Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms (Page 3)

Why is Rush’s statement wrong? Why is it uncalled for? If you watch Fox’s ad and I have about 10 times he makes the point that Senator Talent does not care about people with Parkinson’s disease, and that he is opposed to stem Cell research. Neither statement is true. Fox has admitted that he will avoid using his medication when he goes to speak about his illness to further illustrate the nature of the disease. Rush’s statement that he (Fox) is off his medication or acting is most likely true by Fox’s own admission. Just because a person has a terrible illness does not make that person immune to questioning. Spokes and Run4yrlif I respect both of you and believe you to be intelligent people but have either of you gone and read the actual transcript of what Rush said? I can answer that based on your comments NO. Don’t let your dislike of Republicans or of Bush interfere with your ability to think and act rationally. We Republicans did that with Clinton and it cost us dearly. So Guys go do your research then respond intelligently instead of with personal insults I think both of you are better than that.

Wow... is there a sarcasm button? I thought by making an Al Franken reference you would get that I was being at least a little sarcastic. I guess not.


Have I watched Fox News? Hell yes I have. As I said, from the time it was put on the air my family has watched it. I have seen hours of closed minded people spew the Republican talking points at me and my family. I though, can see through alot of the BS and decifer what is the truth and what is an exageration or even an outright lie because I actually read and listen to other sources of news and dont take Fox News as gospel. I know it is my families fault that they are brainwashed but, if Fox "News" would actually be news and not propaganda, then we wouldnt be even be having this conversation. They over sensationalize trivial news stories and make them out to be an attack on your values and morals. For example the Terri Schaivo case was made into a national deal for no reason but for the fact that her parents were ultra conservative and had ties to the higher ups in the state and national govt. Also it happened to polarize the country into "right to lifers" and "people who want to kill their spouses just so they can move on with their lives" (alittle sarcasm) Thousands of people make the same decision a year and its not easy for any of them. How many of them do you see on Fox News?

I said in my post that Rush and others help to polarize the country. That was pretty much my point. Right now our country is pretty much broken into 2 parts. The Left leaning liberals who hate America (sarcasm) and the Right leaning Conservatives that are hell bent on keeping us divided (alittle sarcasm) This polarization is something that you didnt see (to this extreme) in politics in the past. The only other time this may have happened is during the time of the civil war. We cant get anything worth a darn passed in Congress because noone can agree on anything. These talking heads are doing nothing but making the country more polarized and in my opinion are making it weaker.



NOW I AGAIN THOUGHT THAT I WAS BEING SARCASTIC BY PUTTING MY WORDS IN ALL CAPS LIKE THIS. I guess you mistook that a serious. My bad, they really do need to invent a sarcasm button for messageboards.

I am testing

cool thanks

I am just glad that my family didn't teach me the values that Rush spews.

crozetiga - I'm sorry I didn't recognize your sarcasm. I guess your statements sounded all too familiar to me from other people that are anything other than sarcastic.

I don't have a problem with our country being polarized really. The fact that we can disagree on things (although frustrating because both libs and conservatives want everyone to agree with them) is one of the great things about our country. What I have a problem with, and this is a criticism of republicans as well, is that people have become more politically motivated instead of really caring about the issues. Again, it's OK to disagree but I respect people who really argue the issues instead of just name calling, bashing other people just because they have the same view, etc..

I will say that I find your comments about Fox News amazing. My question for you was do you regularly watch the news on NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, etc.. I challenge you to find one thing that they say about President Bush or the rebulicans that is positive. When I watch these newscasts the blame is put on them for pretty much everything that is wrong with the world today. Hurricane Katrina last year - Bush's fault due to global warming. Come on - are we really to believe that one man is creating hurricanes?

This whole thread is amazing to me. I was listening to Rush when he made these comments and I am asking you to believe my objective representation on what happened. Rush brought up the fact that MJF made this commercial. Rush had never seen MJF and his condition that severe so he started going off on how he assumed MJF was exagerating the condition. While Rush never made fun of this condition as was suggested earlier in this thread, I do remember thinking that Rush is mistaken here because I know that MJF's condition is to that point and that Rush will get piled-on for his comments.

Within minutes a caller phoned in and corrected Rush saying that while MJF was probably off his meds that he was not acting and that this is reality for MJF. You will never see it represented in the media but Rush said that if that is the case that he was wrong in his comments and he was apologetic.

Now, you guys talk about hatred and spewing, etc. by Rush and the Republicans but look how you guys go off on him for these comments when he recognized he was wrong? You complain about polarization and bi-partisanship when one comment or action by Rush or President Bush puts you into a frenzy. Just look back at your comments and ask yourself are you being a person that is really interested in working on issues in our country or do you feel better just by simply being negative and critical?

"Just look back at your comments and ask yourself are you being a person that is really interested in working on issues in our country or do you feel better just by simply being negative and critical?"

----

No, I don't feel better by being negative and critical, but I won't feel any better being sunshine and yessir. Positiveness won't fix issues in our country either, sorry to say (it'd be great if it could! secretly, I think they need to just let puppies run around Capitol hill and the senate, how can you be mean when there are cute puppies?...maybe everyone would calm down!). It sucks to be cynical about a place you love and a system that you're supposed to trust, but sometimes, you need to make a fuss.

Edited by phoenixazul 2006-10-26 10:09 AM

I think the issue with Fox News over other news channels and programs is that Fox is the only one that feels it necessary to say something positive about Bush (or any other potician for that matter).

Here's a funny clip from the Daily Show that kind of illustrates the Fox bias:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl9MnHHCc14

How do you know it is only out feeling it necessary that Fox News says something positive. Is it at all possible despite your disagreements that maybe somebody out there out of objectivity finds something that the Bush administration has done was actually good? If Fox News reports something that is positive you automatically assume that it must be media bias. Can you honestly say that all the negative things reported is absent of media bias in all these other media sources. The war is such a huge example. My neighbor (who is not necessarilly a Bush supporter) served in Iraq as a Major in the Marines. He got home about a year ago, turned on the news and couldn't believe how the war is being reported. Everything reported points out the bad things which come on, this is still a war and lives are at stake. He gave many examples of the appreciation Iraq citizens have for what is happening and how their lives are better without Sadam. Would you ever see a news story about this on NBC? Are you kidding me? Remember that Bush is only carrying out the platform that he ran on and was elected with. What changed? I believe what has changed is that when people are repeatedly told the bad and are hammered with it day after day after day, they eventually become pesimistic despite the good that may be happening. Why does the media do this? It is clear they hate Bush and are willing to sacrifice media integrity (Dan Rather) to get him out of office.

Let me turn your question on its head: How do you know it is only out of hatred that media besides Fox News is reporting negative news? And is it only out of objectivity that Fox News reports the good news?

Part of the problem with your comment about reporting good news versus bad news is that good and bad are subjective concepts. Reporters should not be told to look for "good news" stories in Iraq or anywhere else, mainly because that automatically puts the burden on the reporter to determine what is good versus bad news (not to mention what is news at all). They could report that, for example, no suicide bombings took place on a certain day, but is that good news, or just indicative of how bad the situation is?

I agree that news is automatically slanted to the negative, it is the nature of the beast. You don't report that an earthquake did not take place or a town was not wiped out by a tsunami that didn't happen.

Finally, what changed from the platform Bush ran on versus the present day situation? Perhaps people think his execution of his platform is poor. Maybe they think see something different in him today than when he was elected. Maybe they thought the alternative at election time was worse and it was a question of the lesser of two evils. Who knows? But I can hire somebody for a job, perceive that they suck at that job and fire them and that is totally legitimate.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

That was EXCELLENT!

Edited by Renee 2006-10-26 11:14 AM

I think that your comments are fair. Frankly I don't watch enough Fox News to know if the reporting is biased. When I have watched it I didn't think that it was too extreme that way unless you are judging it on the talk shows at night life O'Reilly, etc but I don't think they are presented to be biased.

Can you at least conceed to me that the coverage of Bush is signifcantly more biased by most media sources than their coverage of Clinton? Clinton certainly didn't receive nearly as much criticism for Kosovo and other problems that Bush receives. This clown Foley (who rightfully should be kicked out of office) I think got slamed much harder for what he wrote in private chats than Clinton recieved from the Media for having oral sex in the Oval Office for crying out loud. Think about that. The guy resigned over writting inappropriate emails while Clinton stayed in office, was supported by the media, after lying under oath for an act much more disgusting than these e-mails. Could you even imagine if Bush did such a thing. Would the media coverage be anywhere close to the almost supportive media coverage Clinton got?

I challenge you to find one good thing that was or is said on Fox News about President Clinton. On all of the other stations, you will here good and bad things about Clinton. On Fox, you will find a wide majority of bad things. As far as news and Bush goes, there really hasnt been alot of good to report that werent lies. I am racking my brain trying to come up with one good thing that the Bush administration did and it is hard for me. I think I came up with one. I think that after 9/11, George Bush did a good job at rallying the support of americans and people around the world. He did a good job going into Afghanistan to breaking down a group that harbored terrorists. I think that he did a good job up until the point that he moved focus away from there and onto Iraq. Yes a troops are doing an amazing job over in Iraq, but why are we there again? Was it WMDs, was it spreading democracy thoughout the middle east, was it a crusade, or was it to free the enslaved Iraqis from a horrible dictator?I dont remember

I can think of alot of things that were/ are bad about his presidency that many conservatives think are great. Medicare reforms....just wish they didnt put that provision that doesnt allow the govt. to negotiate with companies for a lower price. I wish that it didnt leave out 1000s of people that used to get coverage. Energy Bill... just wish that it didnt give the oil companies millions in tax incintives at a time when they are turning record profits. Also wish that it did more for renewable energies other than just ethanol. Clean Air Act..... I wish that it didnt turn back the clock 20 years on pollution standards for companies. On that note we will talk about... Bush, global warming, and hurricanes. I dont think that Bush caused the hurricanes, I think that the 2004 string of hurricanes was God punishing Florida for the 2000 election fiasco and Katrina was Gods punishment on sinners of New Orleans! Was my sarcasm button working there? Really I think that Hurricanes could be caused by the raising of sea temperatures but I am not for sure because I am not a scientist. Also I am not sure about global warming. There are studies that have said that the mean temperature is rising slightly but I am not going to say that it specifically caused by pollution. I will say that pollution itself is bad. I think that this pollution could be the cause of and/or may worsen many illnesses. I dont think that it should be ignored like it did in Bush's Clean Air Act. BTW I know congress passes that, but the administration had a hand in writing it.

Could you post a link to the one of those news agencies that you mention above reporting that Bush caused Hurricane Katrina? I would like to read that story. Thanks



[QUOTENow, you guys talk about hatred and spewing, etc. by Rush and the Republicans but look how you guys go off on him for these comments when he recognized he was wrong? You complain about polarization and bi-partisanship when one comment or action by Rush or President Bush puts you into a frenzy. Just look back at your comments and ask yourself are you being a person that is really interested in working on issues in our country or do you feel better just by simply being negative and critical?

you typed this while i was responding to another one...

No I cant see that the coverage of Bush is more biased that that of Clinton. You must not have watched Fox News in the 90s. I think that the media is more critical of Bush because there is more to be critical about. He has made more mistakes (and bigger ones in my opinion) than Clinton. So it only makes sense that he should be critized more for it. On your argument about the Clinton sex scandel, do you think that getting a BJ in the oval office, in any way, can be compared to sending thousands of people off to war under false pretenses? I think that the media has been very nice to Bush about the "Downing Street Memo" If you are not aware of what that is I would suggest looking it up.

Josh
(crazy liberal)

I love the sarcasm button!!!!!!!!!

Edited by crozetiga 2006-10-26 11:46 AM

I think Fox's news reporting itself is not that crazy, although I have to admit that I don't spend lots of time analysing how they prioritize things as compared to other stations. I think it's more the ensemble of programming that betrays Fox's bias, so yes, I am judging it by O'Reilly, Cavuto etc.



I'll admit to not having a very good memory of what went on at the time regarding news reporting. I do know that the Lewinski deal got tons of press, more than I thought it deserved, but that's just me. Sex scandals fuel newspaper sales.

With Kosovo, I remember lots of criticism in the media, but I don't remember from whom. Then again, who can remember anything about Clinton's media coverage that doesn't revolve around a blue dress? That's perhaps the worst thing of all, maybe people would have considered Clinton's actual performance as president if the sex scandal hadn't robbed all of the headlines.

Having said that, I'm sure that Clinton had plenty of defenders on CNN during the Lewinski scandal.

sarc test /sarc

with brackets... without quotes and without spaces in betwen letters

begin with "[s a r c]" end statement with "[/ s a r c]"




Edited by crozetiga 2006-10-26 12:30 PM

Too funny not to post:

http://www.slate.com/id/2152195/?nav=ais

lets say Fox did stop taking his drug and it was a ploy. I still say its a good one since hey drugs are not a cure. We need a cure for parkinsons and not just something to make there life easier. Take the froozen fetsus that are just going to have to be thrown away and use them. you are not causing increase in abortion for fetish harvesting. You are just using what is already there and will be killed.

Politics is a dirty game and since in the US we only care about drama than change. We care more about helping 22 million people for only 1 year with aids treatment in africa so we can treat more people over a year and make out numbers look better. Politics are about stoping your oppanants good programs just so they can not take credit.

Its easier to stop your foe then to have to out do them. Even though out doing them is better for everyone.