Rush Limbaugh needs a.... - page 11
:trout: .... Read More
Nov 2, '06Mike - I actually listen to Rush and I can say in my opinion, he did not "attack" MJF personally regarding his Parkinson's . . . he never said he was "faking". He mentioned that MJF may have not taken his meds, which Fox admits to doing in order to let people see the ravages of his disease and Rush never said that was wrong, in fact again today said he completely agrees with that.
Rush criticized the ads and the info in the ads. There are "misstatements" or "misinformation" in those ads.
The Missouri bill is not about stem cells but cloning.
Stem cell research IS legal in Missouri. Jim Talent does not oppose it.
MJF admitted on ABC that he had not read the text of the amendment to legalize cloning in Missouri, which MJF called "stem cell research".
And as I mentioned, when you thrust yourself into the political arena, you have to be able to allow people to critique what you've said and if they disagree with it, allow that too. No free passes just because you suffer from Parkinson's. If you say something that is proved to be wrong, you simply must allow those folks a voice.
I agree that MJF is a compelling speaker - I watched the interview last Sunday on ABC and the juxtapostition of the video of Rush vs. Michael did look bad but I watched the entire show where Rush was talking about this on my computer and the part showing Rush is taken out of context (yes, I know - an excuse alot of people use ).
Katie Couric sent Rush an email asking him what he would like to say to MJF during her interview and she didn't ask Fox any of it - the whole email is posted on Rush's website as are the actual things he said about MJF.
I think this issue is very important because we human beings are making medical and scientific decisions without alot of thought about the ethical considerations. What could possibly be wrong with slowing down a bit and considering if cloning is right? Or using embryos, where there is little evidence that the research is going anywhere, is right?
Or calling the amendment what it really is? A bill on cloning.
It drives me crazy, especially here in California, the proposition capital of the US, the misinformation that comes across the tv screen.
Got to get back to cleaning my house now . . . . it was fun talking to you all and I had some mexican food to boot.
p.s. I know it might make a person who hates Rush vomit but I thought in fairness I needed to link to the website page where Rush personally addresses all these issues. It includes his email to Katie. In anatomy lab, some folks used Vicks Vapor Rub under their noses . . . . .:spin:
www.rushlimbaugh.comLast edit by Spidey's mom on Nov 2, '06
Nov 3, '06Attacking those who are actually affected by these issues and posses the bravery to bring them into the political arena seems to be a planned tactic. Just ask the 9/11 widows and Congressional pages.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEah7_lzsOULast edit by pickledpepperRN on Nov 3, '06
Nov 4, '06Attacking Michael J. Fox is like attacking Oprah ... it's a lose, lose proposition.
Rush can try to spin it anyway he wants but, the fact is ... the man is mean and cruel.
I am so tired of these conservative haters who attack people who haven't hurt anyone and are actually trying to do some good.
My heart goes out to Michael J. Fox. Chances are, he won't benefit from these efforts but future generations will.
Nov 4, '06Quote from spacenurseThanks for that link. I can't see any way to interpret that but as an attack on Fox personally. Posters on this thread have made thoughtful arguments opposing embryonic stem cell research, particularly through cloning new embryos, and I respect their point of view. But I just don't see that clip of Limbaugh as defensible, and I can't conceive of a context in which it would be. My belief that Rush is a jerk is not a prejudice. I've listened to him on a number of occassions, and every time he has been a jerk. I feel safe concluding that he actually is a jerk. Really, I guess if I have any sense at all, I will just ignore him entirely from now on. This slim chance that he might someday say something worth hearing just doesn't merit the aggravation.Attacking those who are actually affected by these issues and posses the bravery to bring them into the political arena seems to be a planned tactic. Just ask the 9/11 widows and Congressional pages.
Certainly, if Fox chooses to take a public position on this issue, he's open to arguments against him, and even criticism. His ad for Specter does not disprove the accusation that he's "shilling" for Democrats. In practical terms, he has to realize that he is also exposing himself to attacks from cretins, but such attacks are no less deplorable for being inevitable.
(I do think Olbermann's references to Limbaugh's drug problems were also beyond the pale, and not at all relevant to the topic. Unfortunately, yet another example of the incivility of public discourse, these days.)
Nov 4, '06I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. I see so little to admire in either of these parties.
With that being said though, the party that troubles me the most right now would have to be the Republicans, and they are the ones in power. Some of the stuff that comes out of the mouths of two well known Republican "entertainers", Limbaugh and Coulter is cruel. I'm left with the impression that these are people, who truly do not care about any one but themselves.
If the members of the gay community chose to expose all of the closeted high ranking Republicans, who publicly denigrate them, citizens would be shocked by the difference between what these people are saying, and what they actually do. I am not a big fan of outing people, but I can get really disgusted by the ongoing hypocrisy.
I have seen the Republican party espouse talk about the sanctity of life, but it only seems to be in relation to limiting access of women to birth control and safe abortions, and the interference by government in a family member's difficult choice, to permit Terry Schiavo to pass on. The continued Republican governmental decision to fund only adult stem cell research to the exclusion of embryonic stem cell research is absurd and tragic. I am so very tired of seeing reference made only to the research of certain prolife oriented groups, as if no other type of research exists that has also been useful and valid. Maybe if they repeat it often enough, someone might believe it, but that still does not make it true. Science is being held hostage to personal belief.
Contrast all of the above with the absolute lack of concern for, and even the denial, of the death of more than 650,000 Iraqi civilians since this country has invaded Iraq. Apparently, that type of loss of life means nothing. It is appalling that so few people care.
It seems so odd to hear those folks who believe that the Republican party is the party of people of faith, speaking as if there are no people in the Democratic party, or any other party who have religious values. I can see that it has been very useful to the Republican party to have people think that way. But is it really true? In another stunning example of hypocrisy, it appears that it is the religious right that is being lied to and shamefully used, as Evangelical, David Kuo portrays in his book,"Tempting Faith":
I would have to say that both parties are full of self serving people that enrich themselves by making laws that affect all of us, but not them, and to our detriment. There are so few people of integrity to vote for in either of those two parties. It is passing strange that the only one I can think of right now is Ron Paul, a Republican, and though I would not agree with everything he might stand for I have the greatest respect for this deeply devout man. But, Roy has pointed out that he is not a good representative of his party. Thank God for that! What you see is what you get, no hypocrisy, no pettiness, no meaness, no saying one thing in public, and doing the opposite in his private life, etc....
I find the American political scene deeply disturbing and terribly sad. I am thoroughly sick of all the mean spiritedness, and the glee over the supposed justification of this terrible war. You want this country to keep fighting this war? Then you, personally, go fight it, and I don't want to hear any excuses about why you can't. Again, JMHO.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110106S.shtmlLast edit by indigo girl on Nov 4, '06
Nov 5, '06Michael Tennant nails it...
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Such, unfortunately, is the situation across the country, where the GOP candidate is seldom significantly more conservative than the supposedly liberal Democrat, and where sometimes Democrats turn out to be farther to the right, as this voters' guide demonstrates. If only both conservatives and liberals would get this through their heads, it would greatly improve the quality of public policy discussions.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Conservatives would then stop thinking that the Republicans are serious about reducing government, and liberals would stop thinking that the election of a Republican is going to make a single dent in their precious welfare state - as the last five years should have taught everyone. Both sides would recognize that we're going to get war and empire no matter which party is in charge at the moment. Instead we get endless partisan sniping and the inordinate fear that the election of a member of the disfavored party will mean the end of the country.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The truth is that both parties are doing their level best to destroy what little remains of liberty in the land of the free, and no election is going to change that one bit. After all, as Emma Goldman put it, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
Nov 5, '06Quote from Roy FokkerBut the drapes sure look better when they're paid for by MY party, don't you know.Michael Tennant nails it...
Of course, you are absolutely correct, in practice. In practice, it's a game of tug of war, and we are voting on the ones closest to the center based on our observations of the anchors.
Speaker wannabe Pelosi and President Bush aren't running. My two congressional candidates: practically even politically speaking. I actually even LIKE the Dem guy better.
But, I voted REP because it's a proxy fight on the anchors. I didn't vote AGAINST my Dem Congressman, I voted AGAINST Nancy Pelosi, even though she isn't running.
And you're right, when the Astros lost out to the playoffs, I sulked for a few days, and then moved on. When Clinton won, I sulked for a few days, and then trashed him for 8 yrs, LOL. No matter what happens on Tues, I'll either party like it's 1999, or sulk for a few days, and then I'll find the NEXT great thing to occupy my attn for awhile.
Shoot, I might even go back to posting in non-election threads.
Timothy.Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 5, '06
Nov 5, '06Quote from Roy FokkerActually, that is the truth.
... as Emma Goldman put it, "If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal."