Rush Limbaugh Is Buying The St. Louis Rams?


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Considering the sport allows players like Vick to compete, I think what Limbaugh has done is pretty tame. Especially given he would have been a very small percent owner in the team and probably wouldn't have made any public appearances for it (unlike a player would). Still, I imagine that if the Rams run into really bad times from here on, Rush is going to let them have it on their show.


Remember when Vito Stelino described the NFL as the "National Felons League" in Football Digest? Things haven't gotten better since then.

Sovereign Court

Wicht wrote:


As one who heard the show that day, I can say that Rush was not making fun of Fox. He was describing the contents of the commercial Fox had made and criticizing Fox for purposefully exagerating his problems. Rush was very clear to say that he sympathized with Fox's malady. In fact, Rush's attitude over the whole thing was better characterized as annoyance and anger, not humor. I'm not sure how I personally feel about the issue of trying to appear at your worst when asking for sympathy (I can see the reason for it but I find it annoying when people do it in real life to me) but the reasons for Rush's anger towards Fox were legitimate.

Because a man's worst moments should only be suffered in private. How dare Michael J. Fox dare share his plight with the public. He should have remained locked away from public view and made his plea in written form only.

Patrick Curtin wrote:

I don't particularly like Rush, since I am one of the 'Northeastern' conservatives he criticizes for suggesting the Republicans should focus more on fiscal rather than moral matters. He also lampoons third parties as worse than useless and traitorous to the conservative 'Cause', something I find very offensive.

That being said, the issue of him owning a team or not isn't the disturbing thing here, the disturbing thing is how many 'journalists' took some unchecked quotes off the Internet and ran with them all the way. If we start MAKING UP stuff to demonize those we disagree with then it's all over. We might as well stop talking to each other and just assume the worst of people we disagree with. These are dangerous waters we sail in.

I did hear a funny quote about this on a local show. Conservative writer Mark Steyn (who I believe sits in for Rush on occasion) asked: "Would it be OK for Rush to buy an interest in the Rams if Roman Polanski was his frontman?".

Those who chuckle about this incident, beware. If you think liberal commentators and politicians will be exempt from wikismearing and spurious Internet quotes, you are wrong. Yellow journalism can run both ways. This incident was shamefull, and the only real victim was the truth. Remember this when Chris Matthews is defending himself because of something a rogue wikihead inserted into his entry.

Absolutely Pat. I fear basic Journalism is dead in America. I blame the 24 news media for encouraging sloppy reporting. If you're on all the time why slow down to research a story when you can report things as they happen? You need to scoop the other side after all.

Getting back to the OP, I have no problem with Rush owning a team, but it seems the league and many players have different opinions.

pres man wrote:
Considering the sport allows players like Vick to compete, I think what Limbaugh has done is pretty tame. Especially given he would have been a very small percent owner in the team and probably wouldn't have made any public appearances for it (unlike a player would). Still, I imagine that if the Rams run into really bad times from here on, Rush is going to let them have it on their show.

No argument here. I think Vick is despicable BTW. Rush is just a loud mouth.

Scarab Sages

Guy Humual wrote:
Wicht wrote:


As one who heard the show that day, I can say that Rush was not making fun of Fox. He was describing the contents of the commercial Fox had made and criticizing Fox for purposefully exagerating his problems. Rush was very clear to say that he sympathized with Fox's malady. In fact, Rush's attitude over the whole thing was better characterized as annoyance and anger, not humor. I'm not sure how I personally feel about the issue of trying to appear at your worst when asking for sympathy (I can see the reason for it but I find it annoying when people do it in real life to me) but the reasons for Rush's anger towards Fox were legitimate.
Because a man's worst moments should only be suffered in private. How dare Michael J. Fox dare share his plight with the public. He should have remained locked away from public view and made his plea in written form only.

I think I can safely say that you have completely missed the point. Which is your right but it doesn't do much for a good dialogue. There was never any suggestion by anyone that Fox did not have the right to make a plea or share his plight. What Rush disagreed with was 1) the manner in which it was done and 2) some of the accusations Fox had made. In my opinion, it is disrespectful to think that a person cannot be the target of intellectual criticism because of some physical disability.

Sovereign Court

Wicht wrote:


In my opinion, it is disrespectful to think that a person cannot be the target of intellectual criticism because of some physical disability.

Then you make your comments about the man's arguments; not his disability. That's my criticism. I am appalled to see someone mocking someone else's disability. If Rush wants to take exception to something Micheal J. Fox said by all means disagree with him. His differing opinion is not the issue. His lack of human decency and need to belittle anyone who has a differing opinion then his is. Surely you can disagree with someone without also mocking them?

Scarab Sages

Guy Humual wrote:
Wicht wrote:


In my opinion, it is disrespectful to think that a person cannot be the target of intellectual criticism because of some physical disability.
Then you make your comments about the man's arguments; not his disability. That's my criticism. I am appalled to see someone mocking someone else's disability. If Rush wants to take exception to something Micheal J. Fox said by all means disagree with him. His differing opinion is not the issue. His lack of human decency and need to belittle anyone who has a differing opinion then his is. Surely you can disagree with someone without also mocking them?

But he was not actively mocking Fox's disability. He was clear to say he was not. He was criticizing the way Fox made his argument. That short clip might not reveal that this was the case but there was no mocking, in my opinion, that occurred at that time. It was strong disagreement with Fox's actions. You may not believe that was the case but I was listening and it seemed pretty evident to me in the full context of the show that day.

Rush is a pretty sympathetic guy when it comes to people's medical problems. He is extemely generous to charities helping with things like Leukemia. He stated on his show that he felt sympathy for Fox and his condition. He is sometimes angry in his arguments (and at times more profane and crude than I would like) but I enjoy listening to him because he is almost never hateful and he is rarely rude. It annoys me that people feel they cannot simply disagree with the man but must go further and look for reasons to demonize him.

Sovereign Court

Wicht wrote:


But he was not actively mocking Fox's disability. He was clear to say he was not. He was criticizing the way Fox made his argument. That short clip might not reveal that this was the case but there was no mocking, in my opinion, that occurred at that time. It was strong disagreement with Fox's actions. You may not believe that was the case but I was listening and it seemed pretty evident to me in the full context of the show that day.

Rush is a pretty sympathetic guy when it comes to people's medical problems. He is extemely generous to charities helping with things like Leukemia. He stated on his show that he felt sympathy for Fox and his condition. He is sometimes angry in his arguments (and at times more profane and crude than I would like) but I enjoy listening to him because he is almost never hateful and he is rarely rude. It annoys me that people feel they cannot simply disagree with the man but must go further and look for reasons to demonize him.

What would you call his imitating Michael's uncontrollable muscle spasms then? His comments "he is moving all around and shaking . . . it's purely an act," suggesting that the poor man could actually control his body if he wanted to; which, BTW, is akin to saying a paraplegic could get up and walk if they wanted to. How would you characterize that?

I'm glad he gives to charities. I'm glad he can have sympathy for his fellow man outside of the political arena. A cynic might be more dismissive of these actions and comments but I'm willing to accept that he might be a relatively decent person without a microphone in front of him. Those off air actions do not excuse his on air actions though. Most people are contradictions, I accept that, but I don't like loud mouths or bullies and I fear that's the general vibe I get from Rush.

Scarab Sages

Guy Humual wrote:
What would you call his imitating Michael's uncontrollable muscle spasms then? His comments "he is moving all around and shaking . . . it's purely an act," suggesting that the poor man could actually control his body if he wanted to; which, BTW, is akin to saying a paraplegic could get up and walk if they wanted to. How would you characterize that?

Rush's full comments included mention of the fact that Fox had given several interviews at the time in which he was not shaking to the extent he was in the commercial. Rush's reasoning was that therefore, as the commercial was a taped event, there were a number of possibilites. 1)Fox did not take his medications prior to the shoot so as to shake more (Fox denied this but there were conflicting stories later that made it seem more plausible). 2) Fox was deliberately acting, trying to exagerate his problem. 3) They purposefully chose to tape at a time when Fox's problems were at there worst.

Rush was not saying that Fox could suddenly end his spasms. His argument, as I recall it, was that there were recordings made at the same time in which the spasms were far smaller. Again though, Rush was not mocking Fox (which is the issue in question), he was describing the movement of Fox in the commercial and the reasons he thought Fox was being overly propogandistic in his plea (which was a plea that Rush disagreed with on intellectual and morale grounds - Fox was demonizing those that opposed embryonic stem cell research as immoral at the time).

You can disagree with Rush as to the appropriateness of Fox's plea and thats fine. But its wrong to characterize Rush as being mocking, which is my only real point in this case.


I think, as this thread has shown, that Rush Limbaugh can be a very controversial figure, and if there's one thing the NFL doesn't want, it's more controversial figures, especially at the executive level. It's bad enough with players like Michael Vick and Plaxico Burress getting involved in felonious deeds, having someone who is such a powder keg in the owner's box might simply be more trouble than the NFL organization wants.

That's probably why they Nix'ed the deal.

Sovereign Court

Wicht wrote:


Rush's full comments included mention of the fact that Fox had given several interviews at the time in which he was not shaking to the extent he was in the commercial. Rush's reasoning was that therefore, as the commercial was a taped event, there were a number of possibilites. 1)Fox did not take his medications prior to the shoot so as to shake more (Fox denied this but there were conflicting stories later that made it seem more plausible). 2) Fox was deliberately acting, trying to exagerate his problem. 3) They purposefully chose to tape at a time when Fox's problems were at there worst.

I don't think any of this matters. Perhaps Mr J. Fox didn't take his medications. I can't see why that would that matter. It has no barring on the argument at all. The man has parkinson's disease, he's not going to get better, he's only going to get worse. If Rush thinks that Michael can't show the world his reality when he's at his worst then Rush has no right making an argument about moral decisions.

Wicht wrote:
You can disagree with Rush as to the appropriateness of Fox's plea and thats fine. But its wrong to characterize Rush as being mocking, which is my only real point in this case.

And I'm sorry but I can't see any other way to characterize those comment or actions. Michael J. Fox's physical condition had no barring on that argument. None.

If it is a moral argument (which is the only way to characterize it) then you have to be willing to accept that some people are suffering with terrible diseases, and that although stem cell research may lead to cures or better treatment, that the ethical boundary is too great to cross. The only thing I can figure is that Micheal became a problem for Rush when he suddenly put a human face on that suffering. Rush could have re-stated his beliefs, could have suggested that there is a slippery slope or whatever, but he chose to attack the character of Michael J Fox instead. He suggesting that Mr Fox was faking or exaggerating his symptoms. This was character assassination. Because of this I simply can't see any other way of categorizing Mr Limbaugh's comments.


So much for my dream that we could talk football and avoid politics in this thread. However, it just proves that some people seem to just go hunting for political threads.

Scarab Sages

Unfortunately, the ability to talk about Limbaugh buying into a football team without talking about his politics was thrown out the window when certain individuals decided that they were going to spread lies about him and create a firestorm, the end result of which that Limbaugh has been denied the opportunity to even participate in bidding. Conservatives have been told that they do not belong in polite society and will be blackballed from participating with lies and slander if necessary. However, I will refrain from defending the man anymore in this thread.

I'm not sure how the topic can remain solely focused on football as the OP intended (and which I respected at the time in theory and in practice) but I invite you to try. :)


Guy Humual wrote:
What would you call his imitating Michael's uncontrollable muscle spasms then? His comments "he is moving all around and shaking . . . it's purely an act," suggesting that the poor man could actually control his body if he wanted to; which, BTW, is akin to saying a paraplegic could get up and walk if they wanted to. How would you characterize that?
Guy Humual wrote:
I don't think any of this matters. Perhaps Mr J. Fox didn't take his medications. I can't see why that would that matter. It has no barring on the argument at all. The man has parkinson's disease, he's not going to get better, he's only going to get worse. If Rush thinks that Michael can't show the world his reality when he's at his worst then Rush has no right making an argument about moral decisions.

Can a paraplegic take a drug and allow them some limited mobility? If not than your comparison is invalid. If Fox could take medication and lessen the symptoms and chose not to (I have no evidence that is actually what happened), then his decision to do so certain could be critized. It can give a false impression as to the value of current medical technology. So if Fox didn't take medication to control his movements and he could have (again, I don't know if that is actually the case), then yes he "could actually control his body if he wanted to".


Tiny Tina wrote:
So much for my dream that we could talk football and avoid politics in this thread. However, it just proves that some people seem to just go hunting for political threads.

Well the Rush/Football thing is now stillborn, so we need something else to talk about. If you want to discuss why it aborted, then you are going to have to bring politics into it because that is the reason.


Sorry, Tina...

Wicht wrote:
1)Fox did not take his medications prior to the shoot so as to shake more

Managing Parkinson's is pretty tricky. A patient can take the same doses of the same medications at the same time everyday and still get differing results. Some days the medication works well... some days not so well. As the extended release medication works in a patient's system, it will vary naturally in strength and effectiveness. This is rarely predictable in advance.

Wicht wrote:
2) Fox was deliberately acting, trying to exagerate his problem.

Really? See 1) above.

Wicht wrote:
3) They purposefully chose to tape at a time when Fox's problems were at there worst.

Like Mr. Limbaugh, I'm sure Mr. Fox has a limited amount of time in his days. Unlike Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Fox also has to allocate time raising his children and managing his illness. Studio time is usually booked some time in advance. The appearance before Congress was also scheduled in advance. Neither could likely be re-scheduled very easily. It is very likely that Mr. Fox was just having days where the medication, the side-effects, and his illness were manifesting in the symptoms displayed onscreen.

*****

I have an uncle with mid-stage Parkinson's and have worked as a "dogbody" for an elderly gentleman with early Parkinson's. It is a complicated disease to manage. I would more readily consider Mr. Limbaugh's non-expert opinions if he had bothered to do his research or if he had spent any significant time with a person with Parkinson's.

Dark Archive

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Sorry, Tina...

Wicht wrote:
1)Fox did not take his medications prior to the shoot so as to shake more

Managing Parkinson's is pretty tricky. A patient can take the same doses of the same medications at the same time everyday and still get differing results. Some days the medication works well... some days not so well. As the extended release medication works in a patient's system, it will vary naturally in strength and effectiveness. This is rarely predictable in advance.

Micheal J. Fox admitted in the book Michael J. Fox: Courage for Life that he often will not take his medication prior to an apperance to emphasize the need for research into treatments for Parkinson's Disease. Whether he did that when he filmed the McHasskell commercial is not known. However, he did leave himself open to the charge by admitting to doing so.

Dark Archive

Guy Humual wrote:
I don't think any of this matters. Perhaps Mr J. Fox didn't take his medications. I can't see why that would that matter. It has no barring on the argument at all. The man has parkinson's disease, he's not going to get better, he's only going to get worse. If Rush thinks that Michael can't show the world his reality when he's at his worst then Rush has no right making an argument about moral decisions.

Let me put this into context. Yes Micheal J Fox has the right to show the world what his reality is when he is at his worst. However, if he is going to do this then he also has the responsibility to tell the people that see the commercial that this is what Parkinson's looks like when it is untreated. If he stopped taking his meds then the public should be made aware of it. However, he did not do so, and in the process presented the image that life is like that for Parkinson's patient who are being treated. Basicly, if he was off his meds, then he lied to the people in Claire McHaskell's district and that is why it matters.


If Fox is arguing for the need to search for a cure, which I believe is what that stem cell research seemed to have potential for, instead of just a treatment of inconsistent effectiveness, then why not show it when it's left untreated? Does someone doing an ad for cancer research have to declare whether they're up to date with their chemotherapy? Does Wilford Brimley have to tell us the last time he took his insulin when he does those ads about his Diabetes?

To me, that's an effective advert: "This is what it looks like when my disease isn't treated. There's promising signs for a cure but there are people who want to prohibit the research..."


David Fryer wrote:
Micheal J. Fox admitted in the book Michael J. Fox: Courage for Life that he often will not take his medication prior to an apperance to emphasize the need for research into treatments for Parkinson's Disease. Whether he did that when he filmed the McHasskell commercial is not known. However, he did leave himself open to the charge by admitting to doing so.

Having not read his book, I didn't know that. So yes, that would reasonably open the question as to whether he did the same for commercial.

I have observed the effects of Parkinson's firsthand in two individuals and done a lot of reading on the subject (but IANANeuroscience expert). Even with the medication, symptoms are often still present, especially as the disease progresses. Whether Mr. Fox was deliberately off-meds or not, without a cure, odds are he will eventually express symptoms similiar to the ones he displayed in public (if he isn't already).

So, would Mr. Limbaugh be also ok to express his opinion that cancer patients undergoing chemo and/or dying shouldn't appear on TV or in public because they are playing for sympathy? What about Alzheimer's patients? Should Jerry Lewis stop letting MDA patients appear on the yearly telethon because they are playing for sympathy (even though they, like Mr. Fox, display their medical condition along with the positive images of how they are managing to cope)?

I mean, Mr. Limbaugh does admit he is an entertainer and he's only expressing his opinion. So does that mean he's perfectly OK?

Edit: Ninja'd!

Dark Archive

Lyingbastard wrote:

If Fox is arguing for the need to search for a cure, which I believe is what that stem cell research seemed to have potential for, instead of just a treatment of inconsistent effectiveness, then why not show it when it's left untreated? Does someone doing an ad for cancer research have to declare whether they're up to date with their chemotherapy? Does Wilford Brimley have to tell us the last time he took his insulin when he does those ads about his Diabetes?

To me, that's an effective advert: "This is what it looks like when my disease isn't treated. There's promising signs for a cure but there are people who want to prohibit the research..."

But he didn't say that this is what my disease looks like untreated, he presented it as if he were medicated. In fact he went so far as to tell Katie Couric that he was "over medicated" when he did the ad. Here is the transcript of the ad in it's entirety. "As you might know, I care deeply about stem cell research. In Missouri, you can elect Claire McCaskill, who shares my hope for cures. Unfortunately, Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research. Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us the chance for hope. They say all politics is local, but that's not always the case. What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans, Americans like me."

So, I disagree with your premise. The default assumption for someone with a condition like Parkinson's is that they are recieving treatment. Cancer patients don't have to tell us that they are up to date on the treat ment and diabetes sufferers don't have to tell us that they are taking their insulin on schedule, because that is assumed. So if Mr. Fox went off his meds and didn't tell the veiwing audience, as he admits to doing, then he is attempting to mislead people by presenting his condition as being treated when it is not. Now again, I don't know if he actually did or if he was over medicated like he told Katie Couric. I am simply saying that the responsible thing tro do is to tell people when you are off your meds, because otherwise they will assume that you are on them and that is what life is like when you are being treated.

Sovereign Court

pres man wrote:


Can a paraplegic take a drug and allow them some limited mobility? If not than your comparison is invalid. If Fox could take medication and lessen the symptoms and chose not to (I have no evidence that is actually what happened), then his decision to do so certain could be critized. It can give a false impression as to the value of current medical technology. So if Fox didn't take medication to control his movements and he could have (again, I don't know if that is actually the case), then yes he "could actually control his body if he wanted to".

They have developed an exoskeleton that has allowed some paraplegics to stand and even walk though electric stimulation of the muscles. The technology is still very new and the results are far from perfect. It's not a cure but it could allow some paraplegics some semblance of a normal life. I suppose it's now fair to ridicule those cripples that appear on TV without this device. After all modern medical technology can let them stand. After all Michael J Fox can sometimes reduce his tremors when he's on medications.

A Paraplegic can't walk and Michael J Fox can't fully control his muscles. That's the reality. There is no cure for Parkinsons, in many cases there is no escaping that wheel chair for paraplegics. Michael could choose to hide the fact that he was disabled, like FDR choose to do, or he could allow people to see what he had to live with when the medication wasn't working. If the medication allowed him to function at a normal level why would he give up on his acting career? I suppose those involuntary tremors we saw on his last season of Spin City were an acting choice.

Don't feel bad for Michael J Fox, he's an actor and his condition is practically cured thanks to modern medication.

Dark Archive

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

I have observed the effects of Parkinson's firsthand in two individuals and done a lot of reading on the subject (but IANANeuroscience expert). Even with the medication, symptoms are often still present, especially as the disease progresses. Whether Mr. Fox was deliberately off-meds or not, without a cure, odds are he will eventually express symptoms similiar to the ones he displayed in public (if he isn't already).

I mean, Mr. Limbaugh does admit he is an entertainer and he's only expressing his opinion. So does that mean he's perfectly OK?

I was the caretaker for my grandmoter and grandfather who both suffered from Parkinson's for five years, so I have also had first hand experience with the disease. In fact, my grandfather was in the late stages of Parkinson's by the time I moved in with them to take care of them. I also know from a variety of different places where I have both seen and met Mr. Fox that when he does a public apperance his symptoms are usually not as severe as what was seen in the commercial. It is still up on Youtube if you haven't seen it yet. One thing that has not been mentioned yet is that Rush Limbaugh also said this when he was discussing the advertisment.
Rush H. Limbaugh wrote:
All I'm saying is that I've never seen him the way he appears in this commercial for Claire McCaskill. So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act, especially since people are telling me they have seen him this way on other interviews and in other television appearances

The emphasis is mine. That is the key here, Rush expressed his opinion and then said, but if I'm wrong about what Mr. Fox was doing then I will apologize for what I said. Yet nobody wants to talk about the apology.


Guy Humual wrote:
They have developed an exoskeleton that has allowed some paraplegics to stand and even walk though electric stimulation of the muscles. The technology is still very new and the results are far from perfect. It's not a cure but it could allow some paraplegics some semblance of a normal life. I suppose it's now fair to ridicule those cripples that appear on TV without this device. After all modern medical technology can let them stand. After all Michael J Fox can sometimes reduce his tremors when he's on medications.

What is that phrase so common on the web? Oh yeah, Strawman.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
David Fryer wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

I have observed the effects of Parkinson's firsthand in two individuals and done a lot of reading on the subject (but IANANeuroscience expert). Even with the medication, symptoms are often still present, especially as the disease progresses. Whether Mr. Fox was deliberately off-meds or not, without a cure, odds are he will eventually express symptoms similiar to the ones he displayed in public (if he isn't already).

I mean, Mr. Limbaugh does admit he is an entertainer and he's only expressing his opinion. So does that mean he's perfectly OK?

I was the caretaker for my grandmoter and grandfather who both suffered from Parkinson's for five years, so I have also had first hand experience with the disease. In fact, my grandfather was in the late stages of Parkinson's by the time I moved in with them to take care of them. I also know from a variety of different places where I have both seen and met Mr. Fox that when he does a public apperance his symptoms are usually not as severe as what was seen in the commercial. It is still up on Youtube if you haven't seen it yet. One thing that has not been mentioned yet is that Rush Limbaugh also said this when he was discussing the advertisment.
Rush H. Limbaugh wrote:
All I'm saying is that I've never seen him the way he appears in this commercial for Claire McCaskill. So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act, especially since people are telling me they have seen him this way on other interviews and in other television appearances
The emphasis is mine. That is the key here, Rush expressed his opinion and then said, but if I'm wrong about what Mr. Fox was doing then I will apologize for what I said. Yet nobody wants to talk about the apology.

David,

Was there ever actually an apology? If not, then that might be why no one's talking about it.

Dark Archive

Paul Watson wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

I have observed the effects of Parkinson's firsthand in two individuals and done a lot of reading on the subject (but IANANeuroscience expert). Even with the medication, symptoms are often still present, especially as the disease progresses. Whether Mr. Fox was deliberately off-meds or not, without a cure, odds are he will eventually express symptoms similiar to the ones he displayed in public (if he isn't already).

I mean, Mr. Limbaugh does admit he is an entertainer and he's only expressing his opinion. So does that mean he's perfectly OK?

I was the caretaker for my grandmoter and grandfather who both suffered from Parkinson's for five years, so I have also had first hand experience with the disease. In fact, my grandfather was in the late stages of Parkinson's by the time I moved in with them to take care of them. I also know from a variety of different places where I have both seen and met Mr. Fox that when he does a public apperance his symptoms are usually not as severe as what was seen in the commercial. It is still up on Youtube if you haven't seen it yet. One thing that has not been mentioned yet is that Rush Limbaugh also said this when he was discussing the advertisment.
Rush H. Limbaugh wrote:
All I'm saying is that I've never seen him the way he appears in this commercial for Claire McCaskill. So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act, especially since people are telling me they have seen him this way on other interviews and in other television appearances
The emphasis is mine. That is the key here, Rush expressed his opinion and then said, but if I'm wrong about what Mr. Fox was doing then I will apologize for what I said. Yet nobody wants to talk about the apology.

David,

Was there ever actually an apology? If not, then that might be why no one's talking about it.

Yes there was an apology. After Mr. Fox was on with Katie Couric Rush apologized saying that he took him at his word when he said he was medicated. I just could not find a transcript of it. The transcript of him saying he would apologize was on Media Matters.com.

Sovereign Court

pres man wrote:


What is that phrase so common on the web? Oh yeah, Strawman.

So something that allows a paraplegic to stand is nothing like something that allows parkinsons sufferers to function. You got me. Total straw man. Clearly anything that helps paraplegics must be in pill form . . . well for them to appear on TV anyways, otherwise someone might see the braces and cables.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Bryan wrote:
flyin dog wrote:

... I don't know if this would be any better for the team or not, but let's face it, this is the Rams we are talking about, and there is no way they can be any worse than they are right now. They are at rock bottom.

As a Lions fan, trust me, it can ALWAYS get worse.

Amen.

==Aelryinth


Guy Humual wrote:
pres man wrote:


What is that phrase so common on the web? Oh yeah, Strawman.
So something that allows a paraplegic to stand is nothing like something that allows parkinsons sufferers to function. You got me. Total straw man. Clearly anything that helps paraplegics must be in pill form . . . well for them to appear on TV anyways, otherwise someone might see the braces and cables.

And another strawman.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Rush's bid got nixed because they threw in the Race card. Seems he made a comment during a short stint as a commentator about a black quarterback on a team, and how he had a winning game, and Rush noted that everyone wanted to give the credit to the quarterback because he was black, when it was the defense that won the game.

For that, he was promptly labelled a racist, lost his sports commenting position, and now it's come back to haunt him.

I do not listen to Rush, but if it had been a black man making that statement, it would have come across as informed professional opinion more then a race slam.

Oh, well. Welcome to America.

==Aelryinth

Sovereign Court

David Fryer wrote:


Let me put this into context. Yes Micheal J Fox has the right to show the world what his reality is when he is at his worst. However, if he is going to do this then he also has the responsibility to tell the people that see the commercial that this is what Parkinson's looks like when it is untreated. If he stopped taking his meds then the public should be made aware of it. However, he did not do so, and in the process presented the image that life is like that for Parkinson's patient who are being treated. Basicly, if he was off his meds, then he lied to the people in Claire McHaskell's district and that is why it matters.

I get what you're saying David but I don't quite agree. I honestly don't think it should matter if he's treated or untreated. Part of Mr Fox's argument is based on sympathy, this is true, and his omission of being untreated for the filming (if this actually was the case) does make his argument stronger, but why should he be placed under stronger ethical guidelines then anyone else? He was trying to fight the decision of a government that routinely lied by omission (looking at you Dick). Mr Fox is fighting for his life. If stem cell research could help cure him and he could return to a normal existence then why shouldn't he make the best case he can?

Rush has every right to disagree with Mr Fox's position, perhaps he could have brought a few doctors on his show to explain how Parkinsons is actually manageable, or talked about research avenues that don't require stem cell research. I'm guessing that Rush didn't do that however, instead of doing a bit of research or going that extra mile, he took the low road and sought to attack the character of Michael J Fox. As far as I'm concerned nobody has the right to mock another person's disability.


Aelryinth wrote:

Rush's bid got nixed because they threw in the Race card. Seems he made a comment during a short stint as a commentator about a black quarterback on a team, and how he had a winning game, and Rush noted that everyone wanted to give the credit to the quarterback because he was black, when it was the defense that won the game.

For that, he was promptly labelled a racist, lost his sports commenting position, and now it's come back to haunt him.

I do not listen to Rush, but if it had been a black man making that statement, it would have come across as informed professional opinion more then a race slam.

Oh, well. Welcome to America.

==Aelryinth

Your forgetting the time he said:

"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it"

or

"(Blacks) They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares what they think."

or

"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

Limbaugh is a racist but he able get away with it because he's an "entertainer".


Guy Humual wrote:
As far as I'm concerned nobody has the right to mock another person's disability.

Like the Special Olympics comment Obama said?


"My side is better than your side!"
"No, my side is better than your side!"


Xabulba wrote:

Your forgetting the time he said:

"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it"

Don't overlook the fact that the NFL (and other "professionl" sports) routinely overlooks the criminal activity that the players commit. Somehow when a "pro" athlete engages in adultery, drunk driving, drug use, assault, rape, animal cruelty, or even murder, we find them NOT in jail or even in court but rather slapped with a minor fine and a missed game...maybe.

The tolerance of the NFL for its player-criminals is made even more disturbing by its lack of tolerance for Rush.


Malachi Tarchannen wrote:
Xabulba wrote:

Your forgetting the time he said:

"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it"

Don't overlook the fact that the NFL (and other "professionl" sports) routinely overlooks the criminal activity that the players commit. Somehow when a "pro" athlete engages in adultery, drunk driving, drug use, assault, rape, animal cruelty, or even murder, we find them NOT in jail or even in court but rather slapped with a minor fine and a missed game...maybe.

The tolerance of the NFL for its player-criminals is made even more disturbing by its lack of tolerance for Rush.

Players are the hired help not the owners. People look to the the owners to be respectable busnessmen, Rush is not.

It is hypocrital to have one standard for owners and one for players but almost every bussiness in America follows the same double standard,
owners/employers are held to a different set of rules than the employees.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

"My side is better than your side!"

"No, my side is better than your side!"

Actually Kirth that's not what I'm doing. I'm trying to give Guy a subtle hint.


Garydee wrote:
Actually Kirth that's not what I'm doing. I'm trying to give Guy a subtle hint.

Nor was that comment directed personally at you, Gary. You're ususally pretty fair-minded. It's what the thread in general had become, along with pretty much any other political thread. I also find the persona vs. person schism amusing -- the "liberal" team here is all lined up behind MJF, with the "conservative" team all defending RL in making fun of him -- when not too long ago it was MJF who used to play Mr. Young Republican, ultraconservative "Alex P. Keaton" on Family Ties.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
You're ususally pretty fair-minded.

LOL! I don't know about that but I'll say that I'm a lot better than when I first joined these boards. If you remember I was out of control quite often back then. However, thanks for the compliment.


Here is a youtube of the comments by Rush about Fox.

I doubt that will end any debate because people will percieve the comments through their own various filters. Still, through mine, listening to his voice, I don't get the impression he is "making fun of Fox". Critisizing, sure, making fun of, nope.

Sovereign Court

Straw man huh?

pres man wrote:


Can a paraplegic take a drug and allow them some limited mobility?
If not than your comparison is invalid.

How so? A paraplegic can enjoy some mobility with the medical advances I pointed out, just as someone suffering form parkinson's can enjoy some control over their body with medication, but that's apparently a straw man argument.

pres man wrote:
If Fox could take medication and lessen the symptoms and chose not to (I have no evidence that is actually what happened), then his decision to do so certain could be critized.

And a paraplegic who chooses to allow the cameras to show their wheelchair or who chooses not to use exoskeleton (if it were available to them) could also be similarly critized. Straw man.

pres man wrote:
It can give a false impression as to the value of current medical technology. So if Fox didn't take medication to control his movements and he could have (again, I don't know if that is actually the case), then yes he "could actually control his body if he wanted to".

So in conclusion . . . Straw man :)

I honestly don't see what you want. Is there a pill that can allow paraplegics to walk? I don't think so. As you probably know there is more then one cause of Paraplegia so I can't be certain. Is there a pill that allows those suffering from Parkinson's disease complete control over their body? Not to my knowledge. Parkinsons sufferers have medication that allows them to control the spasms. Paraplegics are able to walk thanks to medical advances and modern technology. On a good day Michael might not have any noticeable spasms at all. I also know that when he was in his final year of spin city you can see the tremors. I'm guessing that if Michael wanted to appear healthy and normal anywhere it would have been there on TV.

I should note that a paraplegic shown from the head and chest might also appear perfectly healthy. Attempting to hide or mask the disability is just as "dishonest" as showing the disability. Was Dick Chaney dishonest for not telling everyone he had heart a faulty ticker? I suppose if you're on the 'right' the answer is no, if you're on the 'left' the answer is yes. I believe it shouldn't matter.

Straw man


David Fryer wrote:
I was the caretaker for my grandmother and grandfather who both suffered from Parkinson's for five years,...

FWIW, you have my sympathies.

David Fryer wrote:
The emphasis is mine. That is the key here, Rush expressed his opinion and then said, but if I'm wrong about what Mr. Fox was doing then I will apologize for what I said. Yet nobody wants to talk about the apology.

OK, Mr. Limbaugh apologized. Does that make it ok to have said in the first place? I'm not talking legality. The First Amendment (and all the rights of US citizens) come with inherent responsibilities. Should any media entertainer feel free to say anything they want right up to the line of slander/libel or obscenity, leaving the burden-of-proof on the accused? And if the accused cannot adequately prove themselves to the entertainer's satisfaction, what then?

Sovereign Court

Garydee wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

"My side is better than your side!"

"No, my side is better than your side!"
Actually Kirth that's not what I'm doing. I'm trying to give Guy a subtle hint.

I'm Canadian, I'm not technically on either side. Your left wing commi pinko is probably to the "right" of our "right".

Your example is a good one though. That was pretty crass of your president.


Guy Humual wrote:
Garydee wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

"My side is better than your side!"

"No, my side is better than your side!"
Actually Kirth that's not what I'm doing. I'm trying to give Guy a subtle hint.
I'm Canadian, I'm not technically on either side.

Angry mob member 1: "He's Canadian?"

Angry mob member 2: "That's like French-lite. Get 'em!"
{angry mob stomps after Guy, waving pitchforks and torches }

Dark Archive

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:


David Fryer wrote:
The emphasis is mine. That is the key here, Rush expressed his opinion and then said, but if I'm wrong about what Mr. Fox was doing then I will apologize for what I said. Yet nobody wants to talk about the apology.
OK, Mr. Limbaugh apologized. Does that make it ok to have said in the first place?

Just my 2cp but I think while it doesn't make it okay, it does make it better. Rush made a statement based on what he saw and what Mr. Fox had previously admitted to. When it turned out he was wrong, he apologized. We all do it all the time. Find me a person who has never in their life made a snap judgement or said something that they had to apologize for later, or should have, and I will sell you my ocean fron property in Montana. Even Mother Theresa had to apologize from time to time, or so I have heard from people who knew her.


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Garydee wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

"My side is better than your side!"

"No, my side is better than your side!"
Actually Kirth that's not what I'm doing. I'm trying to give Guy a subtle hint.
I'm Canadian, I'm not technically on either side.

Angry mob member 1: "He's Canadian?"

Angry mob member 2: "That's like French-lite. Get 'em!"
{angry mob stomps aftter Guy, waving pitchforks and torches }

Don't let Sumo the Clinically Depressed Poodle know there's a Frenchman in here. ;)

Dark Archive

Xabulba wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Rush's bid got nixed because they threw in the Race card. Seems he made a comment during a short stint as a commentator about a black quarterback on a team, and how he had a winning game, and Rush noted that everyone wanted to give the credit to the quarterback because he was black, when it was the defense that won the game.

For that, he was promptly labelled a racist, lost his sports commenting position, and now it's come back to haunt him.

I do not listen to Rush, but if it had been a black man making that statement, it would have come across as informed professional opinion more then a race slam.

Oh, well. Welcome to America.

==Aelryinth

Your forgetting the time he said:

"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it"

or

"(Blacks) They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares what they think."

or

"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

Limbaugh is a racist but he able get away with it because he's an "entertainer".

Context please? As you may know, context makes all the difference.

Edit: After a quick search, I found tht only the comment about the NFL is able to be attributed to Rush directly. Here are the details. As fore the rest according to Snopes there is no proof that Rush ever said them. In fact the NAACP comment can be traed back to an anti-Rush publication, but no further. Much like th slavery comment, they appear to be complete fabrications, designed soley for the purpose of smearing Rush.


Garydee wrote:
Don't let Sumo the Clinically Depressed Poodle know there's a Frenchman in here. ;)

That's OK, my other alias, the French not-really-a-cat already pops into the poodle thread to bug him.


Garydee wrote:


Don't let Sumo the Clinically Depressed Poodle know there's a Frenchman in here. ;)

Where?


Tiny Tina wrote:
Thanks for the thoughts guys. Way to keep it civil.

You knew it couldn't last forever.

51 to 100 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Rush Limbaugh Is Buying The St. Louis Rams? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.