, I was tying the idea of cloning into stem cell research.

This is in some way the result of my talking to the general issue, not just replying to you. Sorry. In fact, there are many signs and ads around here that encourage people to vote against the amendment under the premise that the amendment supports cloning. I’ve even seen rhetoric that the clause “No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being” actually enshrines a constitutional right to clone. It’s just not true, and it’s bizarre.

Finally, you say that the idea of whether or not a potential cure is worth destroying another life a complete distraction to the debate. I disagree and feel that that question is indeed at the very heart of the debate.

Because you believe that a single cell created through SCNT that is probably not viable or an 8-cell blastocyst that would be destroyed anyway represents a life. I don’t see how that is a sustainable position.

Do you oppose “the pill”? Contraception like the pill reduces the chance of fertilization, but it also works by disabling the means by which a fertilized egg implants in the womb. That means that some blastocysts do not implant because of the pill. Does that make such contraception murder?

If you oppose the destruction of blastocysts, do you favor the abolition of fertility medicine? After all, the extra blastocysts that would be used come from that process. If you’re opposed to the destruction of blastocysts, then you necessarily must be opposed to the creation of additional blastocysts, which means you must be opposed to fertility clinics.

Are you ready to support those steps? I doubt it, and that’s why I see the position as unsustainable.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #190530

Yep. Ol’ RUsh hit a new low. He and his twin Karl Rove are masters of fraud, lies, and deception. Why any thinking person could believe any of their misinformaiton is beyond me, but then these smae folks get most of their mistruths from Faux News.

Posted by: KC at October 26, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #190532

mar,

You’ll be kicked off the site if you keep calling people things like that.

Be careful.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #190534

LawnBoy, you are a nasty one. Take my opinion about email contents and ridicule me for not getting your name right! Sad. Rush’s comments deal with an ad produced and paid for by the Democrat party. This is legitimate commentary for a political radio show. I often disagree with Rush as well as major network TV with political commentary but I at least know what it is. I object to those on major TV or radio who disguise political commentary as news. That’s out of bounds. It is also out of bounds for a political candidate to portray his/her position as one which will cure disease and the position of the opponent as one who promotes or doesn’t care about disease. It’s the same false argument politicians use in defending late-term abortion. Those who are not in favor of this procedure are portrayed as being in favor of endangering a woman’s life or callous about a womans’ right to choose. A child can understand that this contentious issue goes much deeper than that and politicians only play with words on this issue.
Jim

Posted by: Jim at October 26, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #190537

I’m not a Rush Limbaugh listener, and in general support stem-cell research (though public funding of it is separate question).

It sound to me that Limbaugh’s remarks AND Fox’s commerical were both in pretty poor taste.

I just have a huge problem with this kind advertizing, even for a worthy cause. Anybody remember those ads with Sally Struthers crying her eyes out and pleading for donations as she strolled around a garbage-strewn third world village filled with starving children?

Something that so brazenly makes a manipulative emotional appeal as part of a political campaign is just plain tacky, and it cheapens whatever debate it’s being in.

I would be just as opposed if anti-abortion activists decided to make a TV ad that featured a mangled and mutilated abortion survivor, which they could easily do.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 26, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #190538

Mar
“heartless, i mean kctim - well, once again you danced all around the issues.”

What issues are you talking about? The issue of how vets are treated? Didn’t like the fact that its not anything new so placing all the blame on Bush doesn’t work?
The fact that both kerry and the Swift Vets are entitled to their opinions?

“you see, i find it very disrespectful for people to minimalize what our veterans have done and sacrificed for our country.”

But somehow, I’m going to guess that all the disrespect and lies about Bushs’ guard service were ok. Typical.

“but you got a good belly roll out of it, so why should it matter. well, it does matter. it is not funny to me and most americans. that is the lowest i thought the republicans could go. i was wrong.”

Actually, Republicans can stoop to the liberal level sometimes.

“but truly, the republican party is wrong. making fun and veterans, disabilities, and the poor is unacceptable.”

First, making fun of anyone is ones own choice. Your not anti-choice are you?
Secondly, wearing a band-aid and saying kerry didn’t deserve that PH is no different than saying the Swift Vets were all lying and calling them names. That is unless you don’t consider the Swift Vets veterans.
Third, I don’t recall Republicans or myself making fun of vets with disabilities.
Fourth, I also don’t recall Republican making “fun” of the poor. And while I firmly believe they should take care of themselves, this is hardly the Republican line of thought.

“as a matter of fact, i really find it hard to believe that an honorably discharged soldier would find disrespect of a fellow soldier amusing. big strech - assuming your discharge was honorable.”

Well, it was honorable, thank you very much.
Again though, did you also find it disrespectful when the left criticized Bushs’ guard record? How about how the left totally ignores the accomplishments of the troops in Iraq right now, isn’t that disrespectful?

“call me clueless. and i’ll call you one heartless f*&king bastard. now, that gave me a big belly roll.”

Na, not clueless, just blinded by partisanship.

Heartless f-ing bastard?
Hmmm, I’ve been called worse. No big deal though.
But tell me, why do you consider me heartless? Is it because I don’t just sit back while the left tries to push its morals and values down my throat? Or is it because we have differing opinions? Or maybe its because I don’t believe there is one set of rules for those who agree with you and another set for those who don’t?

And whats with the f-ing bastard part? Like I don’t hear that enough at home:)

Relax some my friend. Its easier to enjoy your time on here that way.

Posted by: kctim at October 26, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #190539

Jim,

I don’t know what email you’re talking about. Are you also JEiden? He also refers to emails.

And I did include a smiley - I was just noting the irony.

So your claim is that it wasn’t B.S. or pandering and that all of us really know that, too. Well, many of us legitimately think it’s B.S.

I hope you don’t believe that only Democrats are capable of disingenuousness in political advertising. The misleading emotional ads of this adminstration implying that Democrats are somehow in league with bin Laden should take care of that notion quickly.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #190540

Jim:

Rush’s comments deal with an ad produced and paid for by the Democrat party. This is legitimate commentary for a political radio show.

It is not legitimate commentary when he maligns a person’s disease. Rush took someone afflicted with a terrible disease and made fun of it. He did not discuss the validity of MJF’s argument. He focused on MJF’s acting ability and Rush’s assertion that MJF was off of his medication. (Which, if anyone was listening, is incorrect information pertaining to people using medication to control Parkinson’s spasms. For with Parkinson’s, when someone goes OFF their medication, their body freezes up; it does not spasm.)

But facts only get in the way of the message. And Rush’s message is that he will do anything, say anything to keep his Republican candidates in office.

Posted by: john trevisani at October 26, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #190541

i apologize for my above post. for some reason i can not play well with others. so goodbye -mar

Posted by: mar at October 26, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #190544

Mar
You are totally missing the meaning of this thread and of my posts if you give up like that.
You got worked up and said some things not in compliance with WatchBlogs rules. Maybe Rush got worked up and was a little harsher than he thought he was being.
It shouldn’t matter though. We do not have the right to not be offended.
Americans have a right to state their opinions and should not be silenced for doing so.

For what its worth, I hope the WB editor will go through your posts and see it wasn’t the norm.

And, seeing as I really enjoyed our sparring session, I hope you meant goodbye only for today.

Posted by: kctim at October 26, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #190548

Rush’s comments were neither cold nor heartless. Can you please tell me what is cold or heartless about watching the “political” ad and saying it appeared as if he was either off his meds or acting to accenuate the his motions.

MJ Fox has been seen on TV and in other ads recently without the tremors ond motions. He was on Boston Legal and except for some minor facial changes seemed to be the same as always.

Rush spent 2 days on this issue and very little of it was about MJF. Most of it was on the fact that so far ESCR has not shown any results toward curing anything. There have been some results with adult stem cell reseach. There are other studies on other meds and treatments for Parkinsons that are light years ahead of ESCR.

Again this was not a PSA for Parkensons research this was a political ad put out by the democrats to garner sympathy and get people to vote for Mccaskill. You also seem to forget that this was not shot at a press conference, it was shot at a studio, with multiple takes and multiple chances to get exactly the look they wanted.

For so many people whe do not and probably have never heard Rush’s show,you sure seem to know a lot about it.

Posted by: Keith at October 26, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #190550

“I hope you don’t believe that only Democrats are capable of disingenuousness in political advertising. The misleading emotional ads of this adminstration implying that Democrats are somehow in league with bin Laden should take care of that notion quickly.”
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 03:33 PM

Lawnboy, thank you very much for your agreement. You may not have intended your statement as such, but a logical reading of your statement suggests exactly that. Sorry about using “email” instead of whatever, but I am not a professional blogger. I comment infrequently and hope I am forgiven if I have made a serious blunder. I am not the person you mentioned. Jim

Posted by: Jim at October 26, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #190551

Keith and all you others totally unfamiliar with Parkinson’s Disease and it’s treatment should quit digging yourselves deeper in your ignorance.

The medication works differently at different times, sometimes better, sometimes worse. There are also different forms of Parkinson’s and different degrees. MJF has young onset Parkinsons. My family had the later form. I took care of my grandfather and my mother, both with Parkinsons.

For my grandfather, the only medication was tincture of belladonna.

And if MJF said he went off his medication TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS does not equate to assuming he went off his meds to do a plea for research.

This crap hits a new low.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 26, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #190553

Agreement to what?

OK, by “email” you meant “comment”. That explains it. I was very confused because two different posters in the same thread referred to “emails”, and I thought I might have missed something.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #190557

womanmarine

Your argument hits new lows. This post had nothing to do with MJF’s Parkinson’s. It had to do with Rush’s perfectly appropriate and above board comment. He did not say like George Clooney did about Charleton Heston when he said that he had Alzeimers. He said, He’s the president of the NRA, I don’t care what happens to him. Or Whoopi Goldberg ranting about the “Bush” in the Whitehouse.

Posted by: Keith at October 26, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #190558
This post had nothing to do with MJF’s Parkinson’s.

That’s pure crap. The topic is completely about how Rush tried to discredit the message MJF presented through an ad hominem attack based on inaccurate statements about the symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease.

You are taking it into a completely different and irrelevant direction by bringing up Whoopi and Clooney.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #190561

Sorry you don’t understand logic Lawnboy. I am sure many other readers do. “I hope you don⦣x20AC;™t believe that only Democrats are capable of disingenuousness in political advertising” suggests that you do agree with my original premise and are only arguing that the other side does this too. Jim

Posted by: Jim at October 26, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #190562

Looks like on this one, that Rush forgot to take his Own Meds. Rush was wrong.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 26, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #190564
Sorry you don’t understand logic Lawnboy

Please don’t make such assumptions just because I wanted to make sure exactly to what I needed to respond. Your rudeness is not appreciated.

And no, I do not agree with your original premise. I do not think the MJF ad was disingenuous. I was merely making sure that you were not claiming that Republicans were innocent of the misdeeds of which you accused the Democrats (a question you have not answered). In no way and in no logical system does my assertion mean that I think the ad was disingenuous.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #190565

Lynne

ad hominem - attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.


Actually he never attacked his character. He did attack his argument. Oh that’s right you don’t listen to Rush. You rush to judgement based on a sound bite fed you by the MSM.

Posted by: Keith at October 26, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #190568

Sorry the first one did not appear to get posted.

Posted by: Keith at October 26, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #190569

Who is Lynne?

In this thread, I’ve been called both Keith and Lynne. How sad.

Actually he never attacked his character.

Claiming that MJF was faking the symptoms is very much attacking his character.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #190570

“Sorry you don’t understand logic Lawnboy.”

Well, from where I’m seated it looks like LawnBoy understands logic quite well.

“Rus did not attack MJF’s character.”

Hmmmm, I’d consider it an attack on my character if someone suggested that my “myoclonic jerks” are contrived for any reason.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at October 26, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #190571

Keith:
Parkinson’s is a terrible disease that should garner our sympathy not our disdain. Because MJF did not perform according to Rush’s definition (and evidently your definition as well) of the disease cannot be logically supported. There’s plenty of information about the medications used and the interactions of those medications on the web. i suggest that you take a moment to brush on this material before you comment.

MJF was interviewed on CBS today about this. Take a moment to read this interview. He explains about how the drugs affect his body.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/10/26/couricandco/entry2127508.shtml

Posted by: john trevisani at October 26, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #190575

1 LT 2

“The idea that a potential cure is justification for destroying another human life is abhorrent.”

Is this the lesson that you have learned about preemptive warfare? (Sarcastic Q)


Seriously, I think there is a stronger correlation between your quote and my question than your correlation of embryonic stem cell research and killing sombody.

“For example, if a person needed a heart transplant, would they be justified to kill another person for their heart? Embryonic stem cell research essentially does that, it terminates a life for the sake of a potential benefit for another.”

I opologize for potentially taking this discussion astray, but I want to make a couple of points.

I am taking the side of the living. Cells die all the time and I’m sure the soul does not leave the body with the loss of hair, dandruff, or anything else. So I’ll emphasize we’re talking about cells, not people. If we can use these special cells to improve life for many people we should.

On the subject of Limbaugh, he would do anything to shill for the republican party. Outright hypocrisy, slander, lies, none of that would faze him. That dirty wormtongue would have sex with a goat if bestiality would elect republicans.

Posted by: darren159 at October 26, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #190581

Rush you fat,racist,so-itching ba-t-rd! you and all your so called religious conservative holier than thou a-s ho-es should die and go straight to hell where you all belong. You sick disgusting mental midget.

Posted by: Juan at October 26, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #190582

This whole MJF thing is about the fact that given the choice between a calm disagreement with Fox on the issue, and attacking Fox’s credibility with off the cuff remarks, Rush Limbaugh and other GOP supporters not only picked the latter, but revelled in it, having long ago chosen such revilement as their weapon of choice when faced with a strong advocate on the other side who’s got the credentials to speak on a matter.

It’s argumentiam ad hominem in its purest, vilest form, and it yet once again the hidden subtext of it is that Democrats are fakes on every issues, liars on every fact.

There is an upside to this, if we want to look at it from a political angle. After years of relying on Ad Hominem arguments like this to justify holding onto power, the Republicans leaders have become addicts. This is where the Right has lost its edge, lost its political cohesion.

This is how it hacked the limbs of its own political majority off, alienating loyal Americans by questioning their dedication to their country.

This is how it came to stifle its own adaptability. You see, levelling such attacks is laying down mines. You could blow yourself up if you decide to reconsider your position.

In the early 90s, I believed myself a Republican. One of the reasons I quit the party was I didn’t like how my leaders were defining me and the rest of the party. The decision is up to Republicans here: how do I want my Party to present me to the world? Is my party the one that attacks credibility, even while its own suffers at the hands of the cranks and the incompetents? The credbility of your party and your arguments is in your hands. Do with it what you will.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 26, 2006 7:23 PM
Comment #190589

Oh,the bar can get much lower.Blachmail,assanination,mass imprisonment or murdur. There is much farthur to fall. Hard for folks on the left to understand power at any cost. They have NO moral minimum.

Posted by: BillS at October 26, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #190598

Don’t be to hard on rush limpballs all the drugs he took has warped his mind and he’s just singing to his warped base poor fools. ditto heads need our help.

Posted by: Jeff at October 26, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #190610

Can someone tell me why the dems aren’t upset at Mccaskell for exploiting MJF’s illness for blatant political purpose.

Posted by: Keith at October 26, 2006 9:20 PM
Comment #190618

Keith,

“Can someone tell me why the dems aren’t upset at Mccaskell for exploiting MJF’s illness for blatant political purpose.”

If Claire McCaskill, and MJF are working toward the same goal, how do you define that as “exploitation”?

According to her website, McCaskill has made stem cell research the centerpiece of her campaign.

Certainly you can do better that that.

Posted by: Rocky at October 26, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #190622

I am happy that it is now proven that fox did fake his actions during the filming. Take one take two…
Fox jumped into politics (not for the first time) and is fair game for anyone to point out the lies he is selling.
No ifs no ands and no buts….thank you Rush for being there for us

Posted by: Ken at October 26, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #190626

Ken,

“I am happy that it is now proven that fox did fake his actions during the filming. Take one take two…”

And I’m sure you will supply us with a link to the information.

Posted by: Rocky at October 26, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #190644

Keith-
She must have been using those evil Democrat mind control rays.

//puts on tinfoil hat//
//Remembers He’s a Democrat//
//Takes off the hat//
//:-)//

Ken-
There is no evidence. Rush just said he was faking it. I could say Rush has gay sex with Jerry Fallwell, but that’s not evidence either.

Just the stuff of ones worse nightmares.
//Takes bat to head to remove image//
//Tinfoil hat gets in way//
// //How did that get there//

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 26, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #190683

I read that MJF has made similar adds for some republican candidates but no names were mentioned. Does anyone know who some of the republicans are? Perhaps Keith or Ken will research this so they can Inform Rush. Those traitors should be dealt with. Oh sorry, I forgot, it’s a tight election and every republican must be supported.

And if any of us democrats thing that the republican talking heads and their political adds are disgusting, there are 11 days left before the election and this is just the tip of the iceburg.

Posted by: jlw at October 27, 2006 3:29 AM
Comment #190690

jlw:
MJF campaigned heavily in my state of Pennsylvania for Republican Senator Arlen Specter. But mentioning that fact to Rush or for that matter, Keith, appears to be a somewhat futile event, as facts get in the way of the message.

MJF had a 7 1/2 minute interview with Katie Couric (which is available in its entirety at www.cbsnews.com) that has MJK explaining his disease and its side effects associated with the medications.

There is a wealth of information out there about Parkinson’s disease. If Rush and Keith would take a few moments to research the illness before they attack the messenger, they’d might learn something.

Posted by: john trevisani at October 27, 2006 6:14 AM
Comment #190700

hey, this is not a good time to take rush off the air…you’ve got to keep this blowhard up there where he can continue to make a total idiot of himself and his myopic constituancy.remenber, you’ve got to keep the enemy out there in the open where you can watch them! sooner or later rational minds shall see thru his diatribe and seek rational discourse on air america!!!

Posted by: hawaiian don at October 27, 2006 8:45 AM
Comment #190718

I have been reading the posts here for some time and have never posted but I can sit still no longer. People on this site at times put forth thoughtful posts which are then attacked by people who appear to be right wing conservatives then which ends up derailing the original topic. This time the discussion has sunk to a new low. I should not be surprised but am. That there are people who would defend Rush Limbaugh and continue to attack Michael J. Fox is abhorent and continue to muddy the waters with side issues. this posting was not about stem cell research, it was not about whether Michael J. Fox was on or off his medications, it was not about George Clooney or Whoopi Goldberg it was about Rush Limbaugh’s behavior pure and simple. You can not excuse his behavior by pointing fingers elsewhere. Whether Michael J. Fox is on or off his meds is irrelevant. He has an awful disease that is slowing draining his life, on or off meds does not impact what will happen to him in the future. I would guess that most of those defending Rush Limbaugh do not have any type of disease that has no cure because if you did you too would be doing anything and everything to help yourself and those like you find a cure. but I digress this post is about Rush Limbaugh’s behavior nothing more nothing less. All these other discussions here are pointless there is no way to excuse or defend his behavior. He alone is responsible for what he said and did. I would like to think that what he did might make people stop listening to him but alas that will not happen. His underlying message is that if you don’t like someone’s message then you are allowed to say or do anything. In our society Rush has the right to say or do anything but would it not have been nice if he would have shown as much compassion to Michael J. Fox as he (Rush) expected to get from others when he was going through his crisis (I also felt that we the democrats and liberal could have shown him more compassion in his time of need). One last thought when Michael J. Fox appeared on Boston Legal much time was spent having to work around his disease and his meds. It was very difficult and time consuming for them to plan his time on air around his meds, his shaking, and his rigidity.

Posted by: Carolina at October 27, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #190724

Rocky
“If Claire McCaskill, and MJF are working toward the same goal, how do you define that as “exploitation”?”

You can’t. As others have said, MJF has campaigned in support of others who support these type of bills.
I have seen NOTHING from MJF which could be counted as a personal attack on Talent either. So saying MJF was being exploited would be wrong, from my personal experience.
The dude has Parkins and has probably done TONS more research than any of us. Lets let him choose who and how he decides to support.

I’m sure you are well aware of all this, but I just wanted to add alittle info from somebody who is actually in Missouri.

Posted by: kctim at October 27, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #190736

Lawnboy,

I’m not enough of an expert on the subject of stem cell research to really go into details, but from a moral perspective, in my opinion, any time you are using a fertilized egg or the cells it develops into, you are toying with a life. You say that a single cell or 8 cell blatocyst is probably not viable, but can you know that? If it was to be emplanted in a woman’s uterus, it might very well develop into a child. Of course, it might not as well. It might fail to attach etc.

With regard to your other examples, from a moral perspective I am against the pill. On a practical level, this is indeed not particularly sustainable as a position and something I think my Church would do well to look into, especially since from what I’ve read about a third of all “pregnancies” spontaneously abort before the woman ever knows she is pregnant. As far as fertility clinics go, I think that the parents should be informed of what exactly is happening. I doubt many know that these clinics do create as large a number of blatocysts as they do.

Finally, I’m saying that we need to have a true and informed debate before we plunge headlong into things like stem cell research. Ethicists, philosophers, religious leaders, experts from the medical profession, and others need to have an informed debate about this beyond just blogging. You ask me if I think it’s a sustainable position to place the same value on a single cell as on a born human being. I’m saying that we should be discussing as a society whether that blatocyst is ours to create and do with as we please in the first place.


Darren,

Your argument about preemptive warfare vis a vis embryonic stem cell research is fallacious. The doctrine of preemptive warfare acknowledges that war is evil in all forms, but sometimes it is better to eliminate a problem before it becomes so great that more lives would be lost by allowing it to continue. For example, I doubt that any historian would say that had France and Britain responded to Germany’s aggressive behavior with a full scale invasion in the 1936-39 timeframe they wouldn’t have take casualties, the same with the Germans. However, do you really think they would’ve taken more casualties than they did by allowing Germany to become such a grave threat that France was conquered, Britain almost starved and the Soviets pushed to the brink of defeat?

You say that you take the side of the living, but at what cost? A skin cell or a hair is profoundly different from even one single fertilized human egg. A skin cell has no potential for growth. A fertilized egg, if in the conditions that nature designed, will grow and mature into a human child. The idea of fertilizing human eggs to grow embryos strictly for their stem cells is a serious matter. As I said to Lawnboy, there should be some debate and discussion about this before we just decide to go for it.

I’m not sure if you’re accusing me of siding with Rush, but I did say his comments were wrong and inappropriate. If you take issue with what I said about the idea of the Democrats using victims who are felt to be above scrutiny based on their victimhood to carry their message, that’s a different debate. Rush was wrong to cast aspersion on Fox, he has a legitimate point of view. Further, its far easier for myself or Rush to make arguments against things like stem cell research as neither of us suffer from a debilitating or terminal illness. On the other hand, the unborn cannot speak for themselves, therefore it follows that someone must.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 27, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #190742
I’m saying that we should be discussing as a society whether that blatocyst is ours to create and do with as we please in the first place.

Isn’t that what we’re doing right now?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 27, 2006 11:11 AM
Comment #190752

Lawnboy,

Yes, and that was sorta my point. We’ve rushed into this without establishing any ground rules. Only now, when we’re talking about cloning etc are we starting to discuss this. Its wrong, in my opinion, to just rush where angels fear to tread without having some sort of debate and discussion as a society about who we are, what we stand for, and what place these techniques have in our society.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 27, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #190753

And for those who based their defense of Rush on a lack of denial from MJF of the claims (Keith), you’ve lost that excuse.

I should expect to hear an apology from Rush today, right?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 27, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #190755

Lawnboy,

Shit, I think I misunderstood your comment. When you talk about what we’re doing now, I took it to mean that we’re using blatocysts as we please already. My bad. Yes, we are discussing the issue, but no offense to the idea of blogging, but this is not the forum I was referring to. I figured more like Senate hearings etc, except that that would be a partisan farce. To be honest, I’d like to see these types of issues put to a referendum vote at the state level, I think the Feds are way too involved already as it is. Also, it gives people a chance to have some influence over the course of events.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 27, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #190757

“If you take issue with what I said about the idea of the Democrats using victims who are felt to be above scrutiny based on their victimhood to carry their message, that�€™s a different debate.”

It’s also a “Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle” debate. Remember the GOP’s shameless use of the “Snowflakes”.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at October 27, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #190759

1LT B,

No problem.

To be honest, I’d like to see these types of issues put to a referendum vote at the state level

That’s happening in Missouri right now.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 27, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #190784

No 1 LT B

I didn’t and won’t compare you to Rush. I do believe you have a sense of decorum and a decency about truth.

Primarily my charge was to get you to think about your comments again.

“The idea that a potential cure is justification for destroying another human life is abhorrent.”

“The doctrine of preemptive warfare acknowledges that war is evil in all forms, but sometimes it is better to eliminate a problem before it becomes so great that more lives would be lost by allowing it to continue.”

Ok. Fine

We are still talking about destroying somthing in order to save something. I am just trying to make a thoughtful comparison. They are not the same but they are comparable.

Stem cell reseach has the capacity to save (insert your own estimate) lives.

If you want my take on the morality of it.
I’d say destroying a cell or cluster of cells is a bit more like jacking off than murder. Sorry to be crude.

Posted by: darren159 at October 27, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #190787

Lawnboy,

Well yes, I suppose we are. Good stuff.

KD,

Not trying to insult you, but I may be too young to remember what you’re talking about. What is the Snowflakes thing? I tried to google it and look it up on Wikipedia and had no luck. Thanks.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 27, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #190789

My sensibility on Embryonic Stem Cells is that any embryo that is set to be destroyed should be free for use in the research with the permission of the parent. The Parent, at this point, should have already been given the opportunity to give the embryo up for use by an another family, or for their own future use.

Some have said that non-embryonic stem-cell research is going better, but I would tell them that in science, you don’t necessarily know what you’re ignorant of. Bush’s decision of cutting off future ESC research was Solomon- like, but he forgot that the original Solomon didn’t cut the baby in half in the end.

Those who decry the destruction of embryos for Stem Cell research should consider that their position respecting the sanctity of human life neglects the fate of so many discarded embryos. If they are to be destroyed anyways, why not do so in such a way that helps others, rather than make the destruction a total loss?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 27, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #190792
What is the Snowflakes thing? I tried to google it and look it up on Wikipedia and had no luck. Thanks.

Bush had a speech on the ESCR debate, and he had a bunch of young kids (with their parents) on the stage with him. The kids were conceived through infertility treatments, but they were embryos that weren’t going to be used. So, other families “adopted” the embryos and implanted them and brought them to full term.

Those kids are called snowflakes (because all embryos are as individual as a snowflake), and it’s an example of a use by the GOP of using humans as props, just as much if not more than people are complaining about now.

They are presented as a possible alternate use of unwanted blastocysts, but there is nowhere near enough demand to handle the supply (84 snowflakes born, 400,000 blastocysts in storage), so it’s not really a solution, but it’s an emotional photo op.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 27, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #190806

You have to love these neo-crooks defending Evangelical Christians and Rush Limbaugh baiting sick and dying people.

There’s a special place in hell for hipocrits. Last time religion played an influence in science, we were in the dark ages for 500+ years.

Don’t worry, neocrook evangelical, led by the nose idiots. Someday you’ll evolve from the apes you are.

Posted by: Daniel Martin at October 27, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #190816

Stephen and Lawnboy,

I think my posts as related to having a truly national debate about this subject and the ethical and moral standards we apply to procedures like this is relevant. Lawnboy, thanks for the explanation about the snowflakes thing, I wasn’t aware of that. Your analysis of it being a photo op is valid from a political perspective, but these children do prove the validity of the argument that the “tissue” being used in this type of thing is not like a stem cell from an umbilical cord or stem cells taken from adults. They are in fact potential newborn life. We need to have an all inclusive policy that covers things like the the 400,000 blastocysts in storage. That in and of itself is symptomatic of how we’ve put the cart before the horse. We should’ve known what is to be done in these cases before the 400,000 were ever there in the first place.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 27, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #190879

Lawnboy:
To me the premier example of victim exploitation was the Terri Schiavo fiasco.

i don’t recall the liberal making fun of Terri Schiavo on her deathbed.

Posted by: john trevisani at October 27, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #190900

John

Funny how this blog wants reasoned discourse but then blows out of proportion Rush’s statements. he has sinced apologized. What you don’t address is the fact that the Michael J Fox ad is misleading. Being against federal funding for new stem cell research is a far cry from being against all stem cell research. The fact that the Bush administration was the first and only admin. to pass federal funding for stem cell research seems to be conveniently swept under the rug. You ignore the premise (should the Federal Government subsidize this research), then pose your own incorrect one (Talent is against stem cell research). I am not stupid enough to fall for your hyperbole. I suspect that the majority of the American people aren’t that stupid either.

keith

Posted by: martin at October 27, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #190905

martin/keith,

“The fact that the Bush administration was the first and only admin. to pass federal funding for stem cell research seems to be conveniently swept under the rug.”

The fact that true stem cell research didn’t come into it’s own until 1998 seems to be convienently forgotten as well.
The true breakthroughs happened just before Bush became President.

http://www.laskerfoundation.org/rprimers/stemcell/history.html

“In 1998, researchers at the University of Wisconsin led by James Thomson isolated and grew stem cells from human embryos, and researchers from Johns Hopkins University led by John Gearhart did the same for human germ cells. In 1999 and 2000, researchers began to find that manipulation of adult mouse tissues could sometimes yield previously unsuspected cell types; for example, that some bone marrow cells could be turned into nerve or liver cells and that stem cells found in the brain appear to be able to form other kinds of cells.”

Posted by: Rocky at October 27, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #190909
he has sinced apologized.

Did he? When? The day of the original insult, he offered to apologize if he was wrong, but that’s not an apology. The next day, he said “I stand by what I said. I take back none of what I said. I wouldn’t rephrase it any differently. It is what I believe; it is what I think. It is what I have found to be true.”

Did he apologize after that?

Being against federal funding for new stem cell research is a far cry from being against all stem cell research.

Effectively, it is. That sort of basic medical research has been done in government-supported labs for decades.

You ignore the premise (should the Federal Government subsidize this research)

If you want that debate, let’s have that debate. However, claiming that the debate about one specific area of medical research is really a debate about the whole nature of governmental funding of medical research is a huge deceptive stretch, and hyperbole.

then pose your own incorrect one (Talent is against stem cell research)

It’s not incorrect. He opposes ESCR. Have you not seen the ads?

I am not stupid enough to fall for your hyperbole.

I’m sorry that you feel that the facts of the case are hyperbole.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 27, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #190915

Is the argument really that by not taking his meds, MJF is somehow lying about the seriousess of his condition?

I don’t know of anyone who pumps up on meds right before they show someone what is wrong. Does that not defeat the purpose? The condition is no less real simply because it is possible to sooth the symptoms with meds? If the point is to show the effects of Parkinson’s, then of course he’s not going to take meds. That would present a phony image of the disease.

I really have no idea how anyone can feel good about giving a sick guy crap. It is just something that some fat ass blowhard did one morning. Once he admits he’s an ass, life goes on. This one is simple.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 27, 2006 7:13 PM
Comment #190991

Go Cards!

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 27, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #191001

Rush: “I believe Democrats have a long history of using victims of various things as POLITICAL spokespeople because they believe they are untouchable, infallible”

Democrats use “victims of various things” because Republican aren’t rationally arguing about issues. Instead they make personal attacks, attempting to call into question the character of the messengers. Everytime a Republican calls into question the character of the victim, he appears cold and heartless.

No one would think it cold and heartless to debate the merits and ethics of stem cell research. Everyone on this forum could concede that there are reasonable arugments pro and con. It is cold and cruel, however, to ignore the issue and instead attack an opponent’s character.

When Republicans can’t complete in the arena of ideas, they resort to slander. W and Rove have used the tactic for over 10 years and it’s been very effective for them. However, Democrats have recently countering by using victims as messengers. It’s a brilliant political move. It forces Republicans to either abandon the personal slander and argue the issue or to look like heartless lunitics.

The cure, Rush, is not to complain that Democrats aren’t playing fair. If you truely believe conservative ideas are superior, rationally convince us. Debate. Argue the idea and no one will pick on you anymore.

Posted by: jonas at October 28, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #196359


This BLOGS are very fine and all the parts are very good.
So i also give a segation-
http://www.aalgo.com

Posted by: jansenkoe at November 24, 2006 5:04 AM
Post a comment