Rush Is Right Part 2,483,981
By Erick Posted in 2006 — Comments (51) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
We should not be surprised that the media has distorted what happened on Rush's show regarding Michael J. Fox. We should not be surprised that CNN, etc. are trumpeting his comments while distorting what actually happened.
To be clear, Rush said that he thought Michael J. Fox was either acting or off his meds in that commercial. In fact, Michael J. Fox has admitted to going off his medicine when he wants to make a point about Parkinson's Disease. In fact, if you've seen Michael J. Fox on TV in the last year, you'll note that his tremors were much more pronounced in the political stunt from this past Sunday.
All of that now out of the way, let's go to the video.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Melhman Predicts Victory — Comments (20) »
Rush Is Right Part 2,483,981 51 Comments (0 topical, 51 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Now that I've seen it it's hard to imagine a stronger rebuttal.
That's a powerful video, starring the tissue mass. Someone needs to put it on the air. I have always said, 3D ultrasound will ultimately solve the abortion issue.
He could have even continued his trend of using movie lines : "It's not a tumor."
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Against stem cell use. It destroys the sanctity of life. Everyone must remember, the world would be a lot better off if each of us treated life as the precious gift from God that it is. There are times that you have to go to war (Iraq) and times that you have to kill a person because of their crimes, but respecting life in the first place might not lead to those consequences. I trust God to tell me nothing but the truth and the truth is the gospel.
Awful mobying. Not even decent impressions.
Spend time among conservatives before trying this stunt again.
Somewhere else. Come back here, and your IP gets banned.
Disagree? The contact form.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Was there evidence other than that post that led to True Red's banning?
He just seemed like a newbie.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
posting history is you can't look at past posts to see a pattern. He had a couple other posts that sent up my red flag (no pun intended!)
That is the #1 or #2 thing missing from Old Redstate. The other being a reply count on the entry.
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
Fox: In my book, I mentioned that I did not take my medication before Senate subcommittee for the purpose of showing the horrors of Parkinson's disease.
Rush: You didn't take your medication so the subcommittee could see the horrors of Parkinson's disease?
MSM: Did you hear what Rush Limbaugh just maliciously accused Michael J. Fox of doing?
(I buried this in another dead thread, but liked it so much I brought it back to life. Now if I could do the same with Christopher Reeve, I'd really be onto something.)
"I will guarantee you that John Kerry will be president of the United States." - Nancy Pelosi
It may be unpopular, but I'm glad MJF pulled this now. The lives of children should always be a focus and if he had to do this to get some of the RNC dollars to get people thinking about stem cells, then more power to it. I'm obviously strongly pro-life and it affects my thinking on this. Yes, I think it was a stunt. Yes, he did it to further his agenda. Will we save MJF? Well, who knows? Is it up to a poor, defenseless child to give his/her life to save MJF? I don't think so. I just get so weary of fighting the stem cell battle when they could be using placenta cells for the same cause without this issue. It's just another excuse to kill life.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
One, this was a horrible ad.... Even in his defense, it was wrong. So...do we just patronize his efforts or are we allowed to criticize him...hmmm. I think that because he has "the disease" no one can say what they think regarding this awful political ad (without attack).
If a victim has a political opinion you can't criticize if the following hold
1. The opinion is inline with currrent democratic party dogma
2. The opinion is supporting liberal philosophy that themedia wants to be mainstream
3. The opinion supports a democratic candidate against a republican.
If there is cnflict on any of the above just cast the situation in the light most unfavorable to Republicans.
On the related situation of victims that support conservative and or Republican views they should be ignored and excluded to maximum amt possible, Examples Cindy Shehan vs every other family member of an Iraqi casualty, or the Jersey girls vs the families of the other 2900 plus 9/11 casualties.
This is the comeback? A FETUS talking about EMBRYONIC stem cells? The video implies that researchers will use fetuses to obtain stem cells (which is not true). It also implies that the fetus is an American. It is not until it is born on US soil. This is stupid.
So you would say that right up until the child is "born on US soil" it has no rights. So it's possible to use body parts from it up until it crowns? Or when it comes out? Or wait, when it files for social security?
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
Until it can pay taxes... its not an American!
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
Kid gets born... mother unfortunately dies shortly after birth.
Kid gets the estate.... Uncle Sam takes half!
All in a hard day's work for the government...
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
I still don't know if you are serious or just being flippant. Either way, you are not the kind of person I want to associate with. Happy times with your own (beliefs)...
but he does seem a likely candidate as an organ farm.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
My beef is with the video. It assumes the people watching it are gullible and stupid (thats what I got out of it). The fetus sez I am an American. It is legally not. End of story. No other agenda.
that statement of absolutes.
It's entirely agenda-driven.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
it is a lot more complex than that.
John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 allows certain foreign-born, biological and adopted children of American citizens to acquire American citizenship automatically. These children did not acquire American citizenship at birth, but they are granted citizenship when they enter the United States as lawful permanent residents (LPRs).
What Are the Requirements of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000?
The child must meet the following requirements:
Have at least one American citizen parent by birth or naturalization;
Be under 18 years of age;
Live in the legal and physical custody of the American citizen parent; and
Be admitted as an immigrant for lawful permanent residence.
In addition, if the child is adopted, the adoption must be full and final.
http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/info/info_457.html
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
at least you understand the current law...not that it is right, mid you... Your problem is deciding when a citizen "exists"...
when a "citizen" exists. In fact, I doubt you would pass my test anytime soon.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
to the 2000 Act. If memory serves there are about 9 different modifications to the law covering various periods --- not including amendments to carve out special situations. I was born outside the US (this may surpirse you but it was before 2000 :-) and am covered by one of these and the various exceptions. If everything is in order its fairly straightforward, but it is by no means as simple as US Mom always equals US child depending on which of the various windows one falls under.
John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
But I am an American living Norway. Both my kids have American passports and social security numbers, even though their mother is Norwegian and they have never lived in the US.
The whole thing is rather vague, but my understanding as it was explained to me by the consulate here, is that my kids are American citizens until they reach 18. If, by then, they have not lived in the US for at least a number of years that I have forgotten, they lose their rights of citizenship. After that point, getting it back would not be terribly difficult, if I choose to move back, or even if they choose to, say, go to school and live with their grandparents.
The Fetus in the advertisement is how old, or rather what stage of gestation? Is this a 1 second, a 1 hour, a 5 day old, what age is this fetus?
I'm not all that great on biology, but this looked like about a 6 to 8 week old fetus, but I could be wrong.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
I actually worked first hand with Michael J Fox 4 hours a day 2 years ago. I sat next to the man for hours on end. Considering its been two years I can only assume things have remained the same or gotten worse.
I had to make sure there were no chairs with wheels in the room in case he tried to grab on to one for support. If I hadn't he would have fallen. I also had to make sure that chairs that were available were not squeaky because his constant shaking in a squeaky chair would ruin the sound recordings of the project we were recording.
I spent 4 hours a day no less than three feet from him for days on end, and what I saw in the videos is consistent with what I experienced on a daily basis. Even his "good" times were highly unnverving for anyone who spent the 1980's watching him on TV and Film.
I am absolutely certain, without a single doubt in my mind, that what you saw in the commercial was an accurate reflection of his present condition, and I say this with complete assurance since I personally spent hours on end with him, day after day.
I grew up watching this man on TV and on film and it absolutely broke my heart to watch him in this condition as I worked with him, and to see people claim that he is faking it, when I know first hand what he goes through is absolutely disgusting.
Anyone can say anything.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I believe everyone has stipulated that he has Parkinson's Disease.
Was there a point to your post?
Oh, I see. You're saying that since his symptoms are real, then Rush's statement that he was "off his meds or acting" was incorrect. And since Rush was incorrect (compounding his insensitivity), Fox's statements about the issues must be correct.
Fox has been quoted, and has not denied, that he manages his medication level to fit his agenda. If he needs to look pitiful, he stops the anti-tremor medication.
Rush was saying (without benefit of your personal experience) that Fox may have been acting. It is a valid counterargument to that point to say that with Parkinson's you can't act one way or another. It's my understatnd that the whole problem is that you can't control it.
But to the point that he was "off his meds", you state that his condition on camera is consistent with your own experience with him. Assuming your experience is accurately related, it doesn't mean that Fox wasn't off his meds. It just means we've all now seen him tremble, which leads us back to the original point: he's got Parkinson's.
Perhaps you have some other information to share?
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
No one knew that the guy preventing polio would succeed. No one knew a year ago that the Detroit Tigers would now be in the World Series. Nothing is for certain. The best we have is what shows the most promise. Right now, embryonic stem cells show the best promise of curing many horrible diseases. As the policy now is, thousands get "discarded" every year. I would much rather those thousands get used to help cure the plights of millions of Americans rather than be simply "discarded" (ie destroyed). I am gladly willing to sacrefice a few dollars in taxes for that promise. Even with adoption and such policies, thousands upon thousands get destroyed every year. If that was not the case, I might feel differently, but forced to choose between destruction and a chance for medical progress, I choose the latter without the slightest feeling of guilt or regret and I'd be happy to see my tax dollars support such a program. Am I unChristian for thinking that?
I ask myself what God would want me to do, and I know in my heart that he would want these lives left unlived to not die in vain and to be given use so that they could save other lives before they end their time on Earth.
would look at the facts (not media hype) and determine that yes, research is good (but does it really require government funds?) and approach it appropriately. Now down to facts... embryonic research had NOT produced any positive results (actually negative with tumors etc.) while other stem cell research (adult stem cells) has produced advances. So.. let go of your preconceptions and think... just what do you want GOVERNMENT funded research to advance? When you answer this question honestly, you then have the answer...
Am I unChristian for thinking ... that he (God) would want these lives left unlived to not die in vain and to be given use so that they could save other lives before they end their time on Earth.
Yes, you are.
God does not differentiate between lives - all life being sacred and all.
But hey, because your heart says so I suppose we're all wrong.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
take your point of view up with these guys, first.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
Rush is correct on the issue, but unnecessarily harsh in his treatment. I don't think that he should have expected anything less than a total savaging by the MSN and so what? He got it coming. He can be biting, vicious and spiteful even against his political allies when they stray off of his plantation.
When you deal in extremes, un-nuanced criticisms, and biting satire your entire career then you will receive the same in turn.
I remember when He was the only thing out there for conservatives, and for that he will always have some appreciation from us. But it seems to me he was more playful than mean in those days. The Clinton years changed him. He became absolutely obsessed with Clinton, and he descended into
attacks against anyone who was not as doctrinaire as he was.
Consequently he became boring. He is still a strong voice in the conservative movement, but perhaps he needs to be a voice we take a little less seriously.
I know I will get some grief for this, but I cannot be the only one who thinks this way.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
No, you're not.
There must be at least a couple thousand people who tune in to Air America everyday because they think the same way.
I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, either. For much the same reasons that kyle8 doesn't.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
What makes the show boring is the fact that he does not have guests. My favorite show is Hugh Hewitt's because it is packed with very good guests and he is a great interviewer.
Rush also takes too many listener calls as a result of not having any guests... and those are just worthless filler for any show IMO. I would almost rather listen to ads than what "Mike from Cincinnati" has to say about anything.
None of this has anything to do with Rush being too extreme or following the party line too closely or being obsessed with Clinton.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
It was a bit snakier than my usual posts, and humor is a delicate balance. I'll try to be more careful.
I don't listen to Rush much either, but that has more to do with the large amount of steel surrounding my interior, windowless office than how good the show is. When I can catch him on a day off, I usually enjoy the show, especially Mike from Cincinatti.
And I'm well to Limbaugh's right. His comments re: Michael J Fox seemed to me to be as much of an appeal to emotion as the original pro-escr agitprop itself.
My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.
He is the only commentator I have heard that points out that this is really a cloning legalization bill, since embryonic stem cell research is already legal and being done in MO. There is a bigger story here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWaLkvhhxLo
BOMBLE
Bomble.com