logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Rush Limbaugh versus Michael J. Fox, Whom Do You Believe?
nighttimer
post Oct 25 2006, 07:01 PM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Sorry, but I can't let this one skate by.

To Rush Limbaugh on Monday, Michael J. Fox looked like a faker. The actor, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, has done a series of political ads supporting candidates who favor stem cell research, including Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, who is running against Republican Michael Steele for the Senate seat being vacated by Paul Sarbanes.

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."

Limbaugh, whose syndicated radio program has a weekly audience of about 10 million, was reacting to Fox's appearance in another one of the spots, for Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, running against Republican Sen. James M. Talent.

After his apology, Limbaugh shifted his ground and renewed his attack on Fox.

"Now people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial," Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on his Web site. "All right then, I stand corrected. . . . 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."

Then Limbaugh pivoted to a different critique: "Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician."


link

The Questions for debate:

1. Is Rush right and Michael J. Fox is faking the severity of the symptoms of his Parkinson's Disease in a ploy for sympathy?

2. If you have seen the video of Fox does it make you feel uncomfortable?

3. Does the endorsement by a celebrity for a political candidate or cause affect your decisions?


note: This is not a debate about the pros and cons of stem cell research.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Start new topic
Replies (80 - 91)
carlitoswhey
post Oct 30 2006, 02:15 PM
Post #81


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,094
Member No.: 3,059
Joined: May-8-04

From: chicago
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 26 2006, 02:14 PM) *

I will repeat what I said yesterday. Embryonic stem cell is now a issue thanks to Rush Limbaugh. flowers.gif

Cardin and Steele will debate Sunday on Meet the Press.
Prediction:

1. This will be a major issue.

2. Michael Steele, if he's smart, and I have no reason to think he isn't, will put as much space as possible between himself and Rush Limbaugh.

Are there any Rush fans here brave enough to call my bet?


QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Oct 27 2006, 09:57 AM) *
You can send flowers if you want, but if Cardin debates Steele on MTP, it's a win for Steele, not Cardin.

Well, you can see the debate here and read the transcript here. I have searched the printable form for "Rush" and "Limbaugh" and the words do not appear. They did discuss stem cell and abortion and it clarified their positions.

In my humble opinion, Steele handily won this debate. They discussed a myriad of issues in addition to stem cells. Cardin looked very bad on his (lack of) plan for Iraq in particular. He had said that he would cut off funding in order to force the troops home, and he just couldn't defend that statement. Steele just hammered him on that.

So, thanks in part to Cardin running this ad, Steele scored a nationally-televised debate, and won. That's effective advertising. tongue.gif

Back to the topic, does it bother anyone else that a certain Canadian actor is campaigning for an initiative that he hasn't read? Yes, his ad was for Claire McCaskill and not the initiative *directly* but please.
QUOTE
Stephanopoulos: In the ad now running in Missouri, Jim Caviezel speaks in Aramaic. It means, "You betray me with a kiss." And his position, his point, is that actually even though down in Missouri they say the initiative is against cloning, it's actually going to allow human cloning.

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


This post has been edited by carlitoswhey: Oct 30 2006, 02:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Founders Int...
post Oct 30 2006, 05:41 PM
Post #82


*****
Constitutionalist

Sponsor
September 2006

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 244
Member No.: 6,405
Joined: August-22-06

From: Virginia
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
"Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly." LINK
So there we have it. Fox doesn't even really know what's in the legislation. Supporting stem cell research in general is his privilege, but to get involved in a political debate on it is quite another thing to do if you are not fully informed. And to make a statement that implies one side will not support the research or doesn't care about curing diseases, is pure idiocy. Then he claims he was actually over-medicated during the ad. Amazing! blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Oct 30 2006, 06:21 PM
Post #83


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Oct 30 2006, 09:15 AM) *

QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 26 2006, 02:14 PM) *

I will repeat what I said yesterday. Embryonic stem cell is now a issue thanks to Rush Limbaugh. flowers.gif

Cardin and Steele will debate Sunday on Meet the Press.
Prediction:

1. This will be a major issue.

2. Michael Steele, if he's smart, and I have no reason to think he isn't, will put as much space as possible between himself and Rush Limbaugh.

Are there any Rush fans here brave enough to call my bet?


QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Oct 27 2006, 09:57 AM) *
You can send flowers if you want, but if Cardin debates Steele on MTP, it's a win for Steele, not Cardin.

Well, you can see the debate here and read the transcript here. I have searched the printable form for "Rush" and "Limbaugh" and the words do not appear. They did discuss stem cell and abortion and it clarified their positions.

In my humble opinion, Steele handily won this debate. They discussed a myriad of issues in addition to stem cells. Cardin looked very bad on his (lack of) plan for Iraq in particular. He had said that he would cut off funding in order to force the troops home, and he just couldn't defend that statement. Steele just hammered him on that.



There isn't much merit in calling a bet after all the cards have been laid down. I think Cradin won the stem cell portion of the debate, but overall I couldn't determine a winner. No, Rush Limbaugh smoke.gif was not mentioned. My guess is that Russert didn't want to waste valuable air time on Rush. In other words, he didn't care to dignify Limbaugh.

It just goes to show I'm not Tim Russert. tongue.gif

This post has been edited by BoF: Oct 30 2006, 06:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carlitoswhey
post Oct 30 2006, 07:07 PM
Post #84


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,094
Member No.: 3,059
Joined: May-8-04

From: chicago
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 30 2006, 01:21 PM) *

There isn't much merit in calling a bet after all the cards have been laid down. I think Cradin won the stem cell portion of the debate, but overall I couldn't determine a winner. No, Rush Limbaugh smoke.gif was not mentioned. My guess is that Russert didn't want to waste valuable air time on Rush. In other words, he didn't care to dignify Limbaugh.

It just goes to show I'm not Tim Russert. tongue.gif

Well, you said "Rush fans" so I didn't think you were directing that response at me thumbsup.gif

Based on the civility of the debate, I agree with you, and think that Russert took the high road by not mentioning the controversy. He was tough on both candidates, maybe a little tougher on Cardin. Which, given that Russert is a former Democrat staffer, impressed me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fife and Drum
post Oct 30 2006, 07:52 PM
Post #85


******
Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 480
Member No.: 2,098
Joined: December-30-03

From: Louie Ville KY
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(The Founders Intent @ Oct 30 2006, 12:41 PM) *

QUOTE
"Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly." LINK
So there we have it. Fox doesn't even really know what's in the legislation. Supporting stem cell research in general is his privilege, but to get involved in a political debate on it is quite another thing to do if you are not fully informed. And to make a statement that implies one side will not support the research or doesn't care about curing diseases, is pure idiocy. Then he claims he was actually over-medicated during the ad. Amazing! blink.gif

So just what is your point TFI? Do you know how your senator and representative voted on every piece of legislation? And you understand every paragraph of every piece of legislation they voted on? Do you think he’s the only non-legislator who has supported laws but couldn’t recite every word or concept from the actual law?

About a year ago and during a rare visit home, our senior republican senator was asked about a piece of legislation that he helped author and made a similar comment as Fox’s that he was unsure about specific details. My guess is you can randomly pick a legislator who either authored or voted on an issue and can’t recited every detail even though it’s their job.

MJF if just an advocate looking for a cure, not a law maker.

1. Is Rush right and Michael J. Fox is faking the severity of the symptoms of his Parkinson's Disease in a ploy for sympathy?

Even if he was faking, the point of MJF making the ad wasn’t for an Oscar nod. It was to expose the affects of Parkinson’s disease to those who might not be familiar with the degenerative disease. Then he made the connection between the candidate and the possible cure through stem cell research.

Sure there was a bit of “playing on the heart strings”. But MJF can find sympathy any where he goes. This was a sympathetic call to rally the troops for a possible cure.

2. If you have seen the video of Fox does it make you feel uncomfortable?

The video of Rush in his studio made me more uncomfortable.

3. Does the endorsement by a celebrity for a political candidate or cause affect your decisions?

Although they may provide addition insight and certainly garner attention, I’ve always been a person of issues regardless of who is endorsing what.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doclotus
post Oct 30 2006, 08:38 PM
Post #86


*******
Stirred, not shaken

Sponsor
April 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 893
Member No.: 2,898
Joined: April-12-04

From: Charlotte, NC
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(The Founders Intent @ Oct 30 2006, 01:41 PM) *

So there we have it. Fox doesn't even really know what's in the legislation. Supporting stem cell research in general is his privilege, but to get involved in a political debate on it is quite another thing to do if you are not fully informed. And to make a statement that implies one side will not support the research or doesn't care about curing diseases, is pure idiocy.

Have you read the amendment(pdf), TFI? The statements on cloning are far from crystal clear. And I would argue that this legislation in no way enables human cloning. It outlaws cloning as defined in the amendment (in the interest of full disclosure, the definition is not on the ballot). What it doesn't explicitly outlaw is the type of cloning that created Dolly the sheep, known as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT). The reason for that is simple, the definition of cloning in the amendment would prevent the realization of a live (ie. outside of the womb, sentient (aware) clone.

If you've ever seen the movie The Island (recent title, not the old one), that is precisely the scenario that Amendment 2 prevents.

If you tried to explain that nuance to the average voter, confusion would reign supreme.

QUOTE(TFI)
Then he claims he was actually over-medicated during the ad. Amazing! blink.gif

What is amazing is your inability to even remotely understand Parkinsons or its treatments, much like your buddy Rush. Take some time to educate yourself, TFI, and you might understand it a little better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cadman
post Oct 31 2006, 06:18 AM
Post #87


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 411
Member No.: 1,193
Joined: September-13-03

From: Outside of Chicago, Illinois
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Democrat



What is amazing is how some still want to hold on to the claims of what Rush has said with out any evidence that he wasn't on any meds that day or altered his meds even if he has done it in the past. All you have to do is read what several people including what Hobbes wrote that actually the meds are intended to keep his muscles from becoming rigid and causes the tremors and by going off the meds it would cause less tremors not more.

Here's a little video of him campaigning for Sherrod Brown where he talks about why he is campaigning for all stem cell research, and you can see thru the video where he starts to starts to move more dramatically like either his meds are wearing off or in between their cycles I don't know.

Michael J. Fox Campaigns For Sherrod Brown: "I Guess I'm Not Supposed To Speak With You Until My Symptoms Go Away"

I have just been recently put on a medication (Topomax) for my daily chronic headaches with migraine tendencies that has kept me from having a life for the last 4 years, nothing like what Michael J Fox has gone thru. But one of the side-effects is if I don't drink enough water is my fingers will get numb and tingly so far I haven't been able to figure out how much water is enough doh but most times I can seem to get it down to where it is controllable, and it does seem to be helping my headaches but still in the early stages of this therapy. So I definitely can understand what people that are trying to go thru a disease and their medication side-effects can have on their lifes and the tolls it takes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aevans176
post Oct 31 2006, 03:42 PM
Post #88


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,931
Member No.: 3,607
Joined: September-13-04

From: Plano, TX. Sweater vest and Volvo hell.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 27 2006, 04:15 PM) *

Campaign ads are not designed to facilitate logical debate, but to get votes. The transcript from last night’s Hardball is not yet up, but Chris Matthews referred to the MJF ad as “dynamite.” Yes, it is dynamite, not because it facilitates debate, but because it influences voters.



Can a Brother get an AMEN???
I've been preaching this for months, if not years. This is exactly why the majority of Americans vote. It may be dirty, but if someone's trying to push an agenda... what else do you expect? Most American's aren't going in search of factual information.

I'll say that I had an Uncle (in-law) die recently of ALS, or commonly called Lou Gehrig's disease. It's a neurological disorder very similar (in ways) to Parkinsons, and often causes a VERY SLOW and not very dignified death. If he was putting on an act.... chances are it was

My feeling is who cares whether M J Fox was acting or not, as the nation should move away from the notion that stem cell research has to come from aborted babies. You ALL know how I feel about abortion, but miscarraiges are EXTREMELY common. These poor losses shouldn't be 100% for not. The stem cells still could be utilized. Rush Limbaugh has gone off the deep end, and is at times a disgrace to conservatives. Whether he's right or not.... I wish these issues weren't politicized, aside from the abortion part. There really are other ways to deal with Stem Cell research.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Oct 31 2006, 08:37 PM
Post #89


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(DaytonRocker)
Rush Limbaugh is a loud-mouthed hypocrite who doesn't have an objective bone in his body.


I agree completely.

QUOTE
He gets his talking points directly from Dick Cheney in my opinion.


Cheney has been a guest on the Rush Limbaugh smoke.gif show when he wishes to get some message to the base.

As the saying goes, “water seeks its own level.”


QUOTE
Rush is a great entertainer to many, well spoken, very intelligent, quite witty, and mostly wrong.


I agree with part of this. He may be a “great entertainer,” but many of his listeners, the self-styled “dittoheads,” take Limbaugh’s words like they were handed down from on high on tablets of stone.

I commend you for being able to listen regularly with believing his every word. thumbsup.gif It is my understanding that NBC anchor, Brian Williams, listens to Limbaugh on a regular basis.

Appearances can be deceiving. John Wayne Gacy was a clown. He worked children’s hospitals in the Chicago area. He was named man of the year in the Chicago area and had his photo made with First Lady Rosalynn Carter.

I’m not saying that Limbaugh is a serial killer, but he does nuke truth on a regular basis.

http://www.prairieghosts.com/gacy.html

There are many facets to intelligence. Limbaugh has some of them - sly and cunning come to mind. His social IQ is below norms (just my opinion). I can’t find much human cimpassion on the man. He may be well spoken and witty, but about 15 minutes is my limit. My grandmother used say “hate is a murderous word.” I don’t use the word lightly, but I hate the sound of Limbaugh’s voice

QUOTE
But right is right. And just like a broken clock that is correct twice a day, Rush got this one right. MJF clearly pulled a stunt just like in 2002 for political purposes.


This is not a good analogy. In 24 hours, Limbaugh would be right twice. His show is three hours long - closer to two if you don’t count the commercials. That gives Limbaugh 10 hours of air time per week. If we go by your analogy, it would take Limbaugh 6 days to be right once and 12 to stumble into another truth. TTercentage yield.

Sorry, DR, but I think Limbaugh blew it again. I and other posters have provided evidence that the spastic movements seen in Fox are a side effect of taking the medication and had Fox been off his meds he would have been rigid. Neurology is both an art and science. Getting the right med or combinations of meds and at what dosage is a delicate balance, that sometimes requires frequent adjusting. This is not a high percentage yield.

This post has been edited by BoF: Oct 31 2006, 09:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Founders Int...
post Nov 5 2006, 07:14 PM
Post #90


*****
Constitutionalist

Sponsor
September 2006

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 244
Member No.: 6,405
Joined: August-22-06

From: Virginia
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: None



When did Rush Limbaugh say that he was perfectly objective. He has always admitted to being a conservative. Obviously this is only a revelation to those who don't listen to his program. BTW, what does this have to do with MJF? hmmm.gif Who thinks MJF is objective? Who thinks MJF is not liberal?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
English Horn
post Nov 5 2006, 08:14 PM
Post #91


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 633
Member No.: 2,819
Joined: March-30-04

From: Connecticut
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(The Founders Intent @ Nov 5 2006, 03:14 PM) *

When did Rush Limbaugh say that he was perfectly objective. He has always admitted to being a conservative. Obviously this is only a revelation to those who don't listen to his program. BTW, what does this have to do with MJF? hmmm.gif Who thinks MJF is objective? Who thinks MJF is not liberal?


From Merriam-Webster:

objective
Pronunciation: &b-'jek-tiv, äb-
Function: adjective
Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>


Personally, I never thought that being objective and being conservative is mutually exclusive, but if you insist... smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Nov 5 2006, 09:04 PM
Post #92


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(The Founders Intent @ Nov 5 2006, 01:14 PM) *

When did Rush Limbaugh say that he was perfectly objective. He has always admitted to being a conservative. Obviously this is only a revelation to those who don't listen to his program. BTW, what does this have to do with MJF? hmmm.gif Who thinks MJF is objective? Who thinks MJF is not liberal?


You've brought this thing up about not listening to Rush Limbaugh smoke.gif several times. We have heard you!

QUOTE(The Founders Intent @ Oct 25 2006, 07:10 PM) *
BOF, do you ever even listen to his show?


Post # 18

QUOTE(The Founders Intent @ Oct 27 2006, 02:25 PM) *
Obviously you didn't listen to the program.


Post # 56

In college courses there is often a list of required reading and perhaps a list of optional reading. Limbaugh, in my opinion - along with Sean Hannity - is optional listening.

It is my guess that most liberals on the board have heard Limbaugh's show at some time or other. Just beause we don't hinge on every word from the "guru's" mouth for 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, doesn't mean we haven't heard - at least parts of - his show. About 15 minutes is all I can tolerate. You might think non-Limbaugh fans are ill informed. I think that people can better inform themselves by doing something else with a three hour block carved out of their lives on a daily basis

This post has been edited by BoF: Nov 5 2006, 09:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: April 8th, 2020 - 09:40 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.