Rush Limbaugh vs Michael J Fox

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Oct 27 2006, 09:48 AM) [snapback]339391[/snapback]</div>

I would have to wonder if perhaps they might have virtually unlimited editing and time constraints on Boston Legal to shoot and re shoot his segments. My wild guess is that Boston Legal might have thought his shaking would interfere with the "beautiful-people" casting system TV has in which everybody on screen looks like they just stepped out of GQ or Cosmo. They wanted the star name but not the star reality. I'd criticize them for trying to "normalize" Fox instead of the stem cell spot which showed him as he is.

Why must we think this way, that a sick person would be so callous? Why should he attempt "timing his appearances (as) on Boston Legal to minimize his symptoms"? He has nothing to be ashamed of. A few years ago we had a program starring an actual Down's Syndrome man. We took it pretty well. When Yul Brynner was dying of cancer and appeared in an anti-cigarette spot, nobody suggested he should have worn a wig and put on bulky clothing to hide his emaciation. Michael Fox, and his partners in pain, are the victims of Bush's enlightened policy. When even Nancy Reagan is voting anti Republican policy, you know there is a problem.

If he can control his "symptoms" why does he have them then? Most enlightened moderns don't subscribe to the mind over matter theory of disease anymore. The late Pope was probably not shaking the chalice on purpose to better mix the wine and water. Christopher Reeve really couldn't jump over tall buildings in a single bound anymore. Stephen Hawking is not going to come out with a hit rap single any time soon. All of these people were photographed fairly regularly. Now I am to learn from Rush they were probably faking it to advance a cause. How dare they, the manipulative swine!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 27 2006, 01:39 PM) [snapback]339423[/snapback]</div>

I get the impression that you are attacking me, but I'm not sure why... I think my post was a balanced one.

I believe I stated that since he obviously minimizes his symptoms on Boston Legal, then I could understand how one might suspect that he maximized his symptoms on the commercials.

Yet I also stated how I thought it is appropriate to demonstrate the symptoms of a disease in a commercial about the disease and the research for the cure of the disease.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Oct 27 2006, 11:18 AM) [snapback]339486[/snapback]</div>

I'm not attacking you. Sorry, I saw it that way too and I modified my post a little just before you responded. What I'm fighting is any hint that Rush was correct in what he did by openly making Fox look like a phony. Your opinion was pretty balanced but I see some possibility that you think Fox was acting. I don't buy into the minimizing/maximizing concept. I do buy into advanced editing. I'm suspecting the promo was more the real day-to-day Fox than was Boston Legal. Fox should never have bought into their sanitizing because it invites this sort of doubt, but he is human too. It probably felt good to him to remember how he used to look.

 

Here's an interesting, ironic twist: Rush Limbaugh mocking Michael J. Fox may have helped to nudge Democrats a little closer to Congressional victories:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/061025/20061025006291.html

Among the study findings:

* Among all respondents, support for stem cell research increased from 78% prior to viewing the ad, to 83% after viewing the ad. Support among Democrats increased from 89% to 93%, support among Republicans increased from 66% to 68% and support among Independents increased from 80% to 87% after viewing the ad.
* The level of concern regarding a candidate's view on stem cell research increased among all respondents from 57% prior to viewing the ad to 70% after viewing the ad. Among Democrats, the level of concern increased from 66% to 83% and Republicans' level of concern increased from 50% to 60%. Independents' level of concern increased from 58% to 69%.
* The perception that the November election is relevant to the U.S. policy on stem cell research increased across all voter segments, with an increase of 9% among all respondents pre- and post-viewing from 62% to 71%. The Democrats' perception increased from 75% to 83%, Republicans' perception increased from 55% to 62% and Independents' perception increased from 60% to 68% pre- and post-viewing.
* The advertisement elicited similar emotional responses from all responders with all voter segments indicating that they were "not bored and attentive" followed by "sorrowful, thankful, afraid and regretful."
* The vast majority of responders indicated that the advertisement was believable with 76% of all responders reporting that it was "extremely believable" or "believable." Among party affiliation, 93% of Democrats 57% of Republicans and 78% of Independents indicated it "extremely believable" or "believable."
* Republicans who indicated that they were voting for a Republican candidate decreased by 10% after viewing the ad (77% to 67%). Independents planning to vote for Democrats increased by 10%, from 39% to 49%.

Vince

 

Curious, how so many people can have opinions about JMF's PD despite knowing so little.

Patients with this illness have some good days, and some bad. Psycho-social and physiological stressors make a big difference.

STOP theorizing, folks. It only degenerates into limbaugh level innuendo. JMF has an aggressive from of PD, and he supports stem cell research in no small part because of his illness. Anything else is just scumbagging.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 27 2006, 11:06 AM) [snapback]339324[/snapback]</div>

Well, in my opinion, the big deal is that, just because we're free to say something, doesn't mean that we *should.*

Just like, just because you can afford something doesn't mean that you should waste it.

The big deal is that, public discourse is degrading constantly; we're becoming a fragmented, polarized country of individuals who have less and less tolerence for each other. And inflammatory statements do nothing but close down communication even further.

That's the big deal.

It's actually a very serious issue, and I'm surprised that you'd treat is so lightly.

 

Rush must have been off his hydrocodone and in a cranky, particularly irrational mood.

 

Hmmmmm, let me see. Do I believe that MJF over-emphasized the physical characteristics of his PD? I guess the crux of the matter is that people that know him and have seen him say that he does not shake that much normally. He says he took to much medication. Do I care? Nope, he’s an actor and that’s what he was paid to do and I’m glad he did, PD is a horrible disease among many out there. What I do take unction to is his mis-characterization of Jim Talent’s position and the efficacy of the stem-cell research. That was Rush’s main point in his initial broadcast the shakiness’ was a remark as an aside that has now gotten way out of hand and hurt Rush and the GOP. But media exposure is media exposure so Rush wins.

Now speaking of exposure I would like to take a moment and ask what have you done to aid the research and discovery for cures of horrible diseases? If you’re not doing anything other than being vocal might I suggest that you join the priuschat or priusonline “Folding @ Home†team. Please see this link below to find more information.

http://priuschat.com/Anyone-out-there-Fold...ome-t25462.html


Wildkow

p.s. Who knows you and your computer may find a cure for that horrible and devastating disease . . Liberalism. BaHAHAHAHaHahahaha OK I have used that twice now and it is still Funny as H*LL. I kill myself. [attachmentid=5495]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceDee @ Oct 27 2006, 12:27 PM) [snapback]339546[/snapback]</div>

I smell conspiracy, hmmmmm I wonder if the group in the "Power of Nightmares" topic is paying attention?

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 27 2006, 10:39 AM) [snapback]339423[/snapback]</div>

Umh, you do realize that William Shatner is cast in a lead role on that show do you not?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Oct 27 2006, 10:42 PM) [snapback]339825[/snapback]</div>

I've never lost an argument so decisively!

 

<div align="CENTER">




</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Oct 27 2006, 12:34 PM) [snapback]339379[/snapback]</div>

Liberals sure are intolerant.

P.S. Learn to spell. Another fine example of our public education at work!

P.P.S. I don't hold much with Limbaugh's opinions but he can say whatever he wants, it's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pault842 @ Oct, 12:07 PM) [snapback]339958[/snapback]</div>

Ummm, I don't see any misspelled words in that post. Unless you're talking about "rightard" which is obviously a made-up word and spelled correctly for its intent. What was that you said about intolerance?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 27 2006, 12:26 PM) [snapback]339409[/snapback]</div>

I think there is something seriously wrong with the conservative (neocon) mind. Take this blatantly wrong statement that forum members with actual science degrees can refute with references, in an instant.

The conservative mind wraps reality around its own opinions and attacks those more qualified people that disagree. We went through a similar period once. It was called the Dark Ages....


On the Rush Limbaugh issue: Its just like Ann Coulter attacking 9/11 widows and O'Reilly attacking Cindy Sheehan. They attack the person rather than the issue. In all these cases its just more disgusting to the better educated because the ones attacked are already suffering.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pault842 @ Oct 28 2006, 10:07 AM) [snapback]339958[/snapback]</div>

Another Mensa input!

He did spell it right. It's a little word-joke: right + retard = rightard. (Another fine example of a right-wing sense of humor.) Limbaugh makes up new words all the time.

Nobody said Limbaugh had to be silent, they said he is a crude idiot. That's their right under FREEDOM OF SPEECH. But thanks for the civics lesson.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Oct 27 2006, 04:13 PM) [snapback]339593[/snapback]</div>

I agree 100%...but it makes for much more interesting blogs, chat boards, sunday shows,..etc. It is also easier to rant and rail about things in superlativs than it is to engage in serious discourse.

We can keep trying though...can't we?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pault842 @ Oct 28 2006, 01:07 PM) [snapback]339958[/snapback]</div>

BS.

MJF should sue that wacko for slander. You see, the onus of proof is on scumbaugh, not on MJF that the allegation is true. Unfortunately, MJF probably doesn't have a mean enough streak in him to grind him into the dirt where he belongs.

And if you were not dizzy from defending rightards, you too would see the obvious.

You learned a new word today eh ? Glad to be of service.

As for general intolerance of rightards: you and your ilk have written torture into law, have a hand in the killing of hundreds of innocents daily, have corrupted the separation of powers at the federal level, are inching daily towards a fascist state in the US -- and you beg for tolerance ?!?

As far as I am concerned, the only thing rightards deserve is a free ticket to Iraq and an offer to try out waterboarding -- free of charge.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Oct 28 2006, 12:05 PM) [snapback]339982[/snapback]</div>

As the official spelling Nazi, and a fine example of our public education at work, I'd like to point out your dum spelling error.

It's "Scumbaugh," not "scumbaugh."

Didn't they learn you nothing at school?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 28 2006, 03:24 PM) [snapback]339985[/snapback]</div>

Appropriately chastised.

I like it in hebrew better, anyway: חריאט