The psychosis of Rush Limbaugh

And there we have it..

Rush is nothing but a drug addict shilling for the Republican party.

We can now end this silly topic where it should have been ended long ago, in the trash bin.

0 Replies

I've read somewhere that Fox' medication is designed to prevent his "freezing up," that it actually causes his body to move--as we saw on his interviews. If this is so, his almost uncontrolled body movements were actually CAUSED by his medication, not by his failure to take them.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

And there we have it..

Rush is nothing but a drug addict shilling for the Republican party.

We can now end this silly topic where it should have been ended long ago, in the trash bin.

I don't see that it makes a real differenmce anyway, except to people like Limbaugh.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

parados wrote:
And there we have it..

Rush is nothing but a drug addict shilling for the Republican party.

We can now end this silly topic where it should have been ended long ago, in the trash bin.

I don't see that it makes a real differenmce anyway, except to people like Limbaugh.

Yes, it does only make difference to those that want to defend shilling when they do it but attack it when others do it.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

He also discussed a political advertisement in which Fox, who has admitted to not even reading the actual bill he was supporting, starred.

I wonder how many Senators and Representatives actually read the entire bills they are voting for or against?

In most cases, they have staffers who read the bill and then tell them the gist and the important points. They would have to. Many of these bills are book length-a Senator or Representative would have to read the equivalent of 10 whole books a day worth of bills to keep up.

Similarly, how many people not in government read whole bills before deciding to support or oppose something? Almost none. Does that mean that people cannot speak out for or against these bills?

If you take that position, political discourse among the citizenry in this country would grind to a quick halt. Is that what you want?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

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.

Outside of using the word "shilling" instead of "supporting", what is so bad about that?

If you met somebody from a country that never had democracy, and she asked you, "How do Americans get the government to change it's laws and policies? In my country, we just have a civil war and replace the whole government", you would most likely answer the following:

"In America, we do not have a civil war to change something If someone or a group of people think the government should change it's laws or policies, they write letters, make public appearances and do what they can to change people's ideas on something. Also, if elected representatives happen to support their postion, they do what they can to get those Senators and Representatives elected".

Well, that is what Michael J. Fox is doing. He's doing it by the book-the way you are supposed to do it. If you want to change the law, and somebody in office or running for office supports your position, you do what you can to get that person elected.

Where is your complaint? Fox's activities are right out of a high school civics textbook.

And as ehBeth pointed out, Fox supports Republicans who agree with him on this issue as well.

0 Replies

So, if someone in America doesn't want the laws changed or new laws they disagree with made into law what should they do? Shouldn't they also speak up against those supporting the law?

We have the freedom of speech in America and that allows people to say what they want. It doesn't mean they are allowed to do so uncriticized though. People have criticized both Limbaugh and Fox in this matter.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

So, if someone in America doesn't want the laws changed or new laws they disagree with made into law what should they do? Shouldn't they also speak up against those supporting the law?

IMO, one should speak up against the law, not the folks supporting the law.

Discussing the person instead of the issue is an ad hominem logic error.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

We have the freedom of speech in America and that allows people to say what they want. It doesn't mean they are allowed to do so uncriticized though. People have criticized both Limbaugh and Fox in this matter.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Nobody disputes that Limbaugh can criticize Michael J. Fox. But you can criticize a Parkinson patient without mocking his seizures and tremors. Limbaugh chose to mock them anyway, and that makes it fair to write him off as a pitiful jerk.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

So, if someone in America doesn't want the laws changed or new laws they disagree with made into law what should they do? Shouldn't they also speak up against those supporting the law?

Intelligent people debate the issue. Small minded people make personal attacks.

Quote:

We have the freedom of speech in America and that allows people to say what they want. It doesn't mean they are allowed to do so uncriticized though. People have criticized both Limbaugh and Fox in this matter.

Rush made the issue "personal attacks" when he attacked Fox personally instead of discussing the issue of stem cell research.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
We have the freedom of speech in America and that allows people to say what they want. It doesn't mean they are allowed to do so uncriticized though. People have criticized both Limbaugh and Fox in this matter.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Nobody disputes that Limbaugh can criticize Michael J. Fox. But you can criticize a Parkinson patient without mocking his seizures and tremors. Limbaugh chose to mock them anyway, and that makes it fair to write him off as a pitiful jerk.

hehe, yeah, he "mocked" him...

Rush does a radio show. You know radio, as in no visuals. He does have what he calls a "ditto cam" for people that subscribe to his radio show that enables premium members the ability to watch Rush during his show. He was demonstrating MJF's movements for those viewers. Naturally that becomes "mocking" to those that don't like Rush because it's a lot easier to demonize him then it is to understand what he was doing.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
So, if someone in America doesn't want the laws changed or new laws they disagree with made into law what should they do? Shouldn't they also speak up against those supporting the law?

Intelligent people debate the issue. Small minded people make personal attacks.

Quote:

We have the freedom of speech in America and that allows people to say what they want. It doesn't mean they are allowed to do so uncriticized though. People have criticized both Limbaugh and Fox in this matter.

Rush made the issue "personal attacks" when he attacked Fox personally instead of discussing the issue of stem cell research.

You shouldn't call most of the posters on this thread "small minded". They can't help themselves if all they can do is attack Rush instead of the issue.

0 Replies

Such obvious flame bait.

Subtle, you are not.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
So, if someone in America doesn't want the laws changed or new laws they disagree with made into law what should they do? Shouldn't they also speak up against those supporting the law?

Intelligent people debate the issue. Small minded people make personal attacks.

Quote:

We have the freedom of speech in America and that allows people to say what they want. It doesn't mean they are allowed to do so uncriticized though. People have criticized both Limbaugh and Fox in this matter.

Rush made the issue "personal attacks" when he attacked Fox personally instead of discussing the issue of stem cell research.

You shouldn't call most of the posters on this thread "small minded". They can't help themselves if all they can do is attack Rush instead of the issue.

In case you didn't notice Rush IS the issue being discussed on this thread. Those that are talking about Rush would be debating the issue.

0 Replies

Stop being small minded parados.

0 Replies

They showed that tape on The Colbert Report. Limbaugh was most certainly mocking Fox's movements.

Moreover, the criticism of Fox includes accusations that he was faking his movements, and doctors have said his movements are consistent with the medication he needs to take. As Fox pointed out, when he takes the full medication, he has tremors but can talk most eruditely. When he cuts down on the medication, his tremors get reduced but his voice becomes stiff and like a monotone. Fox summed it up by saying he simply cannot look good and sound good at the same time. It's one or the other.

There is no law against what Limbaugh said, nor should there be. But if you are going to criticize someone, and criticizing and mocking is a big part of what Limbaugh does for a living, then the public has the right to evaluate the fairness and decency of that criticism, and react accordingly.

Go ahead, Rush. Mock Fox's movements, accuse him of faking symptoms even in the face of medical testimony he is not. Just prepare to get criticized back when people find the criticism repugnant. Which it certainly was.

Suppose Limbaugh and Fox were co-workers, and Limbaugh said what he did on the job. What do you suppose would happen to him when word got back to the boss?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Stop being small minded parados.

Irony at its finest there McG.

0 Replies

Quote:

Suppose Limbaugh and Fox were co-workers, and Limbaugh said what he did on the job. What do you suppose would happen to him when word got back to the boss?

Depends on whether or not the boss was also a Republican. Apparently, making fun of Parkinsons' patients is right up their alley.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/Limbaugh-Reeve.jpg

0 Replies

Thanks, Rush: Your Big Mouth May Have Saved America by Russell Shaw

If Jim Webb's lead in Virginia holds through the recount and the Democrats take over the Senate, we could have a Missourian to thank.

No, not Claire McCaskill, whose 43,000-vote margin over anti- embryonic stem cell religious idealogue Jim Talent got the Dems to the 50 seat level in the Senate.

Kudos would go to another Missourian, one Rush Limbaugh.

When Rush ridiculed Parkinson's Disease patient and stem-cell research advocate Michael J. Fox for not taking his medication before appearing on camera to advocate for state-funded stem cell research initiatives, he may have accomplished something he could not have anticipated.

Rush showed Missourians- and other Americans- the meanness that cuts through so much of the hard right's objections to this research.

In doing so, he may have galvanized pro-stem advocates to come out and vote for the initative, and for McCaskill as well.

It's also likely that Rush's mean words helped swing other close Senate and Congressional races where one candidate was opposed to government-funded stem cell research while the other was in favor.

Thanks, Rush, for baring your teeth. You showed Missourians as well as many other Americans the mean streak that runs through so much right-wing rhetoric.

Thanks, Rush, for energizing these voters to vote out enough of candidates favored by fright-wing talk radio and anti-choice extremist preachers to restore a balance of power to Washington.

So maybe the next time Bush wants to nominate a rigid idealogue to the Supreme Court- an idealogue who turns the clock back on privacy and reproductive freedom- there's someone playing defense. That'd be the Democratic committee chairs who are going to take over Jan.3.

It's a new dawn in America. Thanks, Rush.

0 Replies

The psychosis of Rush Limbaugh

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know