Actually I think he's lost weight.

Just watched another Michael J Fox interview on CBS. Hope fat stupid people can get Parkinsons too.

That's a horrible thing to say about anyone. I assume you're talking about Rush Limbaugh. As much as I can't stand the guy, I wouldn't wish that on him or anyone else.

That's a horrible thing to say about anyone. I assume you're talking about Rush Limbaugh. As much as I can't stand the guy, I wouldn't wish that on him or anyone else.

You beat me to it. I agree 100%. :thumb:

That's a horrible thing to say about anyone. I assume you're talking about Rush Limbaugh. As much as I can't stand the guy, I wouldn't wish that on him or anyone else.

 

So is Limbaugh politizing Parkinsons.

So is Limbaugh politizing Parkinsons.

 

And before someone suggests that M J made it a political issue, remember he backs Spector for his support of the research and the disease. You gonna spend your advertising buck on "The View" or are you gonna get you message out at the "Superbowl".

...The sad thing is, the gullible dolt who believes everything he or she hears has the same power to vote as the intellect capable of seeing through the smoke. As a result, we have a political and media system that panders to the lowest common denominator, rather than standing up for what is truthful, appropriate and best.

 

Fastbreak -

 

I agree completely, wholeheartedly, and totally with this statement. I think one of the best examples of the veracity of your words is the following that Limbaugh plays to.

 

For what it's worth, I was in Chicago the last two days, and the rental car I had was equipped with XM radio. I listened to Randi Road (not sure of the spelling) for about 40 minutes while I made the drive from the airport to the hotel. After listening for as long as I could take it, I can honestly say that Rush has a counterpart on the left.

 

 

Frances

From your posts, I believe we can conclude that your position is at least somewhat based upon your dislike of Limbaugh. I think that this is also true with several of our other posters.

 

I am sorry Fox has Parkinson's Disease. I hope he does well. However, I think it is reasonable for Limbaugh to question his political ad in regard to substance. Regardless of how Limbaugh handled it, he would be criticized by those who dispise him and by those who seek to gain votes from Fox's commercial. They did the same with Reeves a couple of years ago. These efforts are long on emotion and short on facts.

 

Under the circumstances, just how do you guys think Limbaugh should have handled it. Please remember, from both directions. Surely, no one thinks Keith Olbermann is any less objective than is Limbaugh. However, we hear few complaints about his nightly one hour tirades. Of course, that may be because no one watches him and Limbaugh has a very large audience. Politics is hardball and no one gets a break. Some whine and some don't. If Fox isn't prepared for this, maybe he better stick to television acting.

 

Balderdash.

 

When Keith Olbermann goes on the air, and openly mocks a person that is suffering from a debilitating, fatal disease, I'll be the first to lay into him. That type of "journalism" is pathetic, and indefensible - regardless of party affiliation.

 

As for your claim that Limbaugh has a bigger following than Olbermann, I'm not so sure about that. I know that Limbaugh has a strong following on the radio, but I'm guessing that Olbermann is enjoying a fairly strong following of his own. He's not holding down the time slot he has for no good reason.

 

 

Frances

I don't recall defending Limbaugh, nor have I diminished M.J. Fox. My point is that the veracity of a statement is independent of the personality making it. I realize this is a foreign concept in today's culture, but there is a thing called the truth, and it is not inflated nor diminished in relation to the stature of the personality speaking it. Conversely, a lie is not made more truthful simply because it spills from the lips of a revered celebrity or a sympathetic personality.

 

Again, Fastbreak - you are absolutely correct. This is as clear a case of "poisoning the well" and character assassination as you could ask for in a controlled debate. Limbaugh did NOT address what Fox was saying, point by point (conceding the point where he agreed, attacking the point where he disagreed). Rather than doing that, he attacked the messenger. In this case, he didn't just settle for attacking the messenger - he openly mocked a man that is slowly dying of a terrible disease.

 

In Rush Limbaugh's mind, this is acceptable. Not because he thinks he won the debate by refuting the position expressed by Fox, but because he knows that his pathetic, dispicable attack will get him another point or two in the ratings.

 

Referring back to one of your previous posts (that I agreed with), the truly sad part of this is that Limbaugh is playing to an audience that probably has trouble discerning the difference between character assassination and legitimate debate. Heck, who am I kidding - Limbaugh is playing to an audience that doesn't even recognize that Rush himself has character flaws that most schizophrenics can't imagine.

 

 

Frances

... If Fox had taken his medicine, the commercial would have been a mundane plug for a candidate with the usual overriding play on words and misstatements. His apparent condition on camera is what made the commercial notable and surely everyone will at least agree it that was planned for a purpose. The words were not meant to be as important as the picture. How can anyone doubt that? That is how politics works in this day and age. Chalk one up for whichever Democrat came up with the idea.

I disagree with everything that omitted from your post, but I have to address the part that I have here.

 

If you have not read it prior to this, a neurosurgeon that specializes in Parkinsons has stated that the medicine he is taking may well have CAUSED his swaying from side to side. The neurosurgeon has said that the medication itself can (and will) over time, lead to just such loss of motor control.

 

 

Frances

I disagree with everything that omitted from your post, but I have to address the part that I have here.

 

If you have not read it prior to this, a neurosurgeon that specializes in Parkinsons has stated that the medicine he is taking may well have CAUSED his swaying from side to side. The neurosurgeon has said that the medication itself can (and will) over time, lead to just such loss of motor control.

 

 

Frances

 

 

Frances, you've done gone and managed to address everything in the world EXCEPT the point that Rush is making - and it is a very simple point - that the Fox ads are totally false.

 

Making it appear that their opponents, Jim Talent in Missouri and Michael Steele in Maryland, are for Parkinson's disease because they are opposed to research which would cure it. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can't emphasize this enough. Embryonic stem cell research in Missouri is legal, and it is ongoing, and nobody wants to criminalize it.

The Unconscionable Claims of Michael J. Fox

October 25th, 2006

 

The popular and appealing actor Michael J. Fox has taken to the airwaves in Senate battleground states Missouri, Maryland, and New Jersey with a highly misleading ad urging defeat of Republican Senatorial candidates opposing the use of taxpayer dollars to fund new embryonic stem cell line research. He states,

 

“Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s…. But George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research.”

 

Mr. Fox and his ads’ sponsors are guilty of conflating embryonic stem cell research, which the GOP candidates and many Americans oppose for destroying a human life in the name of curing other people’s diseases, with stem cell research in general, which includes adult stem cell research and umbilical cord blood stem cell research.

 

The only limits in question are on federal funding of new embryonic stem cell lines, requiring the sacrifice of new embryos. Private and state-funded research (California voters are spending six billion dollars borrowing money to fund this) is ongoing. The implicit claim that research based on new embryos is “the most promising” is absurd, completely unsupported by the scientific literature, and an insult to voters, based as it is on the assumption that they are incapable of understanding the issue. Too stupid to tell the difference, is the elitist assumption underlying this campaign.

 

Flim-flam is a charitable description. Why would federally-funded research be more promising than state- and privately-funded research? And on what possible basis can the claim be made that embryonic stem cell research is more promising than adult stem cell research?

 

The plain fact is that embryonic stem cell research is proving to be a bust. There are currently 72 therapies showing human benefits using adult stem cells and zero using embryonic stem cells. Scientifically-minded readers can review this medical journal article on the status of adult stem cell research. Adult stem cell therapies are already being advertised and promoted while no such treatments are even remotely in prospect for embryonic stem cell research.

 

The fact is that adult stem cells have already produced remarkable cures, whereas embryonic stem cells have failed. This should come as no great surprise to anyone with a background in high school biology. When an embryo is created by the union of the sperm and egg, the cells begin to divide, creating embryonic stem cells from which all future tissues and organs are derived. Within days, the embryonic cells differentiate into three cell layers – ectoderm, mesoderm and endoderm. Cells in these layers continue to differentiate into tissues and organs. As the embryo matures into a fetus, child, and adult, some undifferentiated cells of the three types remain in various tissues such as bone marrow, fat, skin and olfactory tissue.

 

These adult stem cells are multipotent: they have the ability to turn into a variety of types of tissues. Successful stem cell therapies cause the DNA in the adult stem cells to further differentiate into more specific types of cells. There is no point in getting the adult stem cell to turn into a less differentiated type of cell, or using the more primitive embryonic stem cells. This would be going backward, in the opposite direction of providing a clinically useful therapy. Difficulties abound with proposed embryonic stem cell therapies. The growth of the more primitive embryonic stem cells is more difficult to control and leads to tumor formation. Recent research suggests brain tumors may result. Additionally, the use of embryonic tissue foreign to the patient can potentially lead to problems with immune rejection of tissue, a problem not encountered in using a patient’s own adult stem cells.

 

America is the most formidable medical research center in the world, but it is far from alone in pursuing the potential of adult stem cells. The worldwide effort is impressive and growing. For non-adult stem cell research, a morally unquestionable alternative source exists: stem cells drawn from umbilical cord blood. Already a bank exists in Dubai collecting cord blood stem cells.

 

In short, the claims made in the Michael J. Fox political ads are false and reprehensible, an insult to the voters of Maryland, Missouri and New Jersey, and to all Americans.

 

Mary L. Davenport, MD is an obstetrician and gynecologist, and a Fellow of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

 

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5977

Balderdash.

 

When Keith Olbermann goes on the air, and openly mocks a person that is suffering from a debilitating, fatal disease, I'll be the first to lay into him. That type of "journalism" is pathetic, and indefensible - regardless of party affiliation.

 

As for your claim that Limbaugh has a bigger following than Olbermann, I'm not so sure about that. I know that Limbaugh has a strong following on the radio, but I'm guessing that Olbermann is enjoying a fairly strong following of his own. He's not holding down the time slot he has for no good reason.

 

 

Frances

Actually Olbermann's ratings are pretty bad. His show last quarter finished 27th on cable news networks.

From the 7pm to 11pm he is rated somewhere around 10th.

Limbaugh is the most listened to talkshow host.

Actually Olbermann's total viewers is nearly identical to Limbaugh's audience.

 

Randi Rhods is who you are discussing.

Again, Fastbreak - you are absolutely correct. This is as clear a case of "poisoning the well" and character assassination as you could ask for in a controlled debate. Limbaugh did NOT address what Fox was saying, point by point (conceding the point where he agreed, attacking the point where he disagreed). Rather than doing that, he attacked the messenger. In this case, he didn't just settle for attacking the messenger - he openly mocked a man that is slowly dying of a terrible disease.

 

In Rush Limbaugh's mind, this is acceptable. Not because he thinks he won the debate by refuting the position expressed by Fox, but because he knows that his pathetic, dispicable attack will get him another point or two in the ratings.

 

Referring back to one of your previous posts (that I agreed with), the truly sad part of this is that Limbaugh is playing to an audience that probably has trouble discerning the difference between character assassination and legitimate debate. Heck, who am I kidding - Limbaugh is playing to an audience that doesn't even recognize that Rush himself has character flaws that most schizophrenics can't imagine.

 

 

Frances

I bolded the words that made me fall out of my chair in astonishment. :D

Frances, I suppose we just better agree to disagree. I don't disagree with everything you have posted recently, but I think it is overstated. First, comparing Olbermann's audience to Limbaugh's audience is like comparing the attendance at a UK men's home basketball game to the attendance at a home game for the Transylvania women. Their individual influence on society and the electorate is a similar ratio. If you bother to check your facts, you will find that few watch MSNBC and even fewer watch Olbermann. Further, Limbaugh is well known as a partisan. Olbermann has not been "outed". Of course, that could be because no one hears what he says.

 

As for your neurosurgeon, I have learned from experience that you can find a doctor to say whatever you wish. You find 100 who see "promise" in embryo stem cells and I'll find 101 who disagree. That is how it works. Need proof? Have you ever witnessed a trial with medical expert testimony? I certainly have on several occasions. Amazing how the opinions differ and it is always along the lines of whose side are they on and/or who is paying them. Check and see who is funding this initiative in Missouri to the tune of $28,000,000.00.

 

As for Limbaugh's actual statements, the more you anti-Limbaugh guys post, the more you prostitute his words. I heard him. His words were not supportive of Fox and he questioned both Fox's facts and the fact that he chose, or was encouraged to choose, to appear in the political (not public service) commercial when his personal appearance would have more effect than his words (I think that, like before Congress, he purposely didn't take his medication). Doing this was his choice. True, Limbaugh could have appeared more sympathetic but that isn't his style nor is it what gets him the huge daily audience. Why should Fox's tactics be exempt from tough analysis? He left the private arena and he entered the political arena using his illness as his communication tool. No problem with that. However, he is fair game for those who, as the election nears and as Fox's motives were obvious, must counteract his message. Tough words but true.

 

I, as most, have learned that life on this earth is not fair. You have, I believe, learned the same. I don't think I need to say that I sympathize with Fox and others with serious diseases. That should be obvious. However, I cannot support destroying human matter that I believe without doubt is a human being just to possibly (not probably although that wouldn't change my opinion) help someone like Fox. Helpless human beings are not spare parts. If I sound unflexible, I am. I suppose my good Catholic education has made me this way (for which I thank the godly nuns).

 

Thus, my friend, we strongly differ on another issue.

Frances, you've done gone and managed to address everything in the world EXCEPT the point that Rush is making - and it is a very simple point - that the Fox ads are totally false.

 

Billyrayjoebob -

 

You've done gone and missed the point of this entire thread.

 

This thread is titled "Rush Limbaugh accuses Michael J. Fox of exaggerating his disease".

 

If you wish to start a thread titled "Why I believe that the Michael J. Fox ad is totally false", you would have a thread that speaks to that aspect of the situation.

 

 

Frances