You are exactly correct, SB. I heard a doctor explaining this on the radio and an acquaintance, who has this condition, admitted that the involuntary shaking is preferable to the nagging stiffness that plagues him when he's off his medication.

Now let's blast him for taking the meds.

Well, I don't like that there has been name-calling because I think that the issue ITSELF is an interesting one and worthy of debate. Rush Limbaugh feels that Michael J. Fox was dishonest in this ad. For the reasons I stated in my previous post, I don't believe that he was acting or exaggerating his disease. However, many believe that Mr. Limbaugh had no right to even question the ad, as this makes him a bully, picking on an unhealthy man. Does Mr. Fox's disease make him immune to verbal attacks, since many see him as a victim?

Repukes? That's cute but I like democraps They(both sides) are all swines at the trough like you say.

Absolutely not. He put his views on stem cell research into the political arena, and by doing so his views are subject to challenge. The only person on earth who is infallible and whose views cannot be challenged is Don Rumsfeld.

The point here is that Rush ridiculed Fox's disease, and irresponsibly claimed that he had either not taken his medication or was acting, or both, to make his point. Rush made this charge without knowing it was true.

I haven't seen it mentioned, but Michael J. Fox appeared in an ad supporting Republican Arlen Specter's run for Senate a few years ago because of Specter's support of stem-cell research. Fox and Specter both tried to portray the stem-cell issue (rightly so) in a bipartisan manner. Yet Limbaugh never flopped and twitched in mockery of Fox when Fox was speaking on behalf of the Republican candidate. In addition to the commercial for Specter, Fox stumped with Arlen Specter on Capitol Hill for stem cells.

Limbaugh's biggest mistake had nothing to do with his lack of sensitity, regardless of whether he was mean-spirited or merely joking. Limbaugh took what should have been an ad by a television actor about a single issue and blew it up into a national story. Whether Limbaugh meant to or not, the public has another story in a continually growing line which negatively portrays Republicans.

Michael J. Fox is a big boy and has taken the high road during the controversy. But I'm sure the RNC is not happy about having to deflect more criticism about negative press that their party is generating instead of getting their message out to voters.

I say 'keep it up, Rush.' That way, stories like this will keep appearing in newspapers across the nation in races that were deadlocked only 6 weeks ago: GOP dumps ads in Ohio for R-Dewine

Really? Is that the point you were trying to make?

Because I was having a hard time wading through all the hatemongering crap...it made me think that the point was just to make another generalized attack at the Republican party.

Silly me.

Cheers,
Double-J

Actually the point was twofold, and I see that now you get both.
Rush was out of line to attack a man's disease, and if that provides an excuse to point out the immorality of Rush and his followers, I am always pleased to take the opportunity to stir the pot.

BTW JJ nice picture of that slave. So the Dems are responsible for the Civil War I suppose.

Since its full with bullshit, as usual, I'm not surprised.



Last time I checked, it was (historically) the Democrats who supported slavery. Even until LBJ, for that matter, did Dems seem to have a misguided moral conscious when it comes to blacks. Remember Strom Thurmond? Robert Byrd? Hello...?

I listen to Rush from time to time does that make me immoral? I think not. The judgements you've been making lately

Nahh nah nah nah nah, you are stupid, you are a racist, you are a loser, you called me this first and that's why I called you that. It all started with Reagan, the people who support Bush are wingholes, how can anyone live with themselves being a republican. Blah blah blah. Give me a break with this baby bullshit and just debate the issue.

Don T, you amaze me sometimes. There are topics and threads where you provide such great insight with your points and views, and most times are able to give the opposite side food for thought. And then there are ones like this here where you just seem to want to express hatred and bitterness at what others believe in.

I respect what you say when you debate the issue itself with passion and facts. When you debate with facts, people tend to listen. When you fling mud, people tend to ignore you.

F**k Rush Limbaugh. His views and his ideas do not neccesarily represent what I think or feel. His rants and his views are not what make me decide how I am going to vote or whom I am going to vote for. I vote the issues, not the party. I vote for the people who I think are best suited to take care of the issues that arise. Republican, Democrat or whatever. And for what it's worth Rush was an asshole for going after Michael J. Fox and his disease the way that he did. And Michael J. Fox, whom I happen to like, is totally misrepresenting the whole stem cell research issue itself. But we'll leave that for another debate.


Poeple like Rush Limbaugh are so far to the right and people like Al Franklin are so far to the left, that they have really become one and the same. A radical is a radical, no matter what he may claim to represent. And we all know what usually happens when a radical attitude comes into play. Rush and Franklin do an injustice to the political parties that they claim to speak for. Neither of them could give a rat's ass about you or me. All they really care about is getting their names in the news and driving up their own ratings so that they can ask for bigger contracts from the stations that they work for.

So there. I have given you my take on what I think about what Rush Limbaugh did.


Don Cardi

Some very good points, DC. I saw some of Oprah today. Her guest was Bill O'Reilly, who was quite frank about why he agreed to appear on her show - because he has a book to sell. I had to admire his honesty. However, a woman in the audience made a very good point, and it was echoed in your post. She said that people like Bill O'Reilly and Al Franken do what they do not to help the country, but to sell themselves, their books, their shows, etc. And that they use their places in society to further divide the country in order to sell themselves, their books and their shows.

As if Oprah doesn't...

Actually, I've found Photoshop is more fun.

Sometimes photoshop pics are the same as flinging mud.


Don Cardi

Oprah is an entertainer. She'd be pretty freakin' stupid if she didn't, and she's far from stupid. Her show is not a news show. It's a talk show.

She must have read my post before she went on Oprah!

I agree, Oprah is an entertainer who deos not hide behind a political party or claim to represent the views of a political party. Apples and Oranges.


Don Cardi

UH-OH!! You know what oranges mean around here!!

I find this VERY offensive and in poor taste.
I am assuming that any of our african-american members would agree 100% with me.



BTW-SOUTHERN democrats supported slavery. SOUTHERN, i.e-the same region of the country that is now dominated by Republicans. Look at a political map and EVERY state that was once in the Confederacy voted for Bush. These 'southern' democrats had fantasies of establishing an ancient world in the model of the athenian type society free from the outside laws and policies of the rest of the world.(hardly the democratic message of today )

BTW 2.)-Republicans are the party that voted against EVERY piece of civil rights legislation in the 1960's!

(They also voted against the 1967 Interstate Road and Highway Act. Ah, who needs roads though. ) oops! I digress


EDIT(YOU KNOW I THINK YOU ARE BRILLIANT JJ, BUT RACISM IS A BIG F'IN PROBLEM AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE EVERONE FEEL WELCOME OR AMERICA GOES FROM 'GREATEST SOCIETY EVER' TO HORRIBLY FAILED PROJECT)

Really DJ, your posting pictures at the rate that you have in this topic has not contributed one solid fact, nor has it provided one decent arguement about the real issue here. There comes a point where you have psoted so many idiotic pictures when others have tried to have a serious discussion, that I don't even bother reading your replies because I see just another meaningless picture in it.

As I said to Don T, I'll say to you: enough with the baby bullshit.

Debate the issue for God's sake.



Don Cardi

That line alone indicates that you have not bothered to look at the situation in detail, and are desparately trying to hang on to the fantasy of your opening post, which was only to rant & find fault with Rush Limbaugh. I bet you don't even listen to his show, I bet after all these days you have no idea what he said.

I pity you dontomasso, and all who have jumped on your bandwagon...because each and every one of you have your heads planted firmly up your asses.

What's most pitiful of all is, you clearly find that position quite comfortable.

Apple

DJ, you ignorant slut, the southern wing of the Democratic Party were the people that supported slavery, while the northern wing were the abolitionist forces.

Hell DJ, why you think they finally split in 1860, and each nominating their own candidate, Senator Stephen Douglas by the northern wing, and Vice-President John Breckinridge.

The Democrats for decades would either try to ignore the issue outright, as they increasingly did in Presidential nomination conventions in the 1850s, or appeased the southerners. Really, the Democratic Party has always been a loose coalition, with many threats of a breakup(and actual splits) over time.

Anyway, the issue of slavery not only split the Democrats by 1860. but as well the national Baptist community. The "Southern Baptists" were the members, mostly slave owners, who split with the northern "Baptists", who thought slavery was immoral.

Ignoring facts for your ideology DJ. You so gonna be a good college professor.

Oh, Apple, Puh-leeze. Aside from babbling about my panties and DT's ass and what you think he keeps up there, I haven't noticed YOU making any visible contribution. Did you even READ some of the posts? There have actually been some of substance, but you are usually too intent on scoring points rather than making them.

The medication that is prescribed for Parkinsons (dopamine) actually CAUSES the shakes and the involuntary movements. There's no way that Mr. Fox would have been jerking like that if he had skipped his meds. Actually, the lack of medication would've made him stiff and incapable of moving. Which means that he couldn't have skipped his meds, and it also would make it impossible for him to "pretend" since the leading symptom of Parkinsons is stiffness. Mr. Limbaugh owes an apology, as he promised.

My grandfather, a strong ox of a man throughout his whole life, suffered the last few years of his life, from Parkinson's disease. It was horrible to see a man, who was once a very independant and active man, become a helpless man because of this disease.

Dopamine, a chemical in the brain, helps control muscle movement and motor coordination. Low levels of Dopamine are associated with tremors. In other words when Dopamine levels decrease in Parkinson patients, it usually results in tremors, slowness of movements, muscle rigidity, and poor posture.

Levadopa medication is converted into dopamine by the body. It increases dopamine levels. Unfortunately as the disease progresses, the drug loses it's effectiveness.

Parkinson's tremor usually appears when a person's muscles are relaxed. The affected body parts tremble when they are not being used or doing work.


Evenutally as the disease progresses, there are speech changes, less and less facial expressions and in many cases dementia.

For Rush Limgaugh to even suggest that Michael J. Fox was faking it is just outrageous, ignorant and disgusting. Parkinson's disease is not an illness that you can turn on or off, medication or not.



Don Cardi

Amen DC.

Anyway, so what if Rush began his rant with "I'll apologize if I'm wrong..."

Thats a cowardly pussy way of a defense to shield one self from one outright of an attack.

For instance, imagine if I wrote this:

"I could be wrong, and if I'm proven to be absolutely incorrect, I will apologize to everyone, but I have noticed that Irishman and DJ's posts lately indicate a rather harsh increase of stupidity. I don't want to say that they are fuckheads now, but the signs seems very apparent."

See? I basically called two decent people "fuckheads", but I hoped to escape the consequences of my insulting them by saying that "I could be wrong you know".

Anyway, people forget when Rush, on ESPN, attacked Donovan McNabb as being an average Quarterback that was only a star because the media wanted a black QB to succede. Nevermind that McNabb by this point had led his Eagles to the playoffs, and since then landed himself in several Pro Bowls, 4 consecutive NFC Conference title games, a Super Bowl appearance, oh and a MVP-campaign in 2006.

Why do people take him, and the Anne Coulters(who has to piss people off in order for people to buy her books), Al Frankens(always an overrated comic that never did shit outside of SNL), and others seriously?

You really that bored?

---

In response to the Michael J. Fox stem cell ad:

No shit he didn't take his medicine. If you were on television to support a certain cause, to denounce a certain disease you had, would you take your medicine? Hell no! Let people see what it's like without medicine, and claim that it's normal. People would then see it as being an important matter. It's just a political move, no different than ANY political ad you've seen for the past few months in these congress/governor races. You can't believe anything you see on TV, especially about political races or issues.

And if Fox actually wasn't acting, then kudos to him for his honesty.

On the other hand, he does have parkinson's. Regardless of how much it shows, he has the disease, and it affects his every day life along with the lives of 50,000 more Americans each year.

A new case of this disease is diagnosed every NINE minutes. Along with simple tremors and ridigity, there are a list of secondary symptoms:

-Speech changes
-Loss of facial expression, or "masking"
-Micrographia (small, cramped handwriting)
-Difficulty shallowing
-Drooling
-Pain
-Dementia or Confusion
-Sleep Disturbances
-Constipation
-Skin problems
-Depression
-Fear or anxiety
-Memory difficulties and slowed thinking
-Sexual Dysfunction
-Urinary Dysfunction
-Fatigue and aching
-Loss of energy
-Compulsive Behavior
-Cramping
------
With all those symptoms, it makes Michael J. Fox's appearance on TV seem minimal.



Jim Talent, Missouri state senator running against Claire McCaskill, has voted in favor of bills which ban stem cell research. The only way this ad is misleading is by stating that Michael J. Fox may, or may not, have acted or taken his medicine. The real main reason Rush Limbaugh's calling Fox on this is because while some people go with no pills to pop, others have a good supply, but don't take them (kind of like food and starving people). But seriously folks, regardless of Fox's abilities, I think the facts of this socially devastating disease speak for themselves.

Wow! I'm shocked and amazed! I've now upset both the Breakfast Club, conspiracy theorists, AND the film gurus. How did I do this? Let's dissect this systematically.



You of all people should realize that this thread in the first place was designed to incite a response, and that we've been over these arguments countless numbers of times.

Why should I waste my precious fingertyping for a well-thought response when I can post a poignant, sardonic image? It's a time-saver, and still makes my point.



And Bill O'Reilly is not? Please. I'm not surprised to find Oprah adoration, but let's be frank, she's quite political.



Sure, she doesn't "hide behind a political party" but neither does O'Reilly. She makes an ass of herself as an independent.



Thank you. Those would be my specialties (being offensive and in poor taste). For my next trick, we'll try being politically incorrect.



It's pretty irrelevant though, since it still was the Democratic party. Of course there were abolitionists in the North, and if people (like RRA) really want to turn this into an actual historical discussion, I recommend opening another thread. However, my insinuation remains the same, that the Democrats supported slavery.

Furthermore, I mentioned the turn at LBJ.



Too true. Now it's either "cut and run," "taxation without good representation," and "no, we really don't care about the middle class."



Congrats! You've just realized that Congress is partisan.

But for now, let's ignore Little Rock High School 1957.



Eisenhower Interstate System much?



My post(s) are hardly a comment on racism in America today, but rather, a response to earlier accusations of racism and "Republican tradition" by the topic starter.



It's painstakingly clear that he will not listen to a complex, rational argument.

Which is why I've resorted to a more elementary, rudimentary policy of posting pictures.

Furthermore, your condemnation of my posting habits is a bit out of sorts, especially if you consider this thread "serious discussion," as it were.

Now pass me the melon salad.



Succinct...thoughful...and correct.

Oh, Apple, how I do treasure your replies.



Sure, okay. You going to lecture me about the Dixiecrats now?

Irregardless of the Northern wing of the party, as aforementioned, the "Solid South" was firmly behind slavery. And still, what's your point? We all know who the party of Lincoln was.



...and later with the Copperheads, and a bunch of other factions similar to those that doomed the Whigs earlier. I don't need the history lesson.



Pretty much until LBJ, there was no concerted effort towards blacks after the Civil War. Then they realized the black vote was being gobbled up by the Republicans, and then LBJ pissed them off, and the rest is history.



And you "so gonna" be in need of a grammar lesson. But, I digress. If I wasn't in such bad shape with the Breakfast Club, perhaps your ignorant slut comment would have been reprimanded. Oh well. Fuck off.



Really? I must have been missing those fine, upstanding posts between the ones labeling "Repukes" as "racist" morons or calling people "ignorant sluts." No wonder we're so confused about what is serious debate around here. If anything, Apple's contribution has been the most significant, since here initial post actually rebuked the thread starter and his "points," if any.

Apple, are you in bad with the BC too?



Even if "Limgaugh" [sic] is an asshole, I don't think his comments could have been that far off. Fox is an actor, and its his job. As TonyLove said, a brilliant political move for his cause. And if it were real? Even more so.

Although I'm sure that most of this, like the images, will soar far and above the radar of those here and I'll be welcomed with another half-a-dozen condemnations when I return.

Regards,
Double-J

As DC pointed out very early on I did start this thread to be provocative, and it has certainly worked. While many responses with which I agree and with which I do not, they were witty and sharp. Others, unfortunately were puerile rubbish.

As for those in the second category, you you know know who who you you are are.

I'd certainly chalk the thread itself in the "puerile rubbish" category.



Timmah! Timaaah! Timmaaaah!

Maybe Howard Dean isn't appropriate anymore...

Regards,
Double-J