Appeals to emotion stifle debate? Then where is the condemnation of just about every single ad regarding this election? They ALL appeal to the emotions of voters. The republicans (who are the most transparent in this regard) are preying on fear and the democrats are appealing to anger and fatigue. I can't for the life of me understand how someone appealing to the sympathies of a potential voter is somehow less legitimate than appealing to their fears of a liberal "homosexual agenda" or morally degenerate republican.



I am a carrier for the Tay-Sachs disease gene. Does that make me an expert? Of course not, but I certainly know more about the disease than most of the people I know; and if they have questions I can answer them honestly and truthfully. Is MJF an expert? I don't know. He's devoted the last ten years of his life to Parkinson's research, so I'm willing to bet that he knows more than you or I, and at least knows enough that he can speak honestly and truthfully on the subject. Where's the beef?

Allow me to reword my statement:

Appeals to emotions cannot be refuted with facts very easily, if at all. It usually requires a greater appeal to emotion or an overwhelming factual case.

In this case, Fox blurs the issue with statements such as:



Notice the missing term? EMBRYONIC

This is not a debate about the merits of ESC research versus other stem cell research, but using language like this clouds the issue rather than illuminates it.

Fox is not an issue regarding stem cell research if his statements are really what he believes. Adult stem cells are used to treat 72 conditions including Parkinson's. Embryonic stem cells are used to treat exactly zero conditions. Sure, there's a funding gap. Sure researchers are reluctant to jump through the hoops required to develop treatments with ESCs (especially that no federal funding hoop!). But to imply that other stem cell therapies are not "promising" is bogus.

Fox presented the image he wanted to portray. I don't think there is any doubt of that. It's a naked appeal to emotion, one not easily refuted by such dry facts such as: "adult stem cells have been used to treat Parkinson's in people just like Michael J. Fox". How exactly do you say that to Mr. Fox without appearing unsympathetic and crass?


The fact that MJF apparently is unaware of this adult stem cell treatment of his condition does not speak well towards him being an expert in the field.

Wanted to portray? Et tu, Amlord?

Do you think he wants to portray himself as suffering from Parkinson's? How many acting gigs are available for an actor shaking like the last leaf on a tree in October? You think swallowing a regimen of pills for the rest of your life is peaches and ice cream? Oh, I'm sure he's enjoying every minute of his disease. Big fun. A regular 24/7 bop 'til ya drop party.

Fox isn't asking people to feel sorry for him. He's asking them to get off the couch and get the politicians out of the way of medical research.

I don't recall at any time in the commercial Michael J. Fox declaring, "Hi, I'm Michael J. Fox and you should listen up because I'm an expert on Parkinson's."

You hung the tag of "expert" on him. He didn't hang it on himself. Whatever authority he possess is the moral authority as someone who suffers from the disease, has decided to put a human face on it and made himself available to speak out for Democratic and Republican candidates who agree with him on the issue for further research.

Which really seems to be the reason the people cracking on him are honked off.

Take a closer look at your own post Amlord. He doesn't say "limits on stem cell research," he says "the most promising stem cell research."

The fact remains that the therapeutic potential of embryonic stem cells is still considered by most stem cell researchers as far greater than adult stem cells. His statement was true, and your manipulation of it reeks of the same hypocrisy as Limbaugh's. Does the work on adult stem cells lend treatment options for Parkinson's? Of course it does, but Fox never denied that, and I think you're looking for deception where none exists.

With all due respect, Amlord, I think you just did (avoided that appearance, I mean). That is certainly a valid point, one which, to my knowledge, has not been made by a single talking head out there in response to this controversy. And saying so didn't address any of the pathos in Fox's original appeal.


Arguably, sure. After a scan of his site, I'll admit he seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of the ESC approach. Perhaps he makes no reference to the Turner testimony because the adult SC approach is merely a treatment as opposed to a cure? Fox's site seems to be singularly focused on initiatives that would cure the condition. Is that wrong? Maybe. But I guess he can champion what he wishes.

Who said anything about acting? Obviously you didn't listen to the program. I was listening to the program when he first discussed Fox, and he wasn't making fun of anything. Rush said that Fox is not immune from criticism when he enters the political arena and makes false statements. Too bad you didn't hear what the Parkinsons victims that called Rush had to say. Were you as outraged when Clooney said the Charlton Heston got what he deserved, when it was discovered that Heston had Alzheimer's? The libs have spent 3 or 4 days on this, and are getting no traction. I'll let you figure out why.

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.

How many of the campaign ads on this Hardball video by David Shuster aren’t emotional.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&a...036697/&fg=

Please pardon the commercial at the beginning of the video.

Bush spoke out yesterday in Iowa about that old bugaboo - that worked so well in 2004 – gay marriage and activist judges. Emotional? I think so!

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/15863020.htm

Ah thank for clarifying. So Michael J Fox really doesn't care about curing Parkinson's through embryonic stem cell research, he just wants some guy elected. Gotcha!

Sorry, I don't buy that. If anyone really cares about an issue and not a candidate or party, its Michael J Fox (as illustrated by his ad for Specter). How soon we forget that Michael P Keaton was a young Republican!!

Sorry, but Matthews (and his buddy Olbermann) are out in left field we-hate-this-administration-and-anyone-remotely-connected-to-it shills. I often wonder why I still watch Hardball semi-regularly. Oh wait, now I remember: to get a sense of what Democrats think on issues.

It was not I that presented Fox as an "authority" on this issue. It wasn't me that claimed he wasn't using the sympathy factor. He's not (an authority) and he was (positioning himself to maximize sympathy).

I agree with you that an appeal to emotion is an appeal for votes, not debate.



In this instance, yes. He has done similarly in the past. He was definitely in control over how he appeared in that ad.



That wasn't me. I simply refuted someone who did give him that tag.



Yes, first he leaves off what the name of that most promising line is. Embryonic. Then he ignores the fact that ASC research has made great leaps forward in therapy, instead hanging his hat on the hope that using ESC will do more. I submit that he did so without evidence. Yes, it could cure Parkinson's, just as it could cure my Type I, but don't call it the "most promising" while ignoring (sorry, conveniently leaving out) the facts on the ground.



Thanks, Doc. Maybe you can convince my friends nighttimer and UltimateJoe about that point. They certainly seem to think I'm misrepresenting what he said and at least hinted that I was a bit heartless for saying it.

My basic point is that MJF presented himself exactly has he wanted to present himself. I have certainly seen him look better recently.

The thing is that I do pity him and those like him. But I will not sacrifice the life of an unborn child on the hope of a cure. That may seem heartless, it may seem dim-witted (considering my own shortened life expectancy from a disease that, according to MJF, has its most promising research in the ESC arena), but opening this Pandora's box is simply not worth it to me.

I would love for someone to show where embryonic stem cells show one iota of promise for anything. What about all the other stem cell research? Fox is making a campaign ad on the premise that Republicans don't want to cure diseases. Only a lunatic would believe that.

Amlord, I did not say that Fox doesn't care about curing Parkinson's. That's really getting from point A to point C, while conveniently skipping point B, in other words a quantum leap. If I wrote that, please point it out. Otherwise this is a conclusion poorly drawn.

I did say that it was a campaign ad - not much different than some of the others we are seeing. I stick by that, but it has zero to do with MJF's commitment to Parkinson's cures. After all, he does have a vested interest - his life. Further, it wouldn't be getting this much attention if Rush Limbaugh hadn't opened his over sized mouth.

You need to put the "Gotcha!" back in the box.

First, I called him an "Authority", not an expert. I nthe context of my post he IS an authority because he message was to inform people about the need for a cure. As a perfect example of a person whose life was forever altered by the disease, he is an authority. On the subject of the disease specifically, only scientists and doctors can be "expert".


As far as the second part of the quote...well, I think my whole point was missed. Asking for MJF to choose "a better moment" to film the commercial is downright twisted. It does not matter if his appearance pulls at some peoples' heartstrings. As I said before, people in his position are WELL beyond the need for pity. You have ZERO basis to assume that he is purposely using his appearance to garner attention of pity. He has NO other option but to have his sickness and to appear as he does. I mean really, following your line of logic it would seem that, at Special Olympics fundraisers the mentally retarded participants should somehow try to hide their symptoms so as not to be using "pity" to get donations.

Is it so hard to believe that, just because YOU can't see past a person's disability, they only see themselves through that lens? Is it impossible to believe that MJF does those commercials because he is passionate about the issue and not because he sees his condition as a good sell?

You couldn't be more wrong. MJF has admitted that on at least two occasions, he's done exactly what you think he's never done. Read this thread for pete's sake and look at the evidence.

In 2002, MJF testified in front of the senate and shook just like he did in the latest ads (he did 3, but I've only seen two. He shook uncontrollably in both). MJF admitted to altering his med intake to amplify the ravages of his disease at the senate hearing. Nobody - including Rush Limbaugh - had a problem with that. In fact, Limbaugh said it was an effective tool.

Since 2002, MJF did a spot for Arlen Specter and numerous episodes of Boston Legal, and he did not shake like he did back in the 2002 hearing. And in his latest ads, his movements were more along the lines of his 2002 testimony where he admitted he altered his modification.

I swear, sometimes I think I life in an alternate universe. People's arguments - like this one - defy common sense. Rush simply pointed out that Fox could have pulled a stunt like he did in the 2002 hearing to prop up a democratic candidate before this election. And to add to this, Fox's ad is somewhat misleading. Nothing wrong with that as both sides of the aisle are guilty of those tactics. But Fox's ailment does not make him immune from critics. And really, I never thought Rush was that critical, but maybe someone could post a partial transcript where Rush bashed him.

But don't let facts get in the way of a good Rush bashing.

When Michael was on the CBS news last night with Katie Couric, he twitched so bad that his lavalier (clip-on microphone) fell off. The perky Ms. Couric had to help him get it back on. They NEVER would have done this with a person who was not disabled. Never in the TV business does stuff like this go on camera.

DaytonRocker, now come on. If Rush can bash Michael J. Fox, we can certainly bash Rush. Rush had no facts--he was relying on opinion which is why he said Fox was either acting or off his meds. And if we start suggesting that Rush Limbaugh must only be attacked based on facts, then should this also not apply to Rush himself when attacking others? I mean, I hate to bring up Rush's past with drug addiction, but that sort of thing really puts you in a position where criticizing someone else makes you look a bit hypocritical. I have nothing against hypocrisy, but you can't say it isn't fair.

What also defies common sense, as well as good taste, class and manners is anyone arrogant enough to think because they get paid millions of dollars to sit in front of a microphone that gives them carte blanche to rip into a man with a lifetime disease and say they are faking their symptoms.

When it comes from a drug addict who's switched his med of choice from OxyContin because he was too weak to deal with pain to Viagra because he can't function without the blue steel it becomes vulgar beyond belief.



It's never slowed Rush down.

I've read quite a few put downs on Rush. While his weight and (former?) drug addiction can't be disputed, he's not as stupid as posters give him credit for. There's a reason he's not giving Fox the benefit of the doubt. He's too busy creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for his unmotivated Dittonation. Ya see, by making himself into a tempting target with outrageous, idiotic comments, he gets to prove liberal elitism and liberal intolerance is alive and well by openly challenging the guy who wants to kill “babies”. This is just a taste of what's waiting if liberals take Congress. Shouldn’t we know better by now?

Whether Michael J. Fox altered his medication regimen or not in order to let the symptomology be more apparent to the television audience while he made his case for stem cell research, I think we can safely say that he still possesses more dignity, even in that state, than Rush Limbaugh does on his best day, as evidenced by the way he refuses to insult and hyperbolize the opposition.

Michael J. Fox is a class act.

PE's got it right on the button. Regardless of anything else, MJF supporting anything is a big boost to whatever he decides to support.

Many of us grew up with the kid on the TV who was conservative while his parents were liberals. Many of us had similiar situations with children that we were trying to raise during hard times (not that this is anything new). Many of us found common ground with our parents too, with the understanding that kids tend to rebel no matter what. It's part of being a young human being.

Amazingly, MJF doesn't show his age very much, like the way Dick Clark seemed to be ageless. Maybe it's stage makeup, but he comes across as that kid on TV whom we all loved even to this day, and even if he is losing control of his body. That's hard to witness, but if anything, it increases the room in our hearts for the man.

I don't know what prompted RL to go on the attack, but it comes off like sending someone in a wheelchair down the stairs. That affirms a huge negative on the right side of politics, so my take is that the attack wasn't very well thought out, if thought out at all. Meanwhile MJF appeared on ABC morning news and described how his meds sometimes work, sometimes don't. Anyone who has taken meds for a serious disease can well understand that it's often a guessing game as to what chemical works and at what dosages.

This makes me wonder what the exact quote is that RL went on regarding the honesty of MJF. Maybe someone can provide it here, not that it'll change any minds, just that I'm curious and maybe others are too.

Me, I'm busy watching the Back to The Future movies while making up Christmas stories. Somehow this goes together.

I read the SLATE article when it came out Lesly and while I agree that Limbaugh is dumb as a...fox and is just throwing red meat to his Dittoheads, what Timothy Noah fails to recognize is for far too long liberals, progressives and moderates have allowed the Right to say whatever wild thought pops in their heads and let it go unchallenged.

In politics (and this is all about politics on both Limbaugh and Fox's motivations) if you don't define yourself the other guy will do it for you and usually in the most negative way possible. All you have to do is flip on the television and watch a 30 second attack ad. I agree there is a risk of walking right into a trap laid by Limbaugh, but there are times when you know that without a shadow of a doubt that you are RIGHT on an issue. This is one of those times.

Michael J. Fox and Rush Limbaugh have the absolute right to use their celebrity status to advocate for or against whatever position or politician they choose. No one would deny them that right.

But that doesn't mean common sense, common respect and common decency no longer apply. I'm less concerned about what happens to liberals than I am the death of civil discourse.

Martin Luther King Jr. said Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

No matter what happens on Election Day, Dr. King expressed a core value that is still worth practicing.

Pot calling the kettle black....

The "wrong" going on here is first, the complete lack of understanding of Parkinson's disease. Someone with advanced stages of PD cannot turn their symptoms on and off by simply adjusting their meds. If they go off meds they actually become stiff and cannot move. If their meds kick in too much they shake uncontrollably. According to MJF in his interview with Couric he saw irony in Limbaugh's comment about him skipping his meds because the very reason he was shaking is because he TOOK his meds. Parkinson's disease puts it's victims in a horrible irony: They need to take meds in order to be able to get around in society, but on their meds they can lose control of their bodies and be unwilling to go out into society.

You would not fault a public speaker for using visual aids to support their argument, or a politician for using video to display more personal information about themselves or a performer for using spectacle and dancing to liven their shows. But when a disabled person displays their disability when talking about their disability they are seeking pity??
That is predjudiced. Plain and simple. Just because MJF has said that he used his shaking as a tool while speaking before congress you have, once again, ZERO reason to (or proof to) believe he is doing it for pity. If he wants to explain the need to a cure, then showing them exactly what the disease is makes it concrete for them. People are quick to forget when presented with only abstractions. Any good speaker must "hit home" with something tangible in order to move people to action or change.
So is MJF using his appearance as a tool in his argument, undoubtedly. Is he going for pity. I have no reason to believe so and THAT is why I reject these attacks on him. In the end all Limbaugh (and the people on this board) did was commit an "ad hominem" attack on MJF. As logical fallacies go it is the easiest one to pull off. Simply question the speaker's motives and suddenly he is wrong on his issues as well....


Lame...Lame..Lame..... There was one attempt to doubt whether or not stem cell research is even better. There was no attempt to research it or to link any proof that it is not (likely because no such proof exists).
Would anyone like to take on MJF on the merits of his argument?

That's a great idea, but off topic for this thread.

When you start up the debate on whether embryonic steam cell research is necessary, maybe MJF can be used as an advocate and RL as a detractor. Maybe actual quotations from the two men can be used. Maybe we'll all learn something along the way, besides that the last month leading up to Election Day is full of flying FUBARs.

The problem is that we don’t get the whole picture by just “listening” to Rush Limbaugh. Just in case you missed it, I’m reposting the video of Rush flouncing around like a helicopter that can’t quite get off the pad, while making his remarks about Fox.

In the years I taught special education, 25 of my 34 years, I did not have a kid with Parkinson’s. I did, however, teach a number of kids with neuromuscular problems. I taught kids with epilepsy, kids with various types of cerebral palsy – some of them spastic – and one girl who had muscular dystrophy (one of Jerry’s kids). Occasionally other kids would make fun of my students. I would ask them not to do it and usually they stopped. The difference here is that kids sometimes do things because they just don’t know better. I assume Rush is a functioning adult, who should know better, though I do have some lingeing doubts.

http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/321

Please go to the bottom of this story and click on Windows media.

There is no way one can watch this video without seeing Limbaugh as the mean, insensitive creature that he is.

For Rush’s own good, it is best that he be heard and not seen. His TV show lasted seven years and his ESPN experience was another helicopter that didn’t quite get off the ground - on second thought, it crashed with a rather loud thump.

http://www.jumptheshark.com/r/rushlimbaugh.htm

My mother died in a Fort Worth nursing home after seven + years of struggling with Alzheimer’s disease. I do not approve of Clooney’s remarks.

Since you didn’t supply a link to the Clooney story, I am going to do it for you.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/entertainm...445/detail.html

Somebody should have named this thread "Let's list all the reasons we think Rush Limbaugh is a big fat retard". It would have been more fitting. And most posts would have had more relevance to that premise.

This debate started off with nighttimer accusing Rush Limbaugh of stating MJF was "acting". The debate started with this misleading premise. Rush Limbaugh stated very clearly that he though MJF did the same thing MJF admitted to back in 2002. And at the same time, never faulted him for it. He just made a common sense observation. Video evidence over 4 years shows MJF's present level of shaking existed back in 2002 - when MJF admitted to adjusting his meds for dramatic purposes.

So, where do this lead to?








Basically, the posters here at AD acknowledge what Rush Limbaugh said to start this could be true, but here it is ok because apparently, Rush is a big fat idiot.

Look, I realize I'm a partisan hack that parrots the party line and would apologize for any republican's actions, but my view in a common sense view: Michael J. Fox pulled a stunt just like he did in 2002 to help get a democrat elected in the hope the government would fund embryonic stem cell research (which contrary to the ad, is legal - just not federally funded). Nobody has cried foul over this - including Rush Limbaugh.

Some of you are correct in my opinion: Rush Limbaugh and Michael J. Fox could never be in the same class. Contrary to MJF, Rush Limbaugh is a loud-mouthed hypocrite who doesn't have an objective bone in his body. He gets his talking points directly from Dick Cheney in my opinion. Rush is a great entertainer to many, well spoken, very intelligent, quite witty, and mostly wrong.

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.

But did rush know for sure that MJF was off his meds or not for one, and two, so what if he was not or was. Politicians are not always honest in everything when it comes to getting elected, and they work hard if you will for votes and will even via competition attempt to ruin the other persons life, its very dirty at times, but of course just like partisan politics the reality of this only becomes horrible when you can use it against your opponent. Going from this, then I guess really pro life rallies or commercials or propaganda should not be allowed to show the reality of such, or anything for that matter. Talking on an issue is one thing, it always is, its nice to be able to talk about how nasty Iraq is, but nothing hits home like watching some U.S troops getting killed, speaks far louder then words.

So for this issue, of course watching a person actually suffer the reality of his or her disease is far worse then just hearing that stem cell research could one day put a stop to it, talking about the symptoms of the disease does not rank or compare to actually seeing it in person, heck mad cow sounds scary, watching a cow with it is much more so.

Again, I am sure its not as partisan as people are making it, giving a different environment who knows who MJF would attempt to support in hopes of some cure for himself or others with such a condition. Stem cell research is a hot topic, and I don’t know overall but I think its rather a no go with the gop at this point besides a small majority, simply because you have to tow your line to keep your followers. If on one end the gop calls the democrats bags of puke because they are pro choice it would not ring to clear if they started to support stem cell harvesting on the other, so again, politics is far more... well, corrupt then anything MJF supposedly did at this point.

Again, rush is sounding off because his "act" will aid a democrat, it actually has nothing to do with the issue, that is a partisan hack in my book, the reality that spawns the politics or anything does not matter, just supporting the team, makes you wonder if this guy would support Hitler if he happened to be around and in the grand old party or something, that’s corruption and I will call it regardless of party. Simple point, Clinton, personally I could care less that he had sex with an intern, really could not, that issue would be on him and his wife and family, does not do anything to me or America or the world, him lying about it was another thing, and when I found out he did indeed lie, I lost a lot of respect for him right at that moment far beyond anything else. Clinton never had a rubber stamp congress, heck after Somalia(he did attempt to combat terror OMG!!!) I don’t think he was willing to anger anyone to even put troops in Rwanda to stop a genocide, which of course we have another genocide in Africa going on, involving the rape of children, but no cry of foul on it from a super power that sits by idly while this occurs.

The hypocrisy of it is enough to make you puke and basically vote to kill government, that’s what I do anymore actually with my votes, just to add that in.

Back to the issue, one is MJF is not doing anything new that someone else has not done or does not do on a regular basis in either camp or side of it all. Two, rush would not be saying anything at all if this act went to help a republican, but because its not MJF is some foul creature, what can you say at that point, again I say its low because it never actually dealt with anything past simply calling on MJF again because it was in support of some person whom MJF probably thinks will help him, like he has been doing for sometime now.

None of this is new or outside of the box or heck even uncommon in politics, I am sure we will see it again and again, but of course why does this shine, because of the partisan crud we are so use to anymore.

And Rush said the same thing.

Rush only commented that MJF purposely went on the camera (whether not enough meds, too much meds, whatever) in worse shape than he allows himself on say, many episodes of Boston Legal and/or ads for Arlen Spector. And Rush said it was an effective tool.

But this isn't the story people want to hear. They want to hear how Rush yet again stuck his foot in his mouth - as he typically does - at the expense of poor little MJF. For the 80th time, Rush simply said MJF appeared to be acting and/or off his meds to make his appearance look the same like he did in 2002 when he admitted to not taking his meds (which basically shoots the "too much meds argument down) for dramatic effect. Rush never said it was a bad thing for the same reasons people here have said it's not all bad - it's effective.

I've provided evidence with a challenge to prove what some thought never happened - MJF alters his medication for dramatic effect. Instead of admitting this story is overblown, the subject has changed to a "Rush sucks" thread. I know Rush sucks. And most of the time Rush is an idiot. Everybody is preaching to the choir. But the media has misrepresented what actually happened and people here have drank that up just like they were supposed to.

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

No. I base my political opinions on observations which typically have nothing what so ever to do with what other people say or do... within certain limits of course...

...and Frankly, I just don't get thread's like this one, so you might consider this a sort of protest post. This issue is such a non topic that I find it amazing that it can generate so much interest from so many intelligent people. Whats the big deal here? Fox was acting? He's an actor! Limbaugh made a point of it? He's a political commentator!
This is what these men do for a living. Its is like debating the antics of Sesamstrasse characters! and frustrating in the extreme to see so much energy wasted on such a trivial thing. Its not so much that I expect better, but that I just don't understand why this issue is being debatted at all.

I've read many times about the American (and British) indifference towards the political process, and when I see the sort of debate in a topic like this (and the many others like it) I have to wonder why American political indifference is such a big surprise. If this level of debate is mirrored across the nation, then its small wonder that so many people are turned off by it all.

I've heard a lot about the use of fear in the political process of late. Julian even has a post about on his blog, but although the BBC assures me this is a great problem in the current US election campaigns, I see nothing mentioned here. Why not? Surely the use of scare mongering is of more concern than what Rush Limabugh said about Michael J Fox?

DaytonaRocker, you are misrepresenting both what Rush said and what we have said on this thread.
Rush's actual words are not quite as moderate as you are now characterizing. See the thread starting post for his main attack line. See the video to see the vaudeville style mockery...

My entire purpose for debating this issue is that it is an obnoxious example of the quiet predjudice against disabled people AND it is classic, desperate "ad hominem" politics.

It simply amazes me that you can refer to MJF's advocacy as a "stunt" as you while away your time each day listening to Rush Limbaugh "entertain" the conservative masses. I guess it disturbs me on some deep level that so many Americans can't seem to see the difference between real advocacy and meaningless "opinioneering". (my new word )

You see, if it were some liberal, Hollywood talkinghead doing the same ads conservatives would simply pick them apart in other ways. But because it is a person with a debilitating disease it is pity mongering, it is a "stunt". Why couldn't Rush just pull out his trusty, "liberal Hollywood" hack?
Is all political advocacy a "stunt"? Or only when it has an actual message? Or only "liberal" political advocacy? (We'll allow you to ignore that he did this same "stunt" for Republicans) Or, really, is it only when a disabled person does it that it is a stunt?


moif, I am debating this issue for the reasons above. As far as politics go, this issue is very important. Right now in America we have a serious problem. You see, in the "old days" of journalism the people doing interviews and hashing out the issues on television we hardened, experienced journalists. These people had a lifetime of experience reporting wars and race riots. They had been in the trenches.
Now we have hacks on both the left and right who are complete nobodys. The worst, in my opinion, are the mouths on the right. Hannity, Ingraham, Coulter, Limbaugh.....really though, who ARE these people? What are their credentials? Why do they get to present their wild opinions as truth to an audience of millions of Americans? We all know they are just entertainers. They get ratings. They write books. They say whatever they can to get more people to tune in. But worst of all, they are able to hack at the real "doers" in this world - comfortable knowing that, because their whole career is based entirely on their opinions and their mouth's ability to spew them, there is very little carpet for others to pull out from under them.

The thread is what it is. It is "Rush Limbaugh versus Michael J. Fox" and if you don't care for what the thread is named you're welcome to start your own or stay out of this one if it so offends you.

There is nothing "misleading" about the premise of this thread. You keep harping on what Fox did in 2002. This is 2006. Are you some sort of authority who can assert with absolute certainty that Fox should respond to his medicine as well now as he did then? Rush Limbaugh certainly isn't an expert on Parkinson's. Now if he wants to shoot off his mouth about the wonderful effects of OxyContin cocktails and Viagra chasers, maybe I'll pay attention.



Well, thank goodness we have Dittoheads around to tell the rest of us unenlightened souls the truth.

You haven't provided a sliver of "evidence" Dayton Rocker. You've repeated to the point of being redundant, "Michael J. Fox admitted in 2002 sometimes he doesn't take his medication for dramatic effect." Yeah, we got that. But Fox has said that he wasn't off his meds when he filmed the campaign spots. So what you and your boy are doing is calling him a liar.

You have not proven Fox didn't take his medication. You can only rip Fox for manipulating his image for sympathy. Even if you could prove it----SO WHAT? Would that mean Fox has been faking having Parkinson's to gain sympathy?

The story isn't overblown. Rush Limbaugh is overblown with the smug confidence of someone who will say anything about anyone knowing that his legion of faithful listeners will drink the Kool-Aid and regurgitate back his lies, slander and beastly behavior. Limbaugh's choir has predictably thrown both good sense and decency out the window in their defense of their drug-addled hero.

The subject never changed to "Rush sucks and Rush is an idiot." That was a well-established fact before the debate started. Now we're just repeating the obvious.



Moif, if you don't "get thread's like this one" might I suggest you may not fully understand why it generates so much interest from so many intelligent people.

Here are a few reasons WHY this is not "such a trivial thing."

1. There is a hotly contested election slightly more than a week away. The balance of political power may be changed. This is exciting a lot of passion in America.

2. Michael J. Fox has grown from being a child star on a popular television show to an adult actor fighting a terrible disease. He has "grown up in public" and is well-known and well liked by millions of people.

3. Rush Limbaugh is the most powerful man in talk radio. He has been a powerful influence on the political process, for better or worse. There are a lot of guys who have radio shows and if most of them had said the exact same thing about Michael J. Fox it would have barely registered. But when Limbaugh says it, the effect is magnified, possibly exaggerated. Despite his own personal shortcomings and the lessening of his power, Limbaugh is still a significant player in the shaping of political opinion.

4. On one side you have those who feel Limbaugh accurately exposed Fox's slippery manipulation to benefit a Democratic candidate lagging in the polls. On the other side you have those who feel it is wrong to accuse another person of "faking" their illness or symptoms to exploit the sympathy of well-meaning people.

5. The entire story once again sparks discussion among Americans about stem cell research and why they support or oppose restrictions in the research.

ALL of that matters, Moif. I freely admit Limbaugh and Fox aren't as important as the situation in the Sudan or global warming or war in Iraq. But people respond to what issues interest them at a particular time and this story interests a lot of people. Okay, so you're not interested. That's fine.

However, look at the 100 newest topics on and you will see threads like "Workplace Daycare," "Islam's Explosive Growth," "Evolving past masculinity?" and "The End of Internet Poker?" Hell, there is a open thread about the freaking Chicago Bears football team!

I think you are being unintentionally a bit rude, Moif telling all the individuals who have posted in this thread this is "a non-topic." Apparently, some of your fellow America's Debate members do not share your opinion. The worthiness of a given thread isn't determined by whether it's "trivial" or "important" to everyone.

Posters vote with their mouse which threads they choose to participate in and pass on. NOBODY is interested in every thread on this board.

No subject is going to matter as much to everyone equally. When Pablo Picasso was asked what he thought about man landing on the moon he replied, It means nothing to me. I have no opinion about it, and I don't care.

I would respectfully submit Moif if you share Picasso's sentiments about the Fox and Limbaugh story, there are other threads you may find more engaging.

I do believe that Rush is wrong in this instance, I've come to that conclusion after seeing the CBS interview and pondering some comments which I'll share below.





At one time, he perhaps could have done it, but according to him, and I have yet to hear anyone refute it, but in the interview with Katie Couric (all hail Katie!) he states that if he did skip, that he would not be able to speak. Obviously, there is a different context between his interviews now and when early on, he could not take his meds and still function. Comparing the instances does not give an accurate portrayal.

TimM posted the following:


How can we be sure of this? What proof out there guarantees that we can be sure of it? Simply going by his career isn't a convincing case IMHO. Having read this thread for awhile now, I'm not seeing any convincing evidence that Fox doesn't use medication to enhance the effects to gain sympathy. If anything, the evidence refutes Rush's point.


I don't agree with on this either:



This isn't about what other Parkinson's affected citizens believe. This is taking the issue away from the first debate topic.

To me, the issue as settled as Rush admitted he was wrong about Fox not taking his meds, though now he is saying Fox was over-medicated. This makes little sense as it's tantamount to accusing a flu sufferer of exaggerating the effects of it by taking in more Sudafed and NyQuil.

We keep reading in this thread that Limbaugh knows Fox was faking it based upon his book revealing that he sometimes skipped his medication.

But there's more to it than that.

In the book, Fox tells the story of his life in the real world—the world his body inhabited, as opposed to the make-believe world Limbaugh saw on television. Fox describes how, during "the years I spent promoting the fiction that none of this was actually happening to me," he learned "to titrate medication so that it kicked in before an appearance or performance … I did everything I could to make sure the audience didn't know I was sick. This, as much as anything, had, by 1998, become my 'acting.' " When he came out of the Parkinson's closet, Fox recalls, he chose "to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease … be seen as well as heard."

http://www.slate.com/id/2152347/nav/tap1/

Writer William Saletan goes on to explain why he believe Fox wasn't faking his symptoms in the ad.

I have another friend. He has Parkinson's. I've seen him on good days and bad days. That's how I know Fox isn't faking it. My friend doesn't see the destruction of embryos as a dangerous price to pay for stem-cell research. I do. But if you worry about the embryos, you had bloody well better look into the eyes of the people dying of these diseases. You had better ask yourself whether slowing research that might save them is an acceptable price for your principles.

If you can't—if all you can see is "acting"—then you need more help than they do. Fox's disease can only take your body. Limbaugh's can take your soul.

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.

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.

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!

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

I agree completely.



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

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




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. 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



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.

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? 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...

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



Post # 18



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