 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / October 2006{OT} Limbaugh over the line
I'm sure by now you all must have seen or heard what Rush said about Michael J. Fox. I find this TOTALLY appalling! This clip from the article below sums it up: "Now people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial," Limbaugh said later in his show Monday I have seen Fox PLENTY of times in interviews and on various programs. Those who understand the nature of Parkinson's, or at least the treatments for Parkinson's, are intermittant; one day they work well, and the next day they don't This is inexcusable! I didn't hear it, I'm glad I didn't, but I saw a clip on the evening news, and I can't believe Rush could be that inhumane! I'm going to have to sit and have a good think about this one... http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=5365f15b-ddd6-4270-b1f7-8107f 0469624 In a series of new campaign ads, Michael J. Fox's body jerks and sways uncontrollably as he urges voters to support candidates who back stem cell research. As Rush Limbaugh sees it, Fox, who has publicly battled Parkinson's disease since 1998, is clearly playing up his affliction for dramatic effect. The actor's visible symptoms and poignant message in the 30-second spots apparently aroused the ire of the conservative radio host, leading him to speculate that Fox either "didn't take his medication, or he's acting." "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told his listeners on Monday. "He's moving all around and shaking, and it's purely an act…This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox." Limbaugh was responding specifically to Fox's ad for Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, who is running against Republican Senator James M. Talent. (The spot, available on YouTube.com, had already received 1.2 million views as of Wednesday morning.) "What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans," Fox says in the spot as his torso writhes to a rhythm all its own. "Americans like me." But according to Limbaugh, Americans like Fox are apparently liars, not to mention hypochondriacs. "This is the only time I've ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has," Limbaugh said. "He can barely control himself." However, numerous experts on the disease were quick to point out that Fox's movements were consistent with symptoms of advanced Parkinson's. Fox's spokesman, John Rogers, who also serves on the board of the Parkinson's Action Network, called Limbaugh's remarks "shameful." "It's an appalling, sad statement," Rogers told USA Today. "Anybody who understands Parkinson's disease knows it's because of the medicine that one experiences" the tremors and movements Fox displayed in the ad. Even Limbaugh's loyal Dittoheads felt the need to let their leader know he might have crossed the line, resulting in an on-air apology of sorts from the host. "Now people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial," Limbaugh said later in his show Monday, according to a transcript posted on his Website. "All right then, I stand corrected…so I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act." Limbaugh then bigly, hugely refocused his attack. "Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process, is shilling for a Democratic politician," he said. Fox has also filmed spots for Maryland Democratic Representative Benjamin L. Cardin and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle. Opponents of stem cell research have put together a response ad featuring Patricia Heaton and Passion of the Christ star Jim Caviezel, among others, urging Missouri voters to vote against Amendment 2, which would provide constitutional protections for embryonic stem cell research in the state. The ad, currently available online, is scheduled to be unveiled on television during the World Series Wednesday night. > I'm sure by now you all must have seen or heard what Rush said about > Michael J. Fox. I find this TOTALLY appalling! Limbaugh's the guy who said drug addicts should be put to death. His comments guide many of the snails who post in newsgroups. > I'm sure by now you all must have seen or heard what Rush said about > Michael J. Fox. I find this TOTALLY appalling! I guess when a person takes 30 Oxycontin pills a day, the effects stick in the brain for a long time. Maybe it's time for Limbaugh to take another one of his all-male plane trips to the Dominican Republic. > > I'm sure by now you all must have seen or heard what Rush said about > > Michael J. Fox. I find this TOTALLY appalling! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe it's time for Limbaugh to take another one of his all-male plane > trips to the Dominican Republic. stem cell research has been politicized by the democrats. They have also tried to con the voters with it. Limbaugh can be crass at times just like some democrats. -- > > > I'm sure by now you all must have seen or heard what Rush said about > > > Michael J. Fox. I find this TOTALLY appalling! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > also tried to con the voters with it. Limbaugh can be crass at times > just like some democrats. Democrats and decent Republicans can never crap from the mouth the way Limbaugh does because nobody else is so full of drugs, repressed homosexuality, and vile. Show me where Democrats have ridiculed embryos, blastacysts, or pregnant women the way Limbaugh ridiculed Michael J. Fox. > > > > I'm sure by now you all must have seen or heard what Rush said about > > > > Michael J. Fox. I find this TOTALLY appalling! [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Show me where Democrats have ridiculed embryos, blastacysts, or > pregnant women the way Limbaugh ridiculed Michael J. Fox. Explain to us the controversy regarding stem cell research. Embryonic and adult stem cell research and the U.S. government involvement. I am all ears. -- > Explain to us the controversy regarding stem cell research. Embryonic > and adult stem cell research and the U.S. government involvement. I am > all ears. No, you wouldn't understand it at all. You'd sooner have the precious stuff of life thrown away, as it is now, than use it to help someone with a life-threatening disease. You're all heart. You'd sooner agonize over little bits of frozen tissue which will be thrown away, than sympathize with the thousands of American full-grown men and women blown up by roadside IEDs, into little bits of tissue. > > Explain to us the controversy regarding stem cell research. Embryonic > > and adult stem cell research and the U.S. government involvement. I am [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > full-grown men and women blown up by roadside IEDs, into little bits of > tissue. Again, I don't think you or I understand fully what is envolved with this issue. Thankyou for your enlightning response anyway. -- >> > Explain to us the controversy regarding stem cell research. Embryonic >> > and adult stem cell research and the U.S. government involvement. I am [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Again, I don't think you or I understand fully what is envolved with >this issue. Thankyou for your enlightning response anyway. Feelings.....that is about all the Dims have.... ....and NEVER suggest that they should not kill kids in the womb...that is the Dim's bible....  SignatureScott in Florida >> > Explain to us the controversy regarding stem cell research. Embryonic >> > and adult stem cell research and the U.S. government involvement. I am [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Again, I don't think you or I understand fully what is envolved with > this issue. Thankyou for your enlightning response anyway. The issue is not the issue. The issue is Limbaugh's use of obscenity to keep himself in a job and sell ads for garlic pills. >>> > Explain to us the controversy regarding stem cell research. Embryonic >>> > and adult stem cell research and the U.S. government involvement. I [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > The issue is not the issue. The issue is Limbaugh's use of obscenity to > keep himself in a job and sell ads for garlic pills. What's wrong with garlic? It smell far better than DEMONrat pussy. > > > > I'm sure by now you all must have seen or heard what Rush said about > > > > Michael J. Fox. I find this TOTALLY appalling! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Limbaugh does because nobody else is so full of drugs, repressed > homosexuality, and vile. Repressed homosexuality? >> > > > I'm sure by now you all must have seen or heard what Rush said >> > > > about [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Repressed homosexuality? When someone bashes gays as much as he does, it's often thought to be due to something dark within. Really. Not all shrinks agree on it, though. Even Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". George Carlin, on the other hand, said it's a big dick no matter how you look at it. >>> > > > I'm sure by now you all must have seen or heard what Rush said >>> > > > about [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Even Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". George Carlin, on the > other hand, said it's a big dick no matter how you look at it. You DEMONrats really envy us well-hung types. >> > > I'm sure by now you all must have seen or heard what Rush said about >> > > Michael J. Fox. I find this TOTALLY appalling! [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Show me where Democrats have ridiculed embryos, blastacysts, or > pregnant women the way Limbaugh ridiculed Michael J. Fox. DEMONrats don't just ridicule embryos--they abort them, vacuuming them up and flushing them down the sewer...which is where DEMONrat morality is lodged. > >> > > I'm sure by now you all must have seen or heard what Rush said about > >> > > Michael J. Fox. I find this TOTALLY appalling! [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > and flushing them down the sewer...which is where DEMONrat morality is > lodged. With the government involved as per democrats plan those folks would get paid for the floor sweepings. -- >> >> > > I'm sure by now you all must have seen or heard what Rush said >> >> > > about [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > With the government involved as per democrats plan those folks would get > paid for the floor sweepings. Will you two please get a room? > >> >> > > I'm sure by now you all must have seen or heard what Rush said > >> >> > > about [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Will you two please get a room? You are one of us who do not have a clue regarding stem cell research and the governments proposed involvement. I suggest you study it in detail without your apparent bias and partisanship. -- >> >> >> > > I'm sure by now you all must have seen or heard what Rush said >> >> >> > > about [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > and the governments proposed involvement. I suggest you study it in > detail without your apparent bias and partisanship. You keep getting lost. > >> >> >> > > I'm sure by now you all must have seen or heard what Rush said > >> >> >> > > about [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > You keep getting lost. I'm not lost. Why do you say that? -- > > > I'm sure by now you all must have seen or heard what Rush said about > > > Michael J. Fox. I find this TOTALLY appalling! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > just like some democrats. > -- Sorry, but It's the conservatives that are trying to stop medical progress by making stem cell research a religious and moral issue. It would not be a political issue if it weren't for the puritan morons in this country. > > > > I'm sure by now you all must have seen or heard what Rush said about > > > > Michael J. Fox. I find this TOTALLY appalling! [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > would not be a political issue if it weren't for the > puritan morons in this country. I'm not really sure you are right, but I'll take your opinion into consderation. -- >Sorry, but It's the conservatives that are trying to stop medical >progress by making stem cell research a religious and moral issue. It >would not be a political issue if it weren't for the >puritan morons in this country. That is just so much Dim B/S...... Conservatives (Republicans) do not believe we should kill kids in the womb. It is turning out that using the unborn children isn't tuning out well at all in comparison to the adult stem cells. It turns out the Republicans are right....after all... SignatureScott in Florida > Conservatives (Republicans) do not believe we should kill kids in the > womb. Blastacysts aren't kids. They're bunches of identical cells, with no brain and therefore no soul. And compared to the liberals, you conservatives are more likely to have abortions and divorces. > It is turning out that using the unborn children isn't tuning out well > at all in comparison to the adult stem cells. Science takes time, and stem cell research is still a very young field where progress has been greatly impeded this century because federal funding has been virtually banned for it, and the vast majority of medical research is done with public funds. If the rate of progress is your criteria for continuing scientific research, then we should have abandoned controlled nuclear fusion because it's gone virtually nowhere for a half century. >And compared to the liberals, you conservatives are more likely to have >abortions and divorces. cite...... You really are a kook...LOL SignatureScott in Florida > >And compared to the liberals, you conservatives are more likely to have > >abortions and divorces. > > cite...... > > You really are a kook...LOL Coming from you, it must mean I'm 100% sane. Aren't you the guy who labelled mass murderer Timothy McVeigh a "misguided patriot"? They don't call the South the "Sin Belt" for nothing, you know? It also leads in unwed teen pregnancies. >If the rate of progress is your criteria for continuing scientific >research, then we should have abandoned controlled nuclear fusion >because it's gone virtually nowhere for a half century. The Sun has been using it for quite some time..... SignatureScott in Florida > It is turning out that using the unborn children isn't tuning out well > at all in comparison to the adult stem cells. > > Science takes time, and stem cell research is still a very young field > > where progress has been greatly impeded this century because federal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > research, then we should have abandoned controlled nuclear fusion > > because it's gone virtually nowhere for a half century. > The Sun has been using it for quite some time..... It took millions or billions of years to form the sun. Stem cell research has progressed faster. > > It is turning out that using the unborn children isn't tuning out well > > at all in comparison to the adult stem cells. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It took millions or billions of years to form the sun. Stem cell > research has progressed faster. Yes, but don't you think that to have a program that would make it possible to farm stem cells, in other word pay people to produce a cash crop. I don't like the idea. That is why I think it should wait until the public gains more knowledge about the issues involved both pro and con in all it's gory detail. There maybe many more who would find the process ugly and never approve of it if the facts were known. On the other hand perhaps they would if they knew that cancer could be finally licked and that we all could live on social security till age 150 or thereabouts. -- > > If the rate of progress is your criteria for continuing scientific > > research, then we should have abandoned controlled nuclear fusion [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > possible to farm stem cells, in other word pay people to produce a cash > crop. I don't like the idea. Men have been selling sperm since at least the 1970s, and women have been selling eggs since the 1990s, but so far, I don't believe anybody sells fertilized eggs and, if anything, donors have to pay doctors (fertility specialists) tens of thousands of dollars. But I don't think that even the most ardent supporters of embryonic stem cell research would object to a ban on payments to donors. > That is why I think it should wait until > the public gains more knowledge about the issues involved both pro and > con in all it's gory detail. There maybe many more who would find the > process ugly and never approve of it if the facts were known. I'm not saying stem cells are at all a panacea, as many of their highly political advocates seem to claim, but we already have therapies with serious side effects, such as chemotherapy for cancer actually increasing the odds of getting other cancers. Similarly, stem cells could grow into tumors. > On the other hand perhaps they would if they knew that cancer could be finally > licked and that we all could live on social security till age 150 or thereabouts. Social Security is already indexed to average longevity, so if people start living to 150, they'll probably be required to work until 130. > > > If the rate of progress is your criteria for continuing scientific > > > research, then we should have abandoned controlled nuclear fusion [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Social Security is already indexed to average longevity, so if people > start living to 150, they'll probably be required to work until 130. Geezers in the workplace. That should be very interesting. -- >> Social Security is already indexed to average longevity, so if people >> start living to 150, they'll probably be required to work until 130. > >Geezers in the workplace. That should be very interesting. You may not have anything to offer at your advanced age, but plenty of other people remain productive until late in life. :-) >process ugly and never approve of it if the facts were known. On the >other hand perhaps they would if they knew that cancer could be finally >licked and that we all could live on social security till age 150 or >thereabouts. Well, your thought processes are already completely ossified, so I can see how you wouldn't want any extra decades of stagnation. > > Conservatives (Republicans) do not believe we should kill kids in the > > womb. > > Blastacysts aren't kids. They're bunches of identical cells, with no > brain and therefore no soul. Yes, but the very idea this could be made into a cash cow makes it disgusting to say the least. We need more facts and less emotion with this issue and the government if involved needs controls over it. I'm not yet convinced to be or not to be in favor of embryonic stem cell research. BTW, I don't believe there is any problem with adult stem cell research, but I know there is a advantage (what little I know about it) to the embryonic type. There is still much to be found using adult stem cells. Perhaps we are moving just a bit too fast with this. It surely does not merit this much political attention, at least in my opinion. This issue is like trying to explain DNA science to the uneducated jury in the O.J. Simpson trial. It is complicated and fought with emotion and political partisanship. > And compared to the liberals, you conservatives are more likely to have > abortions and divorces. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > research, then we should have abandoned controlled nuclear fusion > because it's gone virtually nowhere for a half century. -- > > Blastacysts aren't kids. They're bunches of identical cells, with no > > brain and therefore no soul. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cell research, but I know there is a advantage (what little I know about > it) to the embryonic type. The fact is that the vast majority of medical research in the US is funded by the federal government, and if that funding disappeared, then most of it would probably not be replaced by private funds. I'm not saying things should be this way, but in reality they are. Also the federal ban on embryonic stem cell resarch funding isn't just limited to stem cells because if an institution, private or public, gets private funds to study embryonic stem cells, then it can't get federal funding for anything even completely unrelated to this. > There is still much to be found using adult stem cells. That's true, but with current technology it's much, much more difficult to use them. Almost all opponents of embryonic stem cell research are hypocrites because they have no objections to fertility treatments, which are the leading artificial cause of blastacysts and embryos being destroyed. Far fewer of these "babies" would be saved from death if we banned such treatments, but what are the anti-embryonic stem cell advocates doing about this? > > Blastacysts aren't kids. They're bunches of identical cells, with no > > brain and therefore no soul. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cell research, but I know there is a advantage (what little I know about > it) to the embryonic type. The fact is that the vast majority of medical research in the US is funded by the federal government, and if that funding disappeared, then most of it would probably not be replaced by private funds. I'm not saying things should be this way, but in reality they are. Also the federal ban on embryonic stem cell resarch funding isn't just limited to stem cells because if an institution, private or public, gets private funds to study embryonic stem cells, then it can't get federal funding for anything even completely unrelated to this. > There is still much to be found using adult stem cells. That's true, but with current technology it's much, much more difficult to use them. Almost all opponents of embryonic stem cell research are hypocrites because they have no objections to fertility treatments, which are the leading artificial cause of blastacysts and embryos being destroyed. Far fewer of these "babies" would be saved from death if we banned such treatments, but what are the anti-embryonic stem cell advocates doing about this? > > Blastacysts aren't kids. They're bunches of identical cells, with no > > brain and therefore no soul. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cell research, but I know there is a advantage (what little I know about > it) to the embryonic type. The fact is that the vast majority of medical research in the US is funded by the federal government, and if that funding disappeared, then most of it would probably not be replaced by private funds. I'm not saying things should be this way, but in reality they are. Also the federal ban on embryonic stem cell resarch funding isn't just limited to stem cells because if an institution, private or public, gets private funds to study embryonic stem cells, then it can't get federal funding for anything even completely unrelated to this. > There is still much to be found using adult stem cells. That's true, but with current technology it's much, much more difficult to use them. Almost all opponents of embryonic stem cell research are hypocrites because they have no objections to fertility treatments, which are the leading artificial cause of blastacysts and embryos being destroyed. Far fewer of these "babies" would be saved from death if we banned such treatments, but what are the anti-embryonic stem cell advocates doing about this? >> > Conservatives (Republicans) do not believe we should kill kids in the >> > womb. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Yes, but the very idea this could be made into a cash cow makes it >disgusting to say the least. We need more facts and less emotion with Why is it disgusting? People are making money off of our young men and women dying in Iraq. Why is that _not_ disgusting? >stem cells. Perhaps we are moving just a bit too fast with this. It >surely does not merit this much political attention, at least in my >opinion. It wouldn't have garnered _any_ political attention if it weren't for you Republicans. > > Conservatives (Republicans) do not believe we should kill kids in the > > womb. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > research, then we should have abandoned controlled nuclear fusion > because it's gone virtually nowhere for a half century. This is an example of a half-truth stated to advance a political agenda. There is no prohibition against research on stem cells, nor even a complete ban on federal funding of it. There is only a prohibition against using any new stem cell lines obtained from the destruction of embryos. I'm a conservative who favors abortion, by the way. Every abortion means one less liberal voter. > > > Conservatives (Republicans) do not believe we should kill kids in > > > the womb. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > prohibition against using any new stem cell lines obtained from the > destruction of embryos. Quit trying to bring facts into this argument! Don't you realize this topic is all about how one "feels" about Limbaugh? > I'm a conservative who favors abortion, by the way. Every abortion > means one less liberal voter. I've not looked at it that way before. I may have to re-examine my opposition to abortion. Signature"I have often wanted to drown my troubles, but I can't get my wife to go swimming." ~ Jimmy Carter >I'm a conservative who favors abortion, by the way. Every abortion means >one less liberal voter. LOL.... More truth than people think.... SignatureScott in Florida > > Science takes time, and stem cell research is still a very young field > > where progress has been greatly impeded this century because federal > > funding has been virtually banned for it, and the vast majority of > > medical research is done with public funds. > This is an example of a half-truth stated to advance a political agenda. Where are the half-lies in what I wrote? > There is no prohibition against research on stem cells, nor even a > complete ban on federal funding of it. There is only a prohibition > against using any new stem cell lines obtained from the destruction of > embryos. That's why I said "virtually". While it's possible to continue the research, the tiny number and advanced age of the authorized embryonic stem cell lines make it almost useless >> Conservatives (Republicans) do not believe we should kill kids in the >> womb. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And compared to the liberals, you conservatives are more likely to have > abortions and divorces. DEMONrat seed is so inferior it often self-aborts. If conservatives indeed do have more divorces it's because far more of them are LEGALLY married, rather than living in shackups like so many immoral DEMONrats. Can't get divorced if one isn't legally married, eh? >> It is turning out that using the unborn children isn't tuning out well >> at all in comparison to the adult stem cells. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > research, then we should have abandoned controlled nuclear fusion > because it's gone virtually nowhere for a half century. > > And compared to the liberals, you conservatives are more likely to have > > abortions and divorces. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rather than living in shackups like so many immoral DEMONrats. Can't get > divorced if one isn't legally married, eh? But that doesn't explain the higher rates of pregnancies among unwed teens of conservatives. >> > And compared to the liberals, you conservatives are more likely to have >> > abortions and divorces. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But that doesn't explain the higher rates of pregnancies among unwed > teens of conservatives. You have no proof of that. No reputable studies. larry moe 'n curly, 10/26/2006, 9:38:37 PM, <1161913117.122294.46300@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> wrote: > But that doesn't explain the higher rates of pregnancies among unwed > teens of conservatives. Where do you come up with all this crap. You make statements that we are supposed to believe as facts when they are nothing more than you trying to justify your resentment of anything conservative. If it is your opinion that's fine; just state it as such. > larry moe 'n curly, 10/26/2006, 9:38:37 PM, > <1161913117.122294.46300@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > trying to justify your resentment of anything conservative. If it is > your opinion that's fine; just state it as such. I don't see his statement as any different from the nauseatingly repetitious "Gore lost get over it already" nonsense we hear from your little friends. It's sort of like the metal debris jets can use to confuse incoming missiles. > I don't see his statement as any different from the nauseatingly repetitious > "Gore lost get over it already" nonsense we hear from your little friends. > It's sort of like the metal debris jets can use to confuse incoming > missiles. You are still in denial aren't you. Gore lost, get over it. -- >> I don't see his statement as any different from the nauseatingly >> repetitious [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You are still in denial aren't you. Gore lost, get over it. You probably typed that without even realizing it. See what I mean? You can't control it. I don't give a f.ck WHO lost the election. I'm insulted by who won. If you can't see the difference between those two statements, there are some small appliances in your kitchen which might be willing to explain it to you. > >> I don't see his statement as any different from the nauseatingly > >> repetitious [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > are some small appliances in your kitchen which might be willing to explain > it to you. No, no you don't understand. Your problem is in your mind and you don't realize it. To you Gore won, but in reality Bush won, this is like a blackout for someone who drank too much spirits. Don't you see, you ARE in denial. Just keep repeating in your mind, Gore really did lose and GWB won. He really did. See how easy that is. -- >> >> I don't see his statement as any different from the nauseatingly >> >> repetitious [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > See how easy that is. You think this somehow trumps everything that's happened before in a discussion. Otherwise, you wouldn't pull this card every time you have nothing to say. > >> >> I don't see his statement as any different from the nauseatingly > >> >> repetitious [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > discussion. Otherwise, you wouldn't pull this card every time you have > nothing to say. I'm only pointing to a fact. Sorry if it upsets you so much. -- >> >> >> I don't see his statement as any different from the nauseatingly >> >> >> repetitious [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > I'm only pointing to a fact. Sorry if it upsets you so much. No, you're avoiding an issue you are unable to deal with, and hoping that whoever you use the "Gore lost" trick with will forget whatever the real issue was. > >> >> >> I don't see his statement as any different from the nauseatingly > >> >> >> repetitious [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > whoever you use the "Gore lost" trick with will forget whatever the real > issue was. well, it's maybe a real issue with you but not with me. So it's your problem not mine. -- >> >> >> >> I don't see his statement as any different from the nauseatingly >> >> >> >> repetitious [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > well, it's maybe a real issue with you but not with me. So it's your > problem not mine. You raised the issue, knucklehead. > >> >> >> >> I don't see his statement as any different from the nauseatingly > >> >> >> >> repetitious [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > You raised the issue, knucklehead. something tells me you are not a very tolerant person. -- >> >> >> >> >> I don't see his statement as any different from the >> >> >> >> >> nauseatingly [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > something tells me you are not a very tolerant person. I don't tolerate no mess. > >> >> >> >> >> I don't see his statement as any different from the > >> >> >> >> >> nauseatingly [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > I don't tolerate no mess. well you're making one. Now outside for the concrete. My keyboard drawer is fixed. -- >> You raised the issue, knucklehead. > >something tells me you are not a very tolerant person. Just like you, eh? :-) > >> You raised the issue, knucklehead. > > > >something tells me you are not a very tolerant person. > > Just like you, eh? :-) Not like me at all. :) -- >> >> I don't see his statement as any different from the nauseatingly >> >> repetitious [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >in denial. Just keep repeating in your mind, Gore really did lose and >GWB won. He really did. Gore really did "lose" because Bush really did steal the election. Bush "won" because he stole the election. >See how easy that is. Yep, easy. > >> >> I don't see his statement as any different from the nauseatingly > >> >> repetitious [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Yep, easy. Bush didn't "steal the election" Gore tried to steal it away from Bush, that's the real truth. -- > "All right then, I stand corrected
so I will bigly, hugely admit that > I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox if I am wrong in > characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act." He admitted he was wrong in characterizing the illness and apologized. Isn't that good enough for you people. Democrats never accept an apology from conservatives, no matter what. Yet when national Democrat figures like Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton do something horrendous and say they're sorry everyone is supposed to forgive them and never mention it again. The hypocrisy is amazing. > "Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the > process, is shilling for a Democratic politician," he said. > > Fox has also filmed spots for Maryland Democratic Representative > Benjamin L. Cardin and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle. If Fox wants to get into politics then he is open to criticism also. He can't expect to get a free ride from others just because he has an incurable disease. Signature"A zebra does not change its spots." ~ Al Gore >> "All right then, I stand corrected.so I will bigly, hugely admit that >> I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox if I am wrong in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Isn't that good enough for you people. Democrats never accept an > apology from conservatives, no matter what. Bullshit! The way Limbaugh phrased it, he will apologize to Fox IF he is wrong in ..... and so much more blather. It was an apology that wasn't. It would be like my calling Limbaugh a fat, lying slob and 'would' apologize IF I found out that he was fat because of a congenital condition beyond his control, and IF he lied because of a mental condition that never allowed him to tell the truth, and was a slob only because his mother never forced him to put away his things. You say "Democrats never accept an apology from conservatives, no matter what." Democrats seldom say things that need apologizing for, while the reichwingers always get caught with foot-in-mouth disease. If the rights watched their fat mouths a little more carefully, they wouldn't NEED to apologize. Yet when national Democrat > figures like Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton do something horrendous and > say they're sorry everyone is supposed to forgive them and never > mention it again. Would you like to enumerate some of the 'horrendous' things that Jackson and Clinton do? Lately, Jesse Jackson has been busy getting hostages released by their captors, and Clinton has been working with Bush 41 in raising interest and money in disaster relief. Horrendous? I think not. The hypocrisy is amazing. Right, the hypocrisy of Republicans in power is scandalous. But that's shortly going to end....the power, that is. The hypocrisy, unfortunately, will remain. >> "Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the >> process, is shilling for a Democratic politician," he said. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > He can't expect to get a free ride from others just because he has an > incurable disease. Yeah, and Max Cleland should just get three protheses and get on with his life, and shut up in the meantime, and those harpie wives of the 9/11 victims ought to #1. not have let their stupid husbands go to work on Sept. 11, and #2. just take the money and shut the hell up, and #3. be more kindly toward the lovely Ann Coulter. get a grip on the facts, and on the courtesies of life. (but I don't really expect you to be able to do that, for you're a Republican.) Why is it, do you suppose, that the Republican gene seems usually to pair with the mean gene? > >> "All right then, I stand corrected.so I will bigly, hugely admit that > >> I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox if I am wrong in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Bullshit! The way Limbaugh phrased it, he will apologize to Fox IF he is I thought you dimmies were suppose to be nice. > wrong in ..... and so much more blather. > It was an apology that wasn't. It would be like my calling Limbaugh a > fat, lying slob and 'would' apologize IF I found out that he was fat because > of a congenital condition beyond his control, and IF he lied because of a > mental condition that never allowed him to tell the truth, and was a slob > only because his mother never forced him to put away his things. You exhibit a very vengeful and arrogant attitude. Not like what I was led to believe how a leftie democrat is to be. Sad. > You say "Democrats never accept an > apology from conservatives, no matter what." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > watched their fat mouths a little more carefully, they wouldn't NEED to > apologize. You apparently have not listened to some of the leading democrats and followers have said in the past. It is despicable what they spew about our president. In fact it is down right criminal in my opinion. > Yet when national Democrat > > figures like Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton do something horrendous and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > by their captors, and Clinton has been working with Bush 41 in raising > interest and money in disaster relief. Horrendous? I think not. These are all commendable acts, however they still spew vengeance and hate in a most powerful way toward our president. It seems to me they could be much more tactful toward the president, especially in a time when we are at a war with terrorists which have no uniform and no country and want to destroy us. The president was elected by a majority. Their opinions of the president does not reflect the majority and even if it did not reflect the majority the comments should still be respectful, not filled with hate and vengeance. The office of the president does not deserve this disrespect that you and others of your ilk continue to pummel upon it. You and others of your ilk should be most ashamed, for yourselves and for the nation. > The hypocrisy is amazing. Your hypocrisy IS amazing -- >> Would you like to enumerate some of the 'horrendous' things that Jackson >> and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > These are all commendable acts, however they still spew vengeance and > hate in a most powerful way toward our president. citations for this please. I know of no such instances of spewing vengeance and hate by the above mentioned individuals. It seems to me they > could be much more tactful toward the president, especially in a time > when we are at a war with terrorists which have no uniform and no > country and want to destroy us. And just who was it who instigated this aggressive war against a sovereign nation half a world away? George W. Bush. For this crime against humanity (for which the Nazi villains at Nuremberg were convicted and hanged, incidentally.) How much of the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children sticks to this man's hands? and with this in his resume, do you really think that people should afford this man respect and tact? No way. The president was elected by a > majority. Wrong, he was elected thru the machinations of the supreme court..and the state of Florida, governed by his brother. Now ain't that a coincidence! ..he did not win the majority of votes. Their opinions of the president does not reflect the majority Wrong again....his approval ratings shows what the majority of Americans think of him. > and even if it did not reflect the majority the comments should still be > respectful, not filled with hate and vengeance. Not bloody likely. One can respect the office of the president, but when the man occupying that position has shown himself to be a liar, with the one-way "Either you're with us or you're against us" attitude, and a hundred other things that have sadly transpired on this man's watch, asking for respect is something not many of his opposition is willing to acknowledge. Many Americans feel that he is by far the worst president in over a century, not only the worst leader, but the most harmful to American interests. I guarantee he will not be treated kindly by history. On a personal note, if the man ever appeared at my door, asking for a glass of water, I would tell him to use the garden hose, get a drink and get the hell off my property. The office of the > president does not deserve this disrespect that you and others of your > ilk continue to pummel upon it. You and others of your ilk should be > most ashamed, for yourselves and for the nation. The only thing I have reason to be ashamed is the unholy mess that George Bush has put this country through. Thanks to him and his bellicose policy (fomented largely because that nasty Saddam tried to kill his father) this nation, which used to have the (perhaps grudging) respect of the other nations of the planet, has now lost that respect altogether. The US has the same amount of respect that the Hun (Germany) had in World War I. Which is to say, none. And it may pale into insignificance, considering the nearly 3000 dead that this president's actions have caused, and the sorrow of their families, but there's also the matter of over Three Hundred Billions of dollars which this president has pissed away, fighting this insane war....for longer than WW II lasted as of this coming Thanksgiving. If the Democrats are the "tax and spend" party, Bush's administration is the "tax cut (for the very rich) and waste" group....another appalling waste of this country's treasure. Thanks to him and his spending, we're so far in debt to other nations who buy our paper, we'll likely never have any sort of solvency. I'm glad you think he should be respected..... >> The hypocrisy is amazing. > > Your hypocrisy IS amazing I consider the source of this last little dig. Bye, and get your handkerchief out for use on Election night 2006. You'll need it. >These are all commendable acts, however they still spew vengeance and >hate in a most powerful way toward our president. It seems to me they [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >ilk continue to pummel upon it. You and others of your ilk should be >most ashamed, for yourselves and for the nation. So all we need is a "war" and the president can get away with anything and we have to be "tactful" about mentioning his blunders? Bush stole 2 elections, so he doesn't deserve to be in the White House in the first place. Finally, nobody has been insulting the office of the President. We've been insulting that boob GWB. Stuart Krivis, 10/26/2006, 8:41:06 AM, <hta1k21pucjrdfhhhb1g3b5h98ribqnmh3@4ax.com> wrote: > Bush stole 2 elections, so he doesn't deserve to be in the White House > in the first place. I see you are back to your mantra. No matter how often you say it doesn't make it true. Signature"Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." ~ Flannery O'Connor > >These are all commendable acts, however they still spew vengeance and > >hate in a most powerful way toward our president. It seems to me they [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Bush stole 2 elections, so he doesn't deserve to be in the White House > in the first place. Bush didn't steal any elections, he beat your best fair and square. Gore tried to steal the election but Bush was smarter and wouldn't let Gore get away with it. As for Kerry, Bush beat him even worse. You poor souls will carry this to your graves won't you. Maybe we'll have another civil war in the future. > Finally, nobody has been insulting the office of the President. We've > been insulting that boob GWB. -- >Bullshit! The way Limbaugh phrased it, he will apologize to Fox IF he is >wrong in ..... Limbaugh said he would apologize if Fox was not 1. Acting 2. Off his drugs He went off his drugs, so Limbaugh was right... SignatureScott in Florida > Bullshit! Forgiveness is an extremely powerful tool. Be gracious and learn to use it. >> Bullshit! > >Forgiveness is an extremely powerful tool. Be gracious and learn to >use it. You're right. I completely forgive you righties for being asshats. :-) >> "All right then, I stand corrected.so I will bigly, hugely admit that >> I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox if I am wrong in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > say they're sorry everyone is supposed to forgive them and never > mention it again. The hypocrisy is amazing. As you know, I'm not a Democrat, and even I think Rush is a grade-A a.shole, who only gave a backhanded apology. He still insinuated MJF was faking it. >> "Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the >> process, is shilling for a Democratic politician," he said. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > He can't expect to get a free ride from others just because he has an > incurable disease. Troo dat, but I really don't think MJF did that in this instance Natalie >As you know, I'm not a Democrat, and even I think Rush is a grade-A a.shole, >who only gave a backhanded apology. He still insinuated MJF was faking it. Wrong..... Rush said the reason Fox was shaking was either 1. He was acting or 2. He was off his drugs. Rush was right SignatureScott in Florida >>As you know, I'm not a Democrat, and even I think Rush is a grade-A >>a.shole, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Rush was right Who says he was off the meds? Even if he was, that was a really cheap shot Natalie >Who says he was off the meds? > >Even if he was, that was a really cheap shot > >Natalie Michael J. Fox said he was off his drugs. Guess I believe him. He does it on purpose when he goes before Congress so everyone will see him shake. SignatureScott in Florida >>Who says he was off the meds? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > He does it on purpose when he goes before Congress so everyone will > see him shake. OK - then there's some validity to Rush's comment, but it was still inappropriate. Thinking something and saying it are two very different things. Alternatively, what better way to show how devastating the disease is? Natalie >>>Who says he was off the meds? >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >OK - then there's some validity to Rush's comment, but it was still >inappropriate. Not at all if you get in the political arena. >Thinking something and saying it are two very different things. > >Alternatively, what better way to show how devastating the disease is? That is the point. However when you use your disease to say things that are totally untrue about a candidate for political reasons, you become fair game. You are NOT above criticism when you get into the political arena. >Natalie SignatureScott in Florida >>>>Who says he was off the meds? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > You are NOT above criticism when you get into the political arena. Sorry, Scott, all I heard him say was the Republican candidates were against Stem Cell research. I am for SSR; look at the number of abortions that are performed in this country. (I am also Pro-Choice to boot. But that's another issue altogether...). So there is PLENTY of material to work with. If some good can come out of abortions then I say we make the best of it, and those aborted babies shall not have died in vain. If they can perhaps make one person's life better after their mother chose to deny any life to them, then in the end it's a good thing (made from a bad decision...) >>Natalie >>>Who says he was off the meds? >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Natalie The symptoms he displays in the commercial are a side-effect of the medication. I used to know someone who had PD and he hated his meds because they made him sway like that. But being off his meds was worse, so he took them when he needed to. >>>>Who says he was off the meds? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > made him sway like that. But being off his meds was worse, so he took > them when he needed to. I've encountered plenty of PD patients, and have never seen one as bad as Fox looked in that video. Even the much older patients. *shrug* Either way, I still think RL was wrong to make that comment, especially flailing his arms. Natalie Wickeddoll®, 10/26/2006, 9:12:10 PM, <ehr87k.2d0.1@news.evilcabal.org> wrote: > I've encountered plenty of PD patients, and have never seen one as > bad as Fox looked in that video. Even the much older patients. I wonder why an experienced nurse like you has never seen someone exhibit symptoms displayed by Michael J. Fox. Others in this newsgroup seem to know way more than you about the disease and how typical his actions were. Hmmm.... > Wickeddoll®, 10/26/2006, 9:12:10 PM, <ehr87k.2d0.1@news.evilcabal.org> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > seem to know way more than you about the disease and how typical his > actions were. Hmmm.... I can't possibly see every stage of every disease. Nobody can. I never disputed that his symptoms were real, don't forget that part. I'm just saying he's the most advanced I've ever seen. Clearer? Natalie > > I wonder why an experienced nurse like you has never seen someone > > exhibit symptoms displayed by Michael J. Fox. Others in this [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Clearer? As clear as mud. It just seems those berating Limbaugh "know" all about the disease yet someone who is exposed to that stuff in their work hasn't. Makes me wonder how they "know" so much. if you "know" what I mean... >> > I wonder why an experienced nurse like you has never seen someone >> > exhibit symptoms displayed by Michael J. Fox. Others in this [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >work hasn't. Makes me wonder how they "know" so much. if you "know" >what I mean... Then read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_disease That way you'll actually know something, instead of just "knowing." :-) You sure do insinuate a lot. Kind of that passive-aggressive thing working, huh? >>> > I wonder why an experienced nurse like you has never seen someone >>> > exhibit symptoms displayed by Michael J. Fox. Others in this [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > You sure do insinuate a lot. Kind of that passive-aggressive thing > working, huh? I'm not really sure where he's going on that either. My issue isn't so much whether Fox exaggerated the motions or not (I'm convinced he didn't), but for Rush to attack someone without really knowing much about it himself. (He admitted that). But I'm tired of arguing about this, because neither side will relent. What's the point? Natalie > >>> > I wonder why an experienced nurse like you has never seen someone > >>> > exhibit symptoms displayed by Michael J. Fox. Others in this [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Natalie The whole controversy could have been avoided if the democrats had chose not to exploit for maximum effect a person with this malady. Disgraceful election year tactics by the democrats. -- >> >>> > I wonder why an experienced nurse like you has never seen someone >> >>> > exhibit symptoms displayed by Michael J. Fox. Others in this [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > not to exploit for maximum effect a person with this malady. > Disgraceful election year tactics by the democrats. Everyone's taking cheap shots at the moment. How about your president signing that stupid bill for building a fence? It will never happen. If it happens, it will not work. But, signing the bill will appease a few very stupid voters who believe it will work. Sadly, those same voters are too stupid to follow the money as it vanishes into some other pork project. > The whole controversy could have been avoided if the democrats had chose > not to exploit for maximum effect a person with this malady. > Disgraceful election year tactics by the democrats. There was a time when conservatives and Republicans believed that adults were responsible for their own actions, rather than "the Democrats made me do it!" How is it the Democrats' fault that Limbaugh said Fox was exaggerating or not taking his meds? >How is it the Democrats' fault that Limbaugh said Fox was exaggerating >or not taking his meds? Cause you guys are so easy....LOL SignatureScott in Florida What is your point? Fox has admitted he does not take his meds when speaking on the subject? Apparently Rush was right on with his observation Mike hunt >How is it the Democrats' fault that Limbaugh said Fox was exaggerating >or not taking his meds? > > The whole controversy could have been avoided if the democrats had chose > > not to exploit for maximum effect a person with this malady. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > How is it the Democrats' fault that Limbaugh said Fox was exaggerating > or not taking his meds? Leave the meds out, because what I mean is the democrats exploited Fox by making a commercial in the hope to win sympathy and votes. It is an election year stunt. Exploitation of such people because of their malady is dispicable regardless if Fox was a willing participant. It is the democrats ultimate responsibility for using him in their lowly attempt to dredge up votes. -- >> > The whole controversy could have been avoided if the democrats had >> > chose [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the democrats ultimate responsibility for using him in their lowly > attempt to dredge up votes. No more of a stunt than Bush signing legislation to build a border fence, or president Cheney telling generals in Iraq to publicly pretend the disaster there is their fault. > The whole controversy could have been avoided if the democrats had chose > not to exploit for maximum effect a person with this malady. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > election year stunt. Exploitation of such people because of their > malady is dispicable regardless if Fox was a willing participant. That's a weak argument because it does matter greatly if Fox did this willingly or not. > It is the democrats ultimate responsibility for using him in their lowly > attempt to dredge up votes. Then how do you explain Fox's commercial where he endorsed Senator Arlen Specter, a Repubican? The Democrats certainly did not pay for that commercial. > Then how do you explain Fox's commercial where he endorsed Senator > Arlen Specter, a Repubican? Arlen Spector is a Republican in name only, much like John McCain or John Warner. >> Then how do you explain Fox's commercial where he endorsed Senator >> Arlen Specter, a Repubican? > >Arlen Spector is a Republican in name only, much like John |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message