1
   

The psychosis of Rush Limbaugh

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 01:47 pm
McGentrix wrote:
No, Limbaugh has been attacked repeatedly here, not his position. It's all so very typical of the many liberal posters here. Slander where you can, make up facts when you can't discuss the actual facts.

Cycloptichorn, you have barged in with guns blazing slinging **** everywhere and now try to look valiant about it. It's like you haven't read the thread, nor listened to Rush's actual comments. If you had, you would know Rush did not and has not made fun of anyone, but he did bring up an interesting tactict that the left has been using to their advantage. He also discussed a political advertisement in which Fox, who has admitted to not even reading the actual bill he was supporting, starred.

The only reason it appears I am defending Rush is because lying benefits no one and not understanding that actual facts of the issue leads to people being more ignorant then they usually are.

I agree with Rush's point that Fox was used BECAUSE of his disease. That was his point, which you have failed to understand. Fox used his disease and it's effects to try to garner sympathy with voters to vote for candidates who favor stem cell research. Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician.

Now, take notice that I have addressed your statement without calling you a "sack of ****". See if you can do the same.


I guess that by your logic, MLK was exploiting his African-American status when he pushed for equal rights. How dare they attempt to put an 'untouchable' up in front as a shill for political positions!

Your argument is asinine. Fox has more authority on the issue than the average person. So would you if you had Parkinsons.

When Rush was spazzing around in his studio, making jerky motions, he was making fun of Fox.

You probably have a much easier time writing a post without referring to me as a 'sack of ****,' because I am not, in fact, a sack of ****. You can see how it would be much more difficult for me to do so, because Limbaugh is, in fact, a sack of ****.

This however

Quote:

The only reason it appears I am defending Rush is because lying benefits no one and not understanding that actual facts of the issue leads to people being more ignorant then they usually are.


Certainly does not provide evdience that you are not one as well. Rush didn't understand the facts of the issue in the slightest (Fox was most likely over-medicated, not under, if anything) and it appears that you don't either. I certainly don't buy your 'lying benefits noone' argument, because you sure have spent a whole lot of your time defending liars these last several years.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 01:51 pm
No, it was really difficult for me not to include the slander I wished to.

It's obvious to me that you would rather just be angry about this issue then discuss it, so continue being angry. Just be sure you clean the drool off your chin before leaving your computer.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 01:55 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician.


and when Mr. Fox shilled for Republicans was it also a matter of exploitation?

Quote:
Though Fox, a native of Canada who became an American citizen in 2000, has been politically active for Democratic causes, he said he has voted for and would vote for a Republican. "Arlen Specter is my guy," he said of the Republican senator from Pennsylvania. "I've campaigned for Arlen Specter. He's been a fantastic champion of stem cell research. I've spoken alongside Mike Castle, who's a Republican congressman. Absolutely."


link
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 01:57 pm
McGentrix wrote:
No, it was really difficult for me not to include the slander I wished to.

It's obvious to me that you would rather just be angry about this issue then discuss it, so continue being angry. Just be sure you clean the drool off your chin before leaving your computer.


I'm not sure what there is to discuss, other than the fact that Limbaugh apparently feels it is never appropriate for someone who has actual real-life experience with an issue to discuss that issue in a political setting.

I ask you, was MLK exploiting his status as a black man? Was he 'untouchable?'

Your defense of Limbaugh, combined with your apparently ignorance and lack of caring about said ignorance on the issue of Parkinsons', places you in the same category as Limbaugh. If you wish to attack me, you can go right ahead; but it doesn't make you or him a hair more right or justified.

Do I get angry on this issue? You'd better goddamn well believe I do. You try spending years holding a Parkinson's patients' hand while they try to move, or try to stop moving, and watch the frustration in their eyes the entire time, and then come back and tell me that making fun of them is appropriate; that ridiculing them for expressing an opinion is appropriate; that expressing your own opinion on science and research that you know nothing about is appropriate; that making jerky motions mimicking their disease is appropriate.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 02:33 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician.

Just for the sake of discussion, suppose for a moment that you are wrong. Suppose that Michael J. Fox is just a citizen with a stake in stem cell research, that he thinks Democrats are likely to do a better job legislating about it, and that he therefore wants the Democrats to win against the Republicans. If that were the case, how would he be acting differently than he actually did?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 02:44 pm
To the extent that the question here is what extraordinary governmental measures are required to improve and extend the lives of Parkinson's patients, Mr Fox's presentation of himself, without the benefits of the available drugs to diminish and delay the effects of this grevious disease, was clearly deceptive. The drugs he avoided taking are available to him now, without any added government action: the impression he deliberately left his viewers is definately not the alternative to the government action he advocates.

I believe this is the proper central question here. None of us can read the inner thoughts and motives of the protagonists in this game. Based on the few times I have heard him, there is little doubt that Limbach is insensitive to opposing views and knowingly ascribes to his opponents the worst of motives. At the same time it is evident that Fox's behavior was also knowingly deceptive and that more than a little self-righteousness infects his reaction to all this.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 02:48 pm
Thomas wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician.

Just for the sake of discussion, suppose for a moment that you are wrong. Suppose that Michael J. Fox is just a citizen with a stake in stem cell research, that he thinks Democrats are likely to do a better job legislating about it, and that he therefore wants the Democrats to win against the Republicans. If that were the case, how would he be acting differently than he actually did?


A PSA would be one way to do it. Supporting the science without the politics involved. He could also invest some of his earnings as an entertainer into stem cell research and convince others to do the same. Remember that there is no ban on stem cell research, just limitations on governmental funding.

Until Bush is no longer the President of the United States, no legislation reversing the current stem cell funding will make it past the veto pen and there is no way the Dems will have anywhere near the votes needed to over ride the veto. I believe "pissing in the wind" might be an appropriate phrase here.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 02:51 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
At the same time it is evident that Fox's behavior was also knowingly deceptive and that more than a little self-righteousness infects his reaction to all this.


That's a load of CRAP!

Limbaugh was successful in deflecting the ads message from the issue, to theatrics. Now, a week later, we are still discussing the theatrics rather than the issue.

If you can not see through that fat bastards gimmick, then you will never be able to debate the issue.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 02:53 pm
But you have not addressed the FACT that the message itself was deliberately deceptive.

If you can't (or won't) recognize that, your ability is limited as well.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 02:55 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Based on the few times I have heard him, there is little doubt that Limbach is insensitive to opposing views and knowingly ascribes to his opponents the worst of motives.

Well, it certainly was insensitive of you to make his name sound German. In fact his name ends with "-augh", which sounds kinda Gaelic to me, maybe even Irish.

Seriously though, how do you know Mr. Fox was unmedicated when he testified to Congress? You have nothing but Mr. Limbaugh's say-so to support that.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 03:02 pm
Well, as Walter has repeatedly pointed out to me, Germans are the largest single ethnic group in this country. In fact, I don't know how the guy spells his name. If he were better looking I might be inclined to ascribe some Irish heritage there.

I haven't followed the case closely, but I have the impression that Fox admitted he had gone without his meds for a while before the interview. At a dinner at the club last night, a campmate who has the disease offered the opinion that this was indeed the case, and another, a practicing neurologist agreed with him.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 03:04 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
But you have not addressed the FACT that the message itself was deliberately deceptive.

If you can't (or won't) recognize that, your ability is limited as well.


How was it deceptive? He statement was in support of a candidate who he felt support his wish to see stem cell research expand.

Was was deceptive?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 03:13 pm
Thomas wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Based on the few times I have heard him, there is little doubt that Limbach is insensitive to opposing views and knowingly ascribes to his opponents the worst of motives.

Well, it certainly was insensitive of you to make his name sound German. In fact his name ends with "-augh", which sounds kinda Gaelic to me, maybe even Irish.

Seriously though, how do you know Mr. Fox was unmedicated when he testified to Congress? You have nothing but Mr. Limbaugh's say-so to support that.


From his website...

http://www.michaeljfox.org/news/article.php?id=153&sec=2

Quote:
When he testified before Congress back in 1998 seeking more funds for the disease, he made a point of not taking any Parkinson's drugs so his tremors and other symptoms would be in full bloom. "I needed to show there was an urgency to this," Mr. Fox says, noting that at the time he was still a regular -- and healthy-appearing -- presence on television. With his story and condition now better known, he no longer needs to forgo his medicines to make a dramatic point.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 03:14 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I haven't followed the case closely, but I have the impression that Fox admitted he had gone without his meds for a while before the interview.

That's not what he said on the CBS "Tonight" show. What he said there is that he acidentally overdosed when he gave that testimony. And this claim is entirely plausible: The effect of parkinson drugs on the nervous system can be unpredictable; it's easy to over-or underdose on them.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 03:16 pm
Apparently there were several testimonies with different states of medication.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 03:17 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I haven't followed the case closely, but I have the impression that Fox admitted he had gone without his meds for a while before the interview. At a dinner at the club last night, a campmate who has the disease offered the opinion that this was indeed the case, and another, a practicing neurologist agreed with him.


apparently the neurologist and your campmate aren't up on the impact of meds on Parkinsons. It's the opposite of what you've suggested.

Quote:
Ironically, the "Spin City" star said his problem with movement actually stems from being on his meds for 15 years. A side effect is the startling shifting Fox was unable to control while filming the spots for Senate candidates Rep. Ben Cardin in Maryland and Claire McCaskill in Missouri.

If he were "off his meds," Fox said, he would look more expressionless, like fellow Parkinson's sufferer Muhammad Ali.

"If I want to be articulate, if I want to speak, this comes as a package," Fox said. "That's the tradeoff. I either sound good or look good. I don't get the whole package."



link

Dyskenesis is a not-uncommon side effect of several of the medications available to people living with Parkinsons.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 03:18 pm
Let's say that someone with a degenerative skin disease was stumping for the candidate that he felt supported the research that would cure his disease.

Let's say that this person normally wore a mask, but took the mask off for the purpose of stumping.

That's not deceptive. That's reality. Fox's condition is the reality of his life. Whether he chose to not take his drugs that day (of which there is no evidence, other than anecdotal opinions offered by George's friends), whether he took too much, or none of the above, makes no difference at all.

This is the primary reason why Rush's attacks - though incredibly off-base and stupid - are offensive: it isn't manipulation, or deception, to depict oneself as you actually are without outside intervention.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 03:19 pm
To be clear here, the "act" Michael J. Fox puts on is when he doesn't show symptoms of Parkinsons.

Are we going to castigate people in wheelchairs for flaunting their disabilities because they aren't using prosthetic limbs?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 03:19 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
But you have not addressed the FACT that the message itself was deliberately deceptive.

If you can't (or won't) recognize that, your ability is limited as well.


Was it similarly deceptive when the same message, and dyskenesis, appeared in ads for Republican candidates?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 03:22 pm
And using one's fame, notoriety, appearance, speaking voice, etc. are all well-established methods of supporting an issue or political party.

Are voice actors "shilling" for various parties because they accept the work opportunities of the political advertisements?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 06/26/2024 at 09:53:52