posted
Fox's involuntary actions, medicated or not, cannot be called false.
As for the proposed bill, I need to educate myself further before I can state something as I truthfully know very little about it. I will do some research later tonight.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You misrepresented your own post, then attempted to redefine the phrase 'liberal conspiracy' to not include what you were calling it, which was a left-leaning bias.
It's the same thing. I can tell you learned much from your master, Rush.
So it is your belief that the majority of the media is not left leaning?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:""Senator Talent supports medical research including stem cell research that doesn't involve cloning or destroying a human embryo,"
That's like saying you approve of eating as long as it doesn't include food.
Well, close, since the amenment and the topic of Fox's comments were about fetal stem cell research. Apparently Senator Talent & Staff feel its ok to leave out that part since its what all politicians do.
I guess its more like:
"Joe hates radishes."
Joe responds. "I do not. I love bananas with all my heart."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or possibly that he is simply against cloning and destroying a human embryo and NOT against using all the other types of stem cells?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
So it is your belief that the majority of the media is not left leaning?
The entertainment media may be liberal - left is different. The news media is not. Since almost all of it (PBS would be a notable exception) is run by corporations who are trying to make money for shareholders, of course it doesn't lean left.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The entertainment media may be liberal - left is different. The news media is not. Since almost all of it (PBS would be a notable exception) is run by corporations who are trying to make money for shareholders, of course it doesn't lean left.
The entertainment media and the news media have much corporate ownership in common. Further, it's not as if left leaning people don't appreciate making money from their stocks.
Exhibit 1: Ted Turner. Unequestionably liberal. Unquestionable a shareholder of a large news organization (at one time).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
CTTN & DK, what does bone marrow stem cells have to do with a debate that specifically is about fetal cells?
The honest response for him to have made would have been, "I believe that their are better avenues for a cures and treatments." Not, "Wrong, I am all for it, but I'm not." which is what he says. It is misleading.
Dag--yes, liberals and leftists don't mind making money on their stock, but the non-hypocritical ones won't make it on stock if it harms others or takes advantage of the disadvantaged. Liberals are, for example, willing to make less money on their stocks if it means paying all employees a living wage. Conservatives are more about allowing the market to determine what the employees can earn, and if they need to work multiple-jobs in order to afford their rent, they should do so no matter what it does to the family dynamic.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this is another example of the news media being sensationalism-leaning more than left or right leaning. As DK said, the news outlets are focusing on what Rush said about Michael J Fox and very little about the actual issue or the bill or the candidate's views on such.
I'm sure there are some reporters who jump on it because they don't like Rush Limbaugh, but I think most of the coverage is because "Look how offensive this is!" gets better ratings than a calm and rational discussion of the issues.
posted
I caught a news report on this last night that I've just got to share. They touched on the whole thing and mentioned that Michael J. Fox (kinda weird how you really can't say Michael Fox there) was supporting stem cell research. Then, to counter this, they mentioned that other celebrities like some football guy, some baseball guy, and the main female lead from the execrable Everybody Loves Raymond were in another commerical opposing stem cell research. And that was it. They didn't say anything about the issues, what the message of the commerical was, showed any part of the commerical, or anything. Just mentioned that some other celebrities were in it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag--yes, liberals and leftists don't mind making money on their stock, but the non-hypocritical ones won't make it on stock if it harms others or takes advantage of the disadvantaged. Liberals are, for example, willing to make less money on their stocks if it means paying all employees a living wage. Conservatives are more about allowing the market to determine what the employees can earn, and if they need to work multiple-jobs in order to afford their rent, they should do so no matter what it does to the family dynamic.
And if this affects the content of the news media, how come it doesn't affect the content of the entertainment media.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So it is your belief that the majority of the media is not left leaning?
Not only did I not say this, I didn't even imply it. And if I had said it, it still wouldn't have any bearing on this particular disagreement.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:kinda weird how you really can't say Michael Fox there
That's actually fairly easy to explain. They probably want to avoid confusion with syndicated columnist Michael W. Fox.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The entertainment media may be liberal - left is different. The news media is not. Since almost all of it (PBS would be a notable exception) is run by corporations who are trying to make money for shareholders, of course it doesn't lean left.
The entertainment media and the news media have much corporate ownership in common. Further, it's not as if left leaning people don't appreciate making money from their stocks.
Exhibit 1: Ted Turner. Unequestionably liberal. Unquestionable a shareholder of a large news organization (at one time).
As I said - left is different than liberal. Left being socialist. People can't get too far left without threatening their profits.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For every Rush there's a Michael Moore, for every Ann Coulter there's a..Michael Moore, I guess.
I think some parts of the media lean this way and that. And I have to wonder where the media as a whole was for the first couple years of the Iraq war. I think a lot of the time the media just tells us what we want to hear, rather than upsetting us with information we'd rather remain ignorant about.
Still, why even bother about which way the media leans? Fact of the matter is, there is ALWAYS someone out there who is going to report news the way you want to hear it, regardless of your political affiliation. CNN/MSNBC is for the liberals, Fox is for the conservatives, print media falls somewhere in the middle, but maybe on average leans liberal, and radio is overwhelmingly conservative. It's all out there if you want to hear it. Trying to fog an issue by blaming the media seems like a weak excuse for not being able to argue issues themselves.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is also important to note that the ad was not for stem cell research. The ad was for the election of Claire McCaskill(D) and the defeat of Jim Talent(R). This was a partisan ad. If Michael J. Fox had created an ad calling for the state Congress to approve the Embyonic Stem Cell Admendment, had he asked for Democrats and Republicans to work together to approve this important and potentially life saving research then there would be no controversy. He could urge all legislators to approve this important admendment, and urge voters to call their state Congress representatives and voice their support for the admendment. He didn't do that. He appeared in a partisan politcal ad for Claire McCaskill against Jim Talent so almost by default his message is "Elect Claire McCaskill".
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- kinda weird how you really can't say Michael Fox there --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's actually fairly easy to explain. They probably want to avoid confusion with syndicated columnist Michael W. Fox.
Actually, it's a Screen Actor's Guild requirement. All SAG members *must* have a unique name.
Michael Fox was in the SAG a loooooong time before Michael J. Fox was.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
DarkKnight said: "He appeared in a partisan politcal ad for Claire McCaskill against Jim Talent so almost by default his message is "Elect Claire McCaskill"."
Come on, of course he did. So what? Your statement should read "Elect Clair McCaskill because she will try to back legislation in favor of stem cell research...". You back anybody running for political office because you think they will do the things you want or believe in. That doesn't give Rush an excuse for saying what he did.
And this whole liberal media thing has always been simply stupid in my opinion. The only people I (and I emphasize I) hear saying that is the conservative talk show hosts. And it gets really old. I guess thats why FOX is so in your face conservative!
Its easy to forget that half this country isn't of the "Republican" persuasion.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fox also campaigned for Arlen Spector, who is also for more stem cell research and is Republican.
I stil have no idea why anyone listens to Rush. Or Al Franken, or Ann Coulter, or Michael Moore, or (fill in bombastic commentator of your choice). I've never listened to either one and have no need to let someone else use distorted language to choose my outrages for me. It depresses the hell out of me that so many people do.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Michael J. Fox is well known enough, well liked enough, to not need to attach himself to any politicians, Democrat or Republican. Or at least that is my personal feeling. He is 'bigger' than any politician and has more pull with a much larger audience. Lance Armstrong has done it, and he has many people who are not fans of his. I think Michael J. Fox's message could be even bigger than the LiveStrong message simply because he is more well known and is just so very likeable.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A blogger has pointed out that Rush also nicknamed Attorney General Reno "Shakes Reno" because of her tremors from Parkinson's, a nickname that lives on in right-wing blogs.
Rush has no shame or decency.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Rush has no shame or decency.
Heck, I'm a member of the radical right-wing conspiracy, and I know that. I stopped listening to Rush years ago.
Although, as a member of the RRWC, I also know that some people still worship the ground he walks on, and listens to him religiously. His fan base is pretty large, and is obviously very forgiving.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:His fan base is pretty large, and is obviously very forgiving.
I don't know if forgiving would be the right word. It's not like they get upset by most of the really awful things he does. Rather, they celebrate him for it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dk, I don't understand your point. Michael J. Fox has established himself independent of any politicians. His work and his foundation are far from limited to politicians and the like. In this particular instance, he's endorsing a candidate who supports his major issue against one who doesn't. It's not like he's tied himself to any specific politician or for that matter political party. He's trying to support people who supports his interests.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I don't believe they celebrated his drug addiction... at least, I didn't notice that in our weekly meetings.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You think a painkiller addiction is one of the really awful things he did, that demonstrated a lack of shame or decency? I think we must have very different ways of viewing the world.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We probably do, but you pointed out that they celebrate his lack of shame and decency. The drug addiction, though, was criminal. A failing. And I wonder if it even affected his numbers.
I'm not trying to defend the guy, Squick.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
smitty, Maybe we are talking about different things. To me, the painkiller addiction is kind of small potatoes.
The thing that people should dislike him for is the many really awful things (like this) that he does that display a lack of shame or decency. However, it is precisely those things that his audience loves him for. It's not like they are saying "Oh Rush, you shouldn't be saying that, but we forgive you." It's more like "Yeah Rush! Tell it like it is!"
posted
Yup, talking past each other. I'm saying they forgive him for the criminal faults. They don't feel he needs forgiveness for his giant character faults.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Michael J. Fox is awesome. And I mean that in a very literal sense. And it has nothing to do with his political views (which I mostly but not entirely agree with). It has to do with his grace and dignity.
posted
That is really interesting. If he doesn't take his medicine his body locks up, before it locks up the convulsions are very violent.
That sounds ALOT like the disease they were dealing with in Awakenings with Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro (great movie based on a true story by the way)
It was the same deal, they started having convulsions that got more and more violent and then one day they just froze like a statue.
Spoilers
The drug L-Dopa reversed those convulsions to the point they could "wake up." And actually live their lives. It killed me to watch the drug start to wear off and no longer have any effect, and to watch the patients bravely go back into their catatonic state.
End Spoilers...
Its a powerful movie. I really admire Michael J Fox, you may disagree with him, but I don't think you can accuse him of not being a very genuine person.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A less classy, but funny, response: what would the world be like if more people were like Rush?Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That is really interesting. If he doesn't take his medicine his body locks up, before it locks up the convulsions are very violent.
That sounds ALOT like the disease they were dealing with in Awakenings with Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro (great movie based on a true story by the way)
posted
I listened to an audio of Rush's show that day. I don't know if it was the whole segment on this issue, but it sounded like it was.
At any rate, he did make some points about clarifying the GOP candidate's stance on stem cell research, but he had some very nasty things to say about Michael J. Fox, and he displayed a colossal ignorance of Parkinson's disease.
My usual response to Rush Limbaugh is to observe that his fans seem to be more off-the-wall than he is. This time I'm not so sure.
I'm really finding it hard to imagine that anyone is willing to defend him on this one. He's clearly wrong and the only mitigating thing about it is that his diatribe against Michael J. Fox was not the only thing he was talking about at the time.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: My usual response to Rush Limbaugh is to observe that his fans seem to be more off-the-wall than he is.
I'm not sure if this implies you have worse experiences with Dittoheads than I do, or I have more experience with Rush than you do.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's just that every time I ever listened to his show, he would say something outrageous, then open the phone lines and the people who would call in (whom I believe to be fairly representative of his fans in general) would say stuff that was even more outrageous and less well-thought-out. And they'd all pretend that they got the idea from Rush.
"Ditto Rush, I totally agree that we should kick all the Demoncrats out of the country!"
That sort of thing.
I know a few Rush fans personally and, while seemingly of average intelligence, if you ever get THEM talking about stuff Rush has said, they too take it one step further than Rush himself and say things that are even less supportable or intelligent.
I'm not saying Rush is actually smart or that he isn't obnoxious. He's just much much smarter and less obnoxious than his fans tend to me, ime.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That interview with Fox is one of the classiest things I have ever said.
Also, anyone doubting his story about his meds, the effect stress has on his condition, or his symptoms should shut the hell up. He is being far more candid then most people are, and is dead on.
I should know, my family has a severe history of Parkinson's, and both my Grandma and my Grandpa died of complications from it.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
