Rush Limbough... biggest jerk ever?

by **mholtz** on Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:24 pm

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/2 ... after-all/

So is Rush the biggest jerk ever?

**Sponsor**

by **cjwilhelmi** on Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:31 pm

It goes both ways. Republicans attack Democrats. Democrats attack Republicans. Both are the biggest jerks ever. Rush is speaking his mind, if you dont like it dont watch or listen. Freedom of speech is a great right that we all have.

I'm sure that we could come up with similar audio of a liberal talking bad about a conservative.

by **StrykerFSU** on Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:55 pm

I second that, the attacks go both ways.

Don Imus crushed Limbaugh on his show this morning but he also pointed out that Fox stated in his book that he did go off his meds before testifying before Congress. Given that history, it is not unreasonable to think that Fox might once again go off his meds to strengthen his political message. Imus also mentioned, and I agree, that it was reasonable for Fox to have done this and that it was in very poor taste for Limbaugh to even broach the subject.

If Limbaugh had such a problem with the ad, I would have thought that it was because Fox does not differentiate between fetal stem cells and adult stem cells nor does he mention that there is a great deal of privately funded research using stem cells. It was a political ad on a purely political issue.

by **mholtz** on Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:00 pm

Alex P Keaton, I mean Michael J Fox was on NBC. He said "It's an election year, and people are talking about stem cells, so that's the point."

At the very least he came across as much more classy than Rush.

by **Hackalicious** on Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:22 am

StrykerFSU wrote:Given that history, it is not unreasonable to think that Fox might once again go off his meds to strengthen his political message.

No, that is completely unreasonable and irrelevant. It's a stupid attempt to avoid talking about the actual issue by attacking the messenger.

by **MinesGoallie45** on Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:30 am

I actually listend to the whole Rush thing, and I think it got blowen out of proportion...I dont think Rush was attacking Fox personally, rather just commenting on how much more it seemed the parkisons was showing through durring his presentations to congress and such, and he goes off his meds to make his point stand out much more. But then everyone grabed onto rush and never delievered exactly what he said..

by **Campbell** on Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:38 am

who cares if he went off his meds. The meds aren't curing Parkinson's disease. If going off the meds to relay how bad the disease is helps get his point across then so be it. Take out the partisan crap and realize that Fox has Parkinson's, would probably like it cured, and is lobbying for that. When did stem cell research become a Democratic issue in the first place? Stupid politicians and pundits in this country polarize every single issue to the point of forgetting what is good or bad about it.

Limbaugh is an idiot.

by **Jolly Roger** on Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:36 am

Campbell wrote: When did stem cell research become a Democratic issue in the first place?

When the Christian Right linked it to abortion.

by **onpoint** on Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:49 am

Jolly Roger wrote:
Campbell wrote: When did stem cell research become a Democratic issue in the first place?

When the Christian Right linked it to abortion.

And at about the same time that all of politics became divided straight down party lines. You can't take either side of any issue (taxes, gay marriage, stem cell, war in Iraq, immigration, etc.) without being branded a liberal or a conservative. It is symptomatic of a larger problem in my mind. We aren't voting for people who stand for certain things anymore. We are voting for "Democrat" or "Republican."

by **StrykerFSU** on Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:21 am

And good luck finding a candidate that you agree with on every issue. You just have to decide what issues are most important to you and hope for the best. That's exactly what Fox is doing. He states that he is a one issue guy and that issue is stem cell research so he throws his support behind the candidate he views as the best to push his issue and becomes a player in politics in the process. Unfortunately, there are no rules once you cross that line.

by **StrykerFSU** on Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:30 am

I know this wasn't the point of the thread, but here is the Missouri ammendment that started all this hullabaloo.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

by **sohotrightnow** on Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:47 pm

I think what was in bad taste was Limbaugh imitating Michael J. Fox by flailing his arms about, etc. on his radio show.

by **Jolly Roger** on Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:55 pm

sohotrightnow wrote:I think what was in bad taste was Limbaugh imitating Michael J. Fox by flailing his arms about, etc. on his radio show.

..and he's demonstrated good taste when??? :wink:

by **UofMLaxGoalie11** on Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:04 pm

What if someone went without insulin and went into a diabetic coma while giving a speech to congress about diabetes research? Isn't it kinda underhanded to go off the medicine available just to gain sympathy? Granted that it would be great to cure parkinsons, but is this really the route he should be taking to try and gain support? We do have medicines to aide in the treatment of the disease and research is being done to try and cure it. So IMHO, If he did go off the medicine, I think it is a dirty ploy.

by **Rob Graff** on Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:17 pm

Dan - I will disagree - again with respect.

The medications do not cure Parkinsons (as noted above). They lessen the effect. IMHO I don't think people lead normal lives even when they are on the meds. Parkinsons destroys people, and I don't think enough people know that. My view is that MJF wants that to stop and the way he sees he can help is to illustrate what this disease did to him and to let people know that he views a certain interest group as limiting research into a cure.

In contrast, most versions of Diabetes are well understood by the public and have an enormous amount of support focused on managment and cure. The whole focus of diabetes treatment now is to get people to realize that changes in their behavior COMBINED WITH TREATMENT will allow you to return to a normal life (see Adam Morrison as example A).

No one presently advocates that parkinson's patients can return to a normal life with some behavior modification and monitoring.

Thus :

1. There is no need to demonstrate the effect of diabetes - it's well known compared to Parkinsons.

2. MJF is not "augmenting" the disease - he's merely illustrating the devastating effect it has to a public that doesn't have an awareness of the impact of the disease.

I don't see the disingenuousness here on MJF's part.