Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

Master

2060

Northern California

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

Am I the only one that doesn't care what Rush Limbaugh says about Michael J. Fox? I mean, who is Rush Limbaugh to me?

OTOH? I heard that Opie and Anthony think that Jessica Biel is ugly. Now THOSE are fighting words.

My Race Log

Pro

4189

Pittsburgh, my heart is in Glasgow

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

"Anyone who is personally opposed to abortion, but remains pro-choice, and also supports embryonic stem cell research, pleas explain your logic."

---
Ok, here's my go.

Abortion doesn't fit into MY, as in my PERSONAL, view of how things should be done. That's just me, that's my circumstances, that's my life. If I was to get pregnant now, it wouldn't be ideal, but I've got options open to me and family support.

Now, if Suzy S wants to go and have an abortion...I can't stop her. I don't WANT to stop her. Women spent way too much time being told what to do for the first couple of millenia. I want her to make her own choice, and do what is right for her. She doesn't necessarily have the same beliefs, support systems and/or options open to her. She may not simply want to have a kid. I'm not going to force her to have a child, and I'm not going to force her to have an abortion. I'd want her to be aware of the consequences/after effects of each (post partum depression, adoption rates, adoption centers, pre-natal care, foster system, right to visitation, etc., along with the medical, mental, and emotional risks associated with abortion) and let her and her partner make the decision, not the government.

Now, on to stem cell research. My interest in this is purely and utterly selfish. I have a chronic disease that will shorten my life. The last few years of my life are going to be pretty unpleasant. I might need a kidney transplant. I may go blind. I may lose toes. All in all, I think that's pretty unpleasant. In additon, the cost of my medication, the cost of treatment, the cost of living with this stupid effing disease is only going to go up. If we could cure or fix diseases, it would reduce strain on medicare/medicaid and the health system in general...I don't see anything wrong with that. To be honest, right now I'd be willing to give my eggs for FREE to whatever research center wanted them. I don't personally ever want to have children, and if 23 of my chromosomes can help to make people's lives better, then I'm all about it. If I decide later in life that I want kids, I'll adopt. There are so many wonderful kids that need adoption, I don't see the great and undying need to have one of my own.

It's just how I feel....

< Prepare to be called a hypocrite and a bad person >

My Race Log

Buttercup

14334

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

We're getting off-topic but as long as Opus doesn't object...

If you believe life begins at conception, then I don't see how you be consistent in your views by supporting invitro-fertilization (unless it's done 1 fertilized egg at a time) or embryonic stem cell research.

I don't know when life begins. I don't even know what we mean by "when life begins." What does that mean? When the spirit enters the cells? What is a spirit? Isn't that a faith question? What if you don't believe in spirits?

I think mankind will always look for ways to play god, whether it's IVF or embryonic stem cell research or cloning foods or taking a life (war, murder, capital punishment).

I don't have answers.

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

phoenixazul - < Prepare to be called a hypocrite and a bad person >

Not at all.

And no one should ever forget that you are indeed suffering. I know from your writings here that you carry a great burden with your health.

The thing is that in the case of embryonic stem cell research, you would not just be donating an egg, but rather part of what would become a being that is of exactly the same nature as the child that you would chose to keep.

That's the part I don't understand. If you would do this, then why doesn't abortion fit into your personal view of how things should be?

How is an embryo that comes into being in a petri dish different in nature from an embryo that comes into being in your body?

Edited by dontracy 2006-10-25 11:22 AM

My Race Log

Master

2060

Northern California

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

dontracy - 2006-10-25 9:21 AM

How is an embryo that comes into being in a petri dish different in nature from an embryo that comes into being in your body?

A petri dish won't sleep with your best friend, divorce you and take the kids and demand $3,950 a month in alimony to keep her in the lifestyle to which she is accustomed...

for starters

My Race Log

Master

4101

Denver

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

Don and I briefly touched on this topic before. I think the major difference is that with in-virto fertilization there is not a 1:1 correlation between embryos created and embryos implanted. In other words, it is not a choice between creating a child or using the embryo for stem cell research. The fact is that as long as there is a in virto fertilization there will be excess embryos which have no chance of becoming children and will be destroyed.

I can see Dons point about how can you be for life in one instance but against it in another, but I think te major moral dilemma shouldn't be between abortion/stem cells but rather abortion/in vitro, and that one is a lot uglier.

My Race Log

Expert

893

Livermore, Ca

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

Get your quotes right people rush said, MJF is acting or he's off his medication. And considering MJF has admitted that he's went off his med before interview in the past. He does have a point.

My Race Log

Pro

4040

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

dontracy - 2006-10-25 12:02 PM

Opus - Limbaugh is probably against embryonic stem cell research like he is against recreational drugs: it's only bad for others, not for him.

Don't know about Rush, but here's someone who had Parkinson's disease and was also against embryonic stem cell research.

Read some of what he had to say about it and tell me what makes more sense; this argument or the argument put forth by proponents of embryonic stem cell research.

And if this is too theological for some people's taste, I'll be happy to provide a purely reason based argument as well.

Discussions about whether or not Rush Limbaugh has profound character flaws is a bit like saying that John Brown had a temper. It so misses the forest for the trees.

I know very little about embryonic stem cell debate. I can also say that the abortion debate is one where I experience deep discomfort, mainly because the discussion to me centers on the competing rights of a woman and an unborn child. I am neither.

You're right, I was only pointing out that Limbaugh is a dirty hypocrite. If anybody is a shill, it's him for advocating things (like jailing drug addicts) when he fails to advocate the same for himself.

Getting back to the unborn debate: Right now we live in a world that allows abortion. You would prefer to have a world where abortion is illegal. I imagine that world, where women are forced into carrying a fetus to term, and I wonder what the cost of doing so would be on women.

My Race Log

Expert

694

Charleston, SC

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

dontracy - 2006-10-25 11:21 AM

That's the part I don't understand. If you would do this, then why doesn't abortion fit into your personal view of how things should be?

How is an embryo that comes into being in a petri dish different in nature from an embryo that comes into being in your body?

It could be a "means justify the ends" kind of thing. There is a lot of gray areas in political/moral debates today. One may feel that having an abortion only destroys life, but stem cell research creates life. For instance, if someone gives up an embrio for science, that embryo will never live. However that embryo has the potential to cure a disease and let thousands of other people add years to their lives. In that way the embryo has lived for thousands of years.

My Race Log

Pro

4040

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

coachese - 2006-10-25 12:10 PM

OTOH? I heard that Opie and Anthony think that Jessica Biel is ugly. Now THOSE are fighting words.

Maybe we should start another thread!

Now, if only there were a way to work in a Canadian angle...

My Race Log

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

It could be a "means justify the ends" kind of thing. There is a lot of gray areas in political/moral debates today. One may feel that having an abortion only destroys life, but stem cell research creates life. For instance, if someone gives up an embrio for science, that embryo will never live. However that embryo has the potential to cure a disease and let thousands of other people add years to their lives. In that way the embryo has lived for thousands of years.

Right, it seems to be an "ends justify the means" thing.

How 'bout this for a hypothetical:

Take the case of a condemned prisoner. Assume that he is guilty as charged, that the crime was a heinous one, and that he will indeed be executed.

Using the ends justify the means argument, what would prevent the state, which has the power to kill this man, from inviting in an organ bank to harvest all of his usable organs. Let's assume also, that the state refines its method of killing him so as to preserve as many organs as possible, even if it means removing some while he is still alive.

Would this be acceptable to most people who hold the ends justify the means moral argument regarding embryonic stem cell research?

My Race Log

Buttercup

14334

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

Don't they do this in China?

Extreme Veteran

394

Columbia, MO

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

dontracy - 2006-10-25 9:29 AM

One more thing...

Anyone who is personally opposed to abortion, but remains pro-choice, and also supports embryonic stem cell research, pleas explain your logic.

Please.

If you are personally opposed to abortion, I assume that it has something to do with a belief that it is morally wrong to kill your unborn child.

If you remain pro-choice despite this belief, I assume it is because it has something to do with your belief that the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the unborn child. In your case, you would vote for the child, but you don't want to impose that on another woman.

Now, please explain what rights outweigh the rights of a human in the embryonic stage of life in the case of embryonic stem cell reasearch?

If you support embryonic stem cell research, why are you personally opposed to abortion in the first place?

I really don't understand.

I will try to tackle this one. I look at this more as societal problem. I am pro-choice mainly because the US doesnt need any more unwed mothers on welfare. That may sound harsh, and I am not saying that every person that gets an abortion will end up on wellfare. What I am saying is that maybe we should address the problem before it becomes a problem, with real sex education, not abstinance education, which has been proven over and over again to be worthless. If you dont teach a person how to safely do something, then they do wrong, and you dont give them the tools to get out of the situation, I think at least part of the blame lies with the person responsible for teaching it.

Since parents no longer teach their children anything at home and expect the schools to teach everything, then why do the same people who oppose abortion, oppose comprehensive sex education in schools? That is absurd!!!

To make an analogy, lets say a father gives his sun a BB Gun and says dont shoot it. The kid, of course, shoots it (because thats what kids do when they are told not to do something). Then one day the kid shoots his eyes out and the father says, "We can go to the doctor and get those removed and you will be able to see or we can keep them in there and you will be blind for the rest of your life. (then having to depend on the govt. for disability benefits, ie medicare)

Yes the child chose to shoot the bb gun and should have to face the consequences of his actions, but shouldnt the father be partly to blame for the childs mistake?

You may say that analogy is not very good, and that is fine, but I just came up with it right now. With a few more minutes maybe i could come up with a better one.

I think that our Christian based society has too many contridictions and double standards. Christians are against pro choice people because they weigh the life of an unborn child against the life of the mother and society, but Christians, weigh the life of living breathing person with a life altering disability against a petri dish. To me that makes no sense. Society tells people to not have sex cause its a sin, yet dont give them the the knowledge to deal with it when it happens (and it will happen about 80+% of the time)

I really am just ranting, so these words are not to offend or persuade, just make you think about.

Josh

My Race Log

Expert

1357

Mukwonago, WI

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

Abortion doesn't fit into MY, as in my PERSONAL, view of how things should be done. That's just me, that's my circumstances, that's my life. If I was to get pregnant now, it wouldn't be ideal, but I've got options open to me and family support.

Now, if Suzy S wants to go and have an abortion...I can't stop her. I don't WANT to stop her. Women spent way too much time being told what to do for the first couple of millenia. I want her to make her own choice, and do what is right for her. She doesn't necessarily have the same beliefs, support systems and/or options open to her. She may not simply want to have a kid. I'm not going to force her to have a child, and I'm not going to force her to have an abortion. I'd want her to be aware of the consequences/after effects of each (post partum depression, adoption rates, adoption centers, pre-natal care, foster system, right to visitation, etc., along with the medical, mental, and emotional risks associated with abortion) and let her and her partner make the decision, not the government.

OK, let's say that Suzy S has a belief system that calls her to kill other people. Sounds rediculous? As we all know there are religions that require that as part of their faith. Under your logic, if Suzy S is standing next to you and is about to shoot innocent people around her to create a "better world" by extinguishing Christians, Americans, Jews, etc.., would you try to stop her? If you would try to stop her, under what justification would that be? Women and men have been told what to do since the beginning of time. That's how we have order and justice in a civilized world. And yes, I do equate abortion to murder as it is the murder of another human who cannot do anything to defend itself and is simply gotten rid of because mom (and/or dad) made a mistake. In light of that mistake she wants to kill a being that left unharmed will become a functioning, healthy part of society. If unwanted, let the thousands if not millions of unfortunate but loving couples out there who are more than willing to pay medical costs for that woman and adopt the baby. To do the right thing by protecting life instead of plunging a blade into her uterus and into the skull of that baby that has a heart beat and feels pain. Isn't life and the value of it worth more in our society then the short term inconvenience of carrying a baby to term? Isn't valuing life more important than valuing the ability to make a choice? There are things everyday that we give up the choice to do (men and women alike). There's my two cents.

My Race Log

Expert

1357

Mukwonago, WI

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

I will try to tackle this one. I look at this more as societal problem. I am pro-choice mainly because the US doesnt need any more unwed mothers on welfare.

OK - under this logic, let's just kill all the children of welfare families. In fact, let's kill all the kids that are fat, ugly, dumb, etc. Let's just get rid off all the children that are in less than undesirable circumstances.

That may sound harsh, and I am not saying that every person that gets an abortion will end up on wellfare.

No - especially if they are adopted into families that are loving and have the financial means to support the child!

What I am saying is that maybe we should address the problem before it becomes a problem, with real sex education, not abstinance education, which has been proven over and over again to be worthless.

Really??!!??!! Where has this been proven? Teaching kids to save themselves to for marriage. Yes, that really sounds like a bad idea compared to having sex with the first person that pays attention to you and in the event that you get pregnant just solve the problem by mutilating yourself and an unborn life.

If you dont teach a person how to safely do something, then they do wrong, and you dont give them the tools to get out of the situation, I think at least part of the blame lies with the person responsible for teaching it.

Since parents no longer teach their children anything at home and expect the schools to teach everything, then why do the same people who oppose abortion, oppose comprehensive sex education in schools? That is absurd!!!

To make an analogy, lets say a father gives his sun a BB Gun and says dont shoot it. The kid, of course, shoots it (because thats what kids do when they are told not to do something). Then one day the kid shoots his eyes out and the father says, "We can go to the doctor and get those removed and you will be able to see or we can keep them in there and you will be blind for the rest of your life. (then having to depend on the govt. for disability benefits, ie medicare)

Yes the child chose to shoot the bb gun and should have to face the consequences of his actions, but shouldnt the father be partly to blame for the childs mistake?

You may say that analogy is not very good, and that is fine, but I just came up with it right now. With a few more minutes maybe i could come up with a better one.

I think that our Christian based society has too many contridictions and double standards. Christians are against pro choice people because they weigh the life of an unborn child against the life of the mother and society, but Christians, weigh the life of living breathing person with a life altering disability against a petri dish. To me that makes no sense. Society tells people to not have sex cause its a sin, yet dont give them the the knowledge to deal with it when it happens (and it will happen about 80+% of the time)

Your logic makes me lose faith in people and our society. I had a bb gun when I was a kid. I was taught how to use it. I was shown the consequences of what happens if it is used improperly and I was also shown the enjoyment I could have if I used it in the right context. Yes, I also knew that if I broke the rules I was taught part of the consequence too is that I would not want to face my father at that point. Have we ever shown kids the ugliness of abortion? Do we teach them that the glamour that sex is portrayed to have is often times replaced by frustration? Christians are all for helping life to be stregthened and healthy but not at the expense of destructing life in order to reach that point.

What's next then? Do we stop at genetically creating life so that your kids can have blond hair, be a certain height with the right IQ?

I really am just ranting, so these words are not to offend or persuade, just make you think about.

Josh

My Race Log

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

crozetiga -Christians are against pro choice people because they weigh the life of an unborn child against the life of the mother and society, but Christians, weigh the life of living breathing person with a life altering disability against a petri dish.

Josh, I think both of those statements are false.

Opponents of abortion do not weigh the life of an unborn child against the life of the mother. The rights that are in conflict here are the life of the unborn child vs. the material rights of the mother. The mother will go on living regardless.

I don't know of a single case where the life of the unborn child supercedes the life of the mother to the point where the mother loses her life. It's quite clear that in most cases where a mother's life is truely at stake, and they are rare, the moral principle of double effect insures that the mother will always receive the care she needs in order to live.

Pro-lifers do not want mothers to die. To say otherwise is to raise a straw-man argument.

As to your second point, opponents of embryonic stem cell research do not weigh the life of a living breathing person with a disease against the contents of a petri dish. For us, the problem is that the embryo in the petri dish is a being possesing exactly the same nature as the being inside its mother. A being that you've chosen to call an unborn child.

Edited by dontracy 2006-10-25 1:26 PM

My Race Log

Expert

1152

wrightsville beach, North Carolina

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

well, he should know how to fake it!!!! got any oxycontin rush???

My Race Log

Crystal Lake, IL

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

Sorry to veer off topic and back to the original post, but I believe Rush's comments were calculated to create publicity and that he knew exactly what he was saying and the effect his comments would have. That's what he does and he is very good at it. Agree with him or not there are few people who can create publicity as well as him and he has just done it again.

His apology is neither sincere nor an apology. It is a tactic.

My Race Log

Extreme Veteran

394

Columbia, MO

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

triingforsept07 - 2006-10-25 1:01 PM

OK - under this logic, let's just kill all the children of welfare families. In fact, let's kill all the kids that are fat, ugly, dumb, etc. Let's just get rid off all the children that are in less than undesirable circumstances.

I think I am safe in saying that the majority of people who get abortions are young, unwed, and for the most have a low level of education. If I am wrong, then please let me know with studies to prove otherwise. Now that being said let me defend my previous statement. If those young, unwed, uneducated people are do not have access to abortions, then we have a young mother (usually) in a situation where she cant go to school because she cant afford child care and ends up getting a job. With her wopping HS education (if she is lucky) she gets a job making $7.00/ hour (higher than mininimum wage... she is lucky). Thats $1120/month before taxes. She had to have child care so she can go to work and the going rate here is between $400-800/ month. Rent (around here) is 400-700/month. That pretty much eats up all of what she makes per month, Thats not even including utilities!! So that person is forced by her situation to go on welfare. Thus making more of a burdon on the taxpayers. I thought conservatives were against welfare. Thats right, they are.

In my original statement I said nothing about killing the fat, dumb, whatever. Those were your thoughts man!!! Now I didnt directly say that you should kill anyone. What I was trying to say (very poorly I might add) is that that unwed, poor, uneducated person should have that choice. So that they dont have to starve or starve their child or get forced to endanger their child by living in bad neighborhoods (which are the only places they can afford). Maybe it is selfish on the part of that mother, but what gives you or anyone else the right to tell her that she can't. In this space, you will probably insert God, but if she doesnt believe, that really doesnt mean anything to her.

No - especially if they are adopted into families that are loving and have the financial means to support the child!

What happens when there are not enough of those families around. Thats why we have a foster care system. Thats where the rest of those kids go. Basically the govt. pays for foster parents to take the child. As you can imagine, it brings in some of the most loving people to line up for that check.

Really??!!??!! Where has this been proven? Teaching kids to save themselves to for marriage. Yes, that really sounds like a bad idea compared to having sex with the first person that pays attention to you and in the event that you get pregnant just solve the problem by mutilating yourself and an unborn life.

I will give you this one, at least the first part of this one. I spoke before I researched, that was my bad. There are studies that have been done, but they are not conclusive that abstinence only education is a good or bad thing. I like the idea of an abstinence plus education where the students are taught abstinence first but are taught about birth control and condoms as well. By the way the Federal Govt. only will help fund the abstinence only kind not abstinence plus http://www.voicesforamericaschildren.org/ContentManagement/ContentD...

Your logic makes me lose faith in people and our society. I had a bb gun when I was a kid. I was taught how to use it. I was shown the consequences of what happens if it is used improperly and I was also shown the enjoyment I could have if I used it in the right context. Yes, I also knew that if I broke the rules I was taught part of the consequence too is that I would not want to face my father at that point. Have we ever shown kids the ugliness of abortion? Do we teach them that the glamour that sex is portrayed to have is often times replaced by frustration? Christians are all for helping life to be stregthened and healthy but not at the expense of destructing life in order to reach that point.

I think you are helping to prove my point. You had those educational experiences, you learned. Most of these kids havent. That is part of my point. I am sure you are a well round great person because you had a great upbringing (at least better than some of these kids). Alot of these kids were put in a situation where they are forced to live a certain way. They are not taught necessary life skills by their parent and the schools are teaching you to "just dont do it because its bad" Most kids are going to have sex before marriage (I read 85-90% somewhere) why not educate them so that more of them dont result in teen pregnancy and they choice of abortion.

I really am not saying that abortion is good. It is our job as a society to teach the children, so that it doesnt come to that. Does that make more sense?

What's next then? Do we stop at genetically creating life so that your kids can have blond hair, be a certain height with the right IQ?

I dont think that I ever said that or implied that. I am not a Nazi

Really I am not trying to cause a stir here, just trying to get a point across. I am just debating for the sake of debating. Just trying to get a rise out of people. No harm no foul.

Josh

I really am just ranting, so these words are not to offend or persuade, just make you think about.

Josh

My Race Log

Expert

1357

Mukwonago, WI

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

Josh, I appreciate your comments because they show that you are sincere and I think that sincere people help to create solutions.

I do not live under an idealistic view of the world that people will only have sex in marriage, that father's are going to live up to their responsibilites to their kids, etc. etc.

I am not however willing to give up on families which is the foundation of who were are and what we become. You asked what happens if we run out of couple willing to adopt. I have many good friends that have adopted. They were so willing that they spent close to 30k to adopt and because the waiting lists are so long to adopt here they travelled to another country to do it. Because it is expensive and so long to wait to adopt I also believe many couples don't even try. My point is that I don't see that happening for a long time and I think that would be a great problem then because that means many kids would have ended up in good homes and have been given the opportunities that I have had compared to now.

Apart from this the answers aren't easy. I would just like to see us get away from wanting only to deal with the sysmptoms (unwanted pregnancies) and get to the real problems which are placing value on familes and figure out ways to take care of children through adoption, etc instead of killing a baby. Again, I do equate that life to being a human being and that's why I think aborting a baby is the same as killing children that don't turn out the way we want. It's a slippery slope. If we can terminate an unwanted pregnancy then what next. I know you didn't say those things but as a society if we justify killing babies then I think someday that devaluation of life leads to other things that are even more horrible.

My Race Log

Extreme Veteran

394

Columbia, MO

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

dontracy - 2006-10-25 1:25 PM

crozetiga -Christians are against pro choice people because they weigh the life of an unborn child against the life of the mother and society, but Christians, weigh the life of living breathing person with a life altering disability against a petri dish.

Josh, I think both of those statements are false.

Opponents of abortion do not weigh the life of an unborn child against the life of the mother. The rights that are in conflict here are the life of the unborn child vs. the material rights of the mother. The mother will go on living regardless.

I don't know of a single case where the life of the unborn child supercedes the life of the mother to the point where the mother loses her life. It's quite clear that in most cases where a mother's life is truely at stake, and they are rare, the moral principle of double effect insures that the mother will always receive the care she needs in order to live.

Pro-lifers do not want mothers to die. To say otherwise is to raise a straw-man argument.

As to your second point, opponents of embryonic stem cell research do not weigh the life of a living breathing person with a disease against the contents of a petri dish. For us, the problem is that the embryo in the petri dish is a being possesing exactly the same nature as the being inside its mother. A being that you've chosen to call an unborn child.

When I said life of the mother and society. I was thinking life, as in life and death, I was thinking more along the lines of life, they way a person lives their life. And for society, how these actions affect society. So we kind of agree.... sort of.

In you second paragraph, you have a valid point. There is rarely a case when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, especially with modern medicine. Do you think this should be regulated by the federal govt though?

BTW, I didnt say that prolifers wanted to mothers to die.

This last point you make is where i disagree alittle with you. You say "the embryo in the petri dish is a being possesing exactly the same nature as the being inside its mother" I dont necessarily agree. Is it being nurtured inside a womb? If not, then thats not very natural. Some may argue that it is no more than a cluster of cells. Christians may say that its a life. But who says it is. (if you say God here then thats not a valid argument to a non believer)

To get back to the original post, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot. (that was an Al Franken reference) He and the other talking heads have jobs so that they can help polarize this country. From the mid 1990s to now, he and his cohorts Hannity, Savage, and O'Reilly have given the closed minded people of the world a voice. They turn ordinary people that listen to them into ranting lunatics like themselves. I have seen this happen(mainly my family). I grew up in a pretty nuetral family. We werent political but we were conservativish. Then Rush came on the air. Then my family became outspoken about whatever he had ranted about that day. That started to polarize me from the family. Then Fox News came on and that was the kicker. They sat there and kept drinking the koolaid that Fox News was giving them and became zombies for the republican party. We werent a religious family but all of a sudden they were experts on religion! They still dont go to church. They are really sad in my opinion. That has pretty much left me out to find my way. I dont really know how to wrap this up. I will do it the best way I know how. RUSH IS THE BIGGEST TOOL ON THE RADIO AND HE IS A PILL POPPING IDIOT.

later
Josh

My Race Log

Expert

1357

Mukwonago, WI

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

To get back to the original post, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot. (that was an Al Franken reference) He and the other talking heads have jobs so that they can help polarize this country. From the mid 1990s to now, he and his cohorts Hannity, Savage, and O'Reilly have given the closed minded people of the world a voice. They turn ordinary people that listen to them into ranting lunatics like themselves. I have seen this happen(mainly my family). I grew up in a pretty nuetral family. We werent political but we were conservativish. Then Rush came on the air. Then my family became outspoken about whatever he had ranted about that day. That started to polarize me from the family. Then Fox News came on and that was the kicker. They sat there and kept drinking the koolaid that Fox News was giving them and became zombies for the republican party. We werent a religious family but all of a sudden they were experts on religion! They still dont go to church. They are really sad in my opinion. That has pretty much left me out to find my way. I dont really know how to wrap this up. I will do it the best way I know how. RUSH IS THE BIGGEST TOOL ON THE RADIO AND HE IS A PILL POPPING IDIOT.

OK - here's the response I would have expected. Bash the person and attack Rush Limbaugh personally without actually making an intelligent arguement about issues. This is so typical. It's Rush's fault that your family isn't getting along. It's the fault that FOX News exists because they brainwashed you family. Watch the network news sometime and decide if they are reporting the news fairly. This is exactly what I would expect from the left. If you can't argue the issue, attack the person.

My Race Log

Master

2060

Northern California

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

Hey look. A butterfly. Over there ----->

It's too bad that a conversation about Rush Limbaugh, Sophia Coppola, Paul McCartney or Jeff Gordon for that matter has to digress from the actual words that came out of their mouth into, well, whatever partisan p i s s i n g contest this turned into.

I hate that.

Edited by coachese 2006-10-25 4:48 PM

My Race Log

Elite

2777

In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats.

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

triingforsept07 - 2006-10-25 5:30 PM

To get back to the original post, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot. (that was an Al Franken reference) He and the other talking heads have jobs so that they can help polarize this country. From the mid 1990s to now, he and his cohorts Hannity, Savage, and O'Reilly have given the closed minded people of the world a voice. They turn ordinary people that listen to them into ranting lunatics like themselves. I have seen this happen(mainly my family). I grew up in a pretty nuetral family. We werent political but we were conservativish. Then Rush came on the air. Then my family became outspoken about whatever he had ranted about that day. That started to polarize me from the family. Then Fox News came on and that was the kicker. They sat there and kept drinking the koolaid that Fox News was giving them and became zombies for the republican party. We werent a religious family but all of a sudden they were experts on religion! They still dont go to church. They are really sad in my opinion. That has pretty much left me out to find my way. I dont really know how to wrap this up. I will do it the best way I know how. RUSH IS THE BIGGEST TOOL ON THE RADIO AND HE IS A PILL POPPING IDIOT.

OK - here's the response I would have expected. Bash the person and attack Rush Limbaugh personally without actually making an intelligent arguement about issues. This is so typical. It's Rush's fault that your family isn't getting along. It's the fault that FOX News exists because they brainwashed you family. Watch the network news sometime and decide if they are reporting the news fairly. This is exactly what I would expect from the left. If you can't argue the issue, attack the person.

Honestly...politics aside. Can you think of a single solitary person who deserves a a$$ kicking more than Rush Limbaugh. See..I didn't think so.

My Race Log

Giver

18427

Subject: RE: Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

gullahcracker - 2006-10-25 9:52 PM

triingforsept07 - 2006-10-25 5:30 PM

To get back to the original post, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot. (that was an Al Franken reference) He and the other talking heads have jobs so that they can help polarize this country. From the mid 1990s to now, he and his cohorts Hannity, Savage, and O'Reilly have given the closed minded people of the world a voice. They turn ordinary people that listen to them into ranting lunatics like themselves. I have seen this happen(mainly my family). I grew up in a pretty nuetral family. We werent political but we were conservativish. Then Rush came on the air. Then my family became outspoken about whatever he had ranted about that day. That started to polarize me from the family. Then Fox News came on and that was the kicker. They sat there and kept drinking the koolaid that Fox News was giving them and became zombies for the republican party. We werent a religious family but all of a sudden they were experts on religion! They still dont go to church. They are really sad in my opinion. That has pretty much left me out to find my way. I dont really know how to wrap this up. I will do it the best way I know how. RUSH IS THE BIGGEST TOOL ON THE RADIO AND HE IS A PILL POPPING IDIOT.

OK - here's the response I would have expected. Bash the person and attack Rush Limbaugh personally without actually making an intelligent arguement about issues. This is so typical. It's Rush's fault that your family isn't getting along. It's the fault that FOX News exists because they brainwashed you family. Watch the network news sometime and decide if they are reporting the news fairly. This is exactly what I would expect from the left. If you can't argue the issue, attack the person.

Honestly...politics aside. Can you think of a single solitary person who deserves a a$$ kicking more than Rush Limbaugh. See..I didn't think so.

James Dobson

My Race Log

Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms (Page 2)

REGISTER TODAY