Did Limbaugh go too far criticizing MJ Fox?

[Smash255]

Rush Limbaugh found a typically abrasive and aggressive way to say something that may be true.

Fox may or may not have been acting.  But clearly, he wanted to look as badly impacted by Parkinson's as possible.  So he may not have been acting, but let's just say it probably could have been arranged for him to shake less during the commercial.

Fox chose to show his disease off to maximum effect.  Is that wrong?  Probably not, but it's also not wrong to point out that that was what he was doing.

Rush went a little beyond that, and didn't do it in the best way.  But I wouldn't leap to Fox's defense either in this case.  Manipulation of a terrible disease to influence political races is not the most tasteful thing to do either.

Quite wrong.  The shaking actually comes AS A RESULT OF THE MEDICATION, which otherwise would leav him in immense pain and possibly immobile.  Its an uncontolable side effect from the meidcation, comes and goes.  so its not something he could have said well lets try this later, because its something that can kick in at anytime and is uncontrolable.

Let's just say that if Fox had wanted an ad that MINIMIZED his shaking, he would have done the ad on a good day, rather than a bad one.

You may be right about the medical effects of the medication, but in terms of Fox's intentions, I think they were to show the maximum effects of the disease.

Again, your not understanding the impact of the disease and how it comes and goes.  Its not really good day or bad day, good time or bad time.  It just kicks in at any time.  Its not like he could call up the producer and say ok I am feeling better now and not shaking as much because by the time everything is set it could kick back in.

I understand your point Smash.

I just think that Fox wanted to show the maximum impact of his disease, in order to support his research argument.  Nothing wrong with that, IMO.  It's his business.

As I think I said previously, I don't support what Limbaugh said, and I think he's very abrasive and a borderline liability to the conservative cause at this point, at best, whatever his past contributions may have been.

But he has a right to criticize Fox if he chooses to.  That was really my only point.

I agree that he has the right to criticize Fox.  I don't think anyone was saying he can't do it.  However the way he did it, going way overboard, lying about the severity of the condition Fox was in, making crap up about the reasons of the shaking, etc.  That is what I have a problem with.

[MODU]

I don't think so.

Do you think Limbaugh did the wrong thing by apologizing, then?

Did he actually apologize?  If he did, no, it wasn't wrong, even though he wasn't wrong for saying what he had said.  How many times do we apologize to people for saying something that they just took the wrong way?

Anyway, it turns out that Fox never read the amendment which he is supporting in the ad.  Also, this commercial was planned all the way back in February.  So, he's had 8 months to read it.  I really wish celebrities would educate themselves more on the issues.

[afleitch]

I really wish celebrities would educate themselves more on the issues.

The same can be said for pompous right wing, pill popping radio hosts

[MODU]

I really wish celebrities would educate themselves more on the issues.

The same can be said for pompous right wing, pill popping radio hosts

hahaha . . . possibly.  However, though I can't stand Rush, he seems to know more about various legislative issues than his peers, including Hannity, Franken, and so on.

[Michael Z]

How exactly would Limbaugh know if Fox was off his medication?

Even if Fox was, what difference does it make?

Exactly! It's very telling that Limbaugh didn't attack him on what he was actually saying. It's because people like Limbaugh simply don't have a case, and they know it, so they have to go below the belt line and use ad hominem arguments.

[Smash255]

I don't think so.

Do you think Limbaugh did the wrong thing by apologizing, then?

Did he actually apologize?  If he did, no, it wasn't wrong, even though he wasn't wrong for saying what he had said.  How many times do we apologize to people for saying something that they just took the wrong way?

Anyway, it turns out that Fox never read the amendment which he is supporting in the ad.  Also, this commercial was planned all the way back in February.  So, he's had 8 months to read it.  I really wish celebrities would educate themselves more on the issues.

Oh you mean how the GOP LIES & LIES & LIES about what this is, and pretends these cells would ever have a chance of ever becoming life when the cells in question are cells that would be THROWNout if not researched on.

[MODU]

Oh you mean how the GOP LIES & LIES & LIES about what this is, and pretends these cells would ever have a chance of ever becoming life when the cells in question are cells that would be THROWNout if not researched on.

*sigh*  Do I need to repeat myself for the third time?  The embryos from fertility clinics are usually much "older" (development age, not calendar age) than the ones which scientists want to use for study.  Scientists want embryos that are just a few days old, while still in their initial divisions.  Embryos from fertility clinics are typically two or more weeks old since they facility needs to verify that embryo is healthy and able for a successful implantation.  This whole myth that the scientists are after fertility clinic embryos which are just going to be "thrown out" is about as misleading as Fox's commercials. 

[afleitch]

This whole myth that the scientists are after fertility clinic embryos which are just going to be "thrown out" is about as misleading as Fox's commercials. 

That's not strictly true, at least in the UK. My sister is an embryologist (specialises in IVF) and in training she was required to 'practice' with early stage embryo's, even though it wasn't part of her eventual position, that were discarded; the same embryo's that scientists would be keen on utilising. The cell development may be slightly advanced but from these extracted cells, development can be 'reversed' in the lab when cells are isolated. While I'm not aware of US procedure I have it on good authority that while not perfect, discraded IVF embryos are of considerable use to scientists in this, still early stage of stem cell research.

[MODU]

This whole myth that the scientists are after fertility clinic embryos which are just going to be "thrown out" is about as misleading as Fox's commercials. 

That's not strictly true, at least in the UK. My sister is an embryologist (specialises in IVF) and in training she was required to 'practice' with early stage embryo's, even though it wasn't part of her eventual position, that were discarded; the same embryo's that scientists would be keen on utilising. The cell development may be slightly advanced but from these extracted cells, development can be 'reversed' in the lab when cells are isolated. While I'm not aware of US procedure I have it on good authority that while not perfect, discraded IVF embryos are of considerable use to scientists in this, still early stage of stem cell research.

Thanks for the info.   I'm just going off of the info from various clinic websites and research facilities.

[afleitch]

This whole myth that the scientists are after fertility clinic embryos which are just going to be "thrown out" is about as misleading as Fox's commercials. 

That's not strictly true, at least in the UK. My sister is an embryologist (specialises in IVF) and in training she was required to 'practice' with early stage embryo's, even though it wasn't part of her eventual position, that were discarded; the same embryo's that scientists would be keen on utilising. The cell development may be slightly advanced but from these extracted cells, development can be 'reversed' in the lab when cells are isolated. While I'm not aware of US procedure I have it on good authority that while not perfect, discraded IVF embryos are of considerable use to scientists in this, still early stage of stem cell research.

Thanks for the info.   I'm just going off of the info from various clinic websites and research facilities.

I don't quite know if that's tongue in cheek and I will admit my sister is a strong proponent of stem cell research, but she has had direct experience in working with embryos and a degree in microbiology and embryonic development so I do take what she says seriously even though I am aware that she is biased towards a viewpoint and secondly that she is my sister. But don't think websites on both sides are anywhere near impartial

[MODU]

hahaha . . . everyone is biased one way or another.    You can't even trust scientific jouranls any more like you use to.  However, everything I have read has said that scientists prefer the youngest embryos upon their first few divisions as being the perfect source of cells.  Some of the labs do their own embryo creation through donors in order to obtain the "right" embryo, which they are in their right to do so.  I think it was the Columbia University which had a good, mostly unbiased, description of the process on their website. 

[Wakie]

hahaha . . . everyone is biased one way or another.    You can't even trust scientific jouranls any more like you use to. 

I disagree with that statement.  I think politicians have imposed themselves into scientific research for political gain.

[MODU]

hahaha . . . everyone is biased one way or another.    You can't even trust scientific jouranls any more like you use to. 

I disagree with that statement.  I think politicians have imposed themselves into scientific research for political gain.

There have been enough environmental and biological related journals which have slanted one way or another in their publishings of articles and studies regarding embryonic stem cells and global warming (either very pro or very con), that it has tainted the "purity" or science these days.

[MODU]

An interesting "third party" (as in Canadian) view of the debate:

"Limbaugh not far off on Fox, neurologist says"

Michael J. Fox in an advertisement for a Democratic Senate candidate who supports embryonic stem cell research.

Re: Oct. 28 editorial cartoon, showing Rush Limbaugh shouting into a radio microphone, with a technician saying, "He must be off his meds."

There is no doubt that the U.S. radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh's direct style and his own past medication issues make him an inviting target. And although he was, in all probability, technically inaccurate in accusing Michael J. Fox of "acting" in his recent political TV ad supporting a Democratic senatorial candidate, Mr. Limbaugh may have been very close to the mark.

(Cont...)

[The Dowager Mod]

"I had a run-in with a less than compassionate conservative.
  I guess I'm not supposed to speak until my symptoms go away."
     - Michael J. Fox

[MODU]

"I had a run-in with a less than compassionate conservative.
  I guess I'm not supposed to speak until my symptoms go away."
     - Michael J. Fox

HAHAHA . . . "No, Mike.  Just don't speak until you read the amendment you are endorsing."

[JSojourner]

There's something really disturbing about a drug-addicted blow hard criticizing a courageous public figure for being "off his meds".

But that's to be expected from a chickenhawk coward who evaded military service because of a boil on his ass...who also called John Kerry and Max Cleland a couple of cowards.

[Smash255]

MODU,the Embryonic Stem Cll Authorization Bill that was passed in Congress and vetoed by Bush had a requirement that the cells used were ones that were excess cells from fertilty clinics

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin[/query/D?c109:5:./temp/~c109JQVcyG::

[MODU]

That is not what we are discussing here.  We are discussing what researchers prefer to use (not what Congress wanted to allow funding on) for experimentation.

[Smash255]

That is not what we are discussing here.  We are discussing what researchers prefer to use (not what Congress wanted to allow funding on) for experimentation.

I realize that and Afletch responded on that.  I was just pointing out in the argument against expanding Embryonic Stem Cell research, Bush and many of those on the right try to pretend thatif not used for reasearch that these cells could one day become life.  That is completley and utterly false.  The proposed laws on Expanding Embryonic Stem Cell research  have NO chance at life, they would be THROWN OUT if not used for research, They are LEFTOVER cells with NO OTHER USE OR POSSIBLE USE OTHER THAN GARBAGE.  That are the cells in question we are dealing with here when it comes down to the propsed laws regarding Embryonic Stem Cell research and any public financing of Embryonic Stem Cell researc.  but Bush and the GOP (those in the GOP who are against the research) flat out LIE about what could come from these cells if not used for research.  Its an outright lie.