Reply With Quote
Well, if there's one thing Lush knows about, it's medications.
...just in case anyone forgot that pill-popping bag is still on the radio. (click on the link to hear Limbaugh's audio clip and watch the Fox ad)
Rush Limbaugh attacks Michael J. Fox: he was either off the medication or he was acting. He is an actor, after all.
By: John Amato on Monday, October 23rd, 2006 at 12:33 PM - PDT
Rush Limbaugh will say anything to attack anyone who challenges George Bush and his policies. This time, his target is Michael J. Fox. Meds are something Rush does have a little experience with.
Emailer Doug: Rush Limbaugh today accused Michael J. Fox, actor and Parkinson's Disease victim, of deliberately going off of his meds to appear on camera with exaggerated symptoms of his disease for dramatic effect. Fox appeared in a recent Clair McHaskill (D-MO) Senate campaign ad, touting the need for stem cell research. Limbaugh even goes so far as to accuse Fox of faking his symptoms all together.
Audio-MP3
"I stated when I saw the ad, I was commenting to you about it, that he was either off the medication or he was acting. He is an actor, after all."
These emails claim Fox has admitted in interviews that he goes off his medication." A tireless search of the Internet produces no such record of any interview, or any statement in which Fox has ever admitted or even suggested that he ever goes off his Parkinson's treatment at all, let alone for the purposes of shaking it up for the television audience.
De able, just de able. Yes Doug, it is de able.
Here's the ad Limbaugh was talking about.
(link to Youtube video)
the chorea that Michael J Fox has in that ad comes from chronic use of dopamine agonists in the context of Parkinson's. They're movements from the medicine, not the disease itself. Although he might have odd movements OFF of his meds, they wouldn't look like the ones in the ad. They'd look like the Parkinson's-like presentation of Muhammed Ali's Dementia Pugilistica.
In addition, those movements are hard to imitate accurately because they stem from circuits between the basal ganglia and cortex that you can't just turn off or on. Those aren't volitional circuits. There is little chance he was acting, and if he was, he could only accentuate slightly movementse already had. In other words, this is as tragic as it looks.
Well, if there's one thing Lush knows about, it's medications.
haha That statement is so ed up it's funny.
Michael J. Fox is awesome. I feel bad for him. He was great in Casualties of War, and it was one of the most underrated films ever made.
So sad Limbaugh would attack him like this.
Rush should stick to what he does best, drugs.
I actually heard Rush's show as the radio was still on 1200 from listening to the Spurs game the night before. rush tripped all over himself saying he didn't blame Fox for going off his meds for commercials to show what Parkinson's does but at the same time thought it was "unseemly" of Fox to do so in a commercial that supports a pro-stem cell research candidate. Well, which is it Rush?
Is Rush's housekeeper still serving time for his little indiscretion a few years back?
There's no need to attack Rush on this one -- his argument is fatally flawed from the outset.
True......but he just lends himself out to be a target of ridicule.
He can't help it. It's just part of his personna.
Last edited by Condemned 2 HelLA; 10-24-2006 at 02:52 AM.
Yeah, all anyone really has to do is Google "Rush Limbaugh viagra Dominican Republic" to blow this guy to bits -- figuratively speaking, of course.
Wasn't he allegedly going deaf a few years back?
How is it he's still able to do his show?
Perhaps he just can't HEAR how idiotic he sounds.
"Talent on loan from god" indeed!
I think it was determined that it wasn't really imperative to the quality of his show that he be able to actually hear the callers.
I think it was Paul Krugman who wrote that "Hush shadow boxes with soundbites".. The thought of this is hilarious but so true...
Every time I think his jackassery can't possibly get any worse, Rush does something to top it.
Too bad for him that his audience of old people might actually know something about what he speaks.
What else is new?
that was a damn fine acting performance if you ask me.
Typical of these highly partisan extremist on the right.
Fox appears in commericials because of an issue that is near and dear to his heart for obvious reasons. Limbaugh rather than counter the argument of why Fox's position is incorrect, choose to smear Fox by questioning his integrity. By getting into a political race, one has to expect people to passionately disagree with them on the issue(s). One should not be subjected to personal smears from opponents.
Michael Shaivo has made campaign appearances and advocated his position regarding right to die issues. The right wing ghouls came out in force and attacked his character with vicious lies. When it came to Shaivo, very little was said about his stand on the issue, his character was questioned.
The 9-11 widows, some became active politically calling for the creation of the 9-11 Commission and being critical of the administration. One can disagree with the postions they take and articulate and argument in that fashion and it would be good and proper. Ann Coulter choose the path of personal attack and smear.
It's a pattern for the right wing, at least the extremist element of the right wing. Ethics and morality have no place in their belief system as they believe they are correct and that trumps common decency. How else can you explain it? Each of the above three examples could be debated on the merits of the issues but the Coutlers, Limbaughs and Hannitys choose slander rather than making an argument.
They are a loathsome lot and what is sad is they do hold sway within the power structure that controls this country. They speak for the people who control the Republican party these days. Not all Republicans but they have siezed control of party and will fight to the death to keep it.
Awesome post.
"but the Coutlers, Limbaughs and Hannitys choose slander rather than making an argument."
Don't blame these assholes exclusively, they are only doing their jobs, and making lots of $$ doing it (don't ever think they are pure of heart and not $$$ motivated) of pandering to the nastiness, incivility, and meanness in the sheeple who listen to them and vote Repug, ie, the Repug base.
Same with assholes like Hannity, O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, Hagee, and radical religious "nutcases for Christ".
The Repugs are the way they are, uncivil bas s, because that's how the radical right and radical religious nutters, their base, wants them to be.
The A er/Rove slime machine and negative campaigning are used because they works. Blame The Great American Sheeple directly for that. The sheeple elect the leaders they deserve.
The media/religious types don't cause this , they simply reflect the in the sheeple who make them popular.
Last edited by boutons_; 10-24-2006 at 12:46 PM.
Astute post, and accurate portrayals of reactions those on the right have had; however the bahaviour is not limited to conservatives.
As a conservative it has been impossible to debate certain social programs, regulations, practicies, etc...without getting labeled.
Oppose Affirmitive Actions = Be labeled a racist
Oppose Gay Marrieage = phobe
Favor privitization of Social Security = Want Old people dying in the street
A conservatives positions on welfare, taxation and a myriad other issues are often not debated on merits - the conservative simply gets labeled by the left.
You interject yourself in the political process, like Fox,
and you make yourself fair game. He admits he goes
off his meds to show people the bad stuff about his
illness......
By the way when did he get his American citizenship?
He was Canadian last I heard. But calls himself an
American in the TV ads.
Now Hush is complaining that the ad is misleading and politicizing the issue?
Indeed there are exaggerations on both sides as you allude to in your post.
What is unique or different from the three instances I cited in my previous post is non-career politicians (and somewhat sympathetic individuals) take a stand related to a personal loss in their lives and are assailed by a machine from the opposite side of the issue via a personal attack rather than debating the issue.
That is different from a liberal politician advocating government funded healthcare and being characterized a "socialist" from those who disagree with him/her. That is in the vein you cite about affirmative action, etc.....
Fox, Shaivo and the Jersey Girls are typically not involved in politics at least to the extent that they are for their personal issue. They are not unlike John Walsh who became involved because of a personal tragedy.
If one disagreed with Walsh, the equivalent would be to accuse him of using his advocacy for personal gain rather than the emotional tie he has to the issue. This would be a personal attack rather than an honest debate of the issue.
The other thing is in the three instances I cite, representatives of the public voice of the far right are mouthing them. This innoculates the elected representatives from making such accusations themselves yet benefits them should they "work". If people are outraged and react negatively, most of the scorn goes to the unelected radio host (or columnist). Rather ingeneous, just terribly distasteful.
No one has produced such an interview.He admits he goes
off his meds to show people the bad stuff about his
illness......
He became a citizen six years ago.
If he was Canadian, it didn't stop Arlen Specter from taking money from him.
http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_po...hael_J_Fox.php
For personal attack and smear? I know that is how the right likes to work. Is their stand on the issue(s) so weak that they need to change the subject to personal attack? In this nation of ours one does have the right to free speech and should a political mouthpiece such as Limbaugh make distasteful statements like that he is protected (as he should be) by the cons ution. Just as Fox has a right to his opinion and would not find it unreasonable for those who disagree with his opinion should have a right to articulate that. If however, one goes beyond disagreeing to slandering an individual for taking a political stand, it is in bent upon us to call a spade a spade when that is done.
Limbaugh is threatened by Fox making this commercial and appealing people's emotion. He uses his forum to discredit the messenger rather than dispute the stand on the issue. He is wrong for this.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
