Limbaugh falsely claimed of Michael J. Fox: "[E]very one of his ads is run for the benefit of a Democrat"
On the October 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that "every one" of the political advertisements actor Michael J. Fox has appeared in "is run for the benefit of a Democrat." In fact, Fox, who has Parkinson's disease and has campaigned for candidates who support embryonic stem cell research, appeared in a campaign ad for Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (PA) in 2004, as Media Matters for America has noted. Additionally, as purported evidence that Fox supports only Democrats, Limbaugh alleged that Fox has done so "[e]ven in Maryland, where the Democrat [sic] beneficiary of the Michael J. Fox ad voted against exactly what Michael J. Fox is advocating for in the ad. That would be [Rep.] Benjamin Cardin." However, as Media Matters noted when Fox News host Sean Hannity made a similar baseless claim, Cardin voted in favor of H.R. 810, the embryonic stem cell research bill that Fox endorsed, and voted to override President Bush's veto of the bill. Cardin did vote against an alternative bill that the two lead sponsors of H.R. 810 claimed would impede embryonic stem cell research.
From the October 26 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: They pretend that these campaign ads are -- and that what -- these are Democrat campaign ads, folks. This is the next thing that I want to make a point about. They pretend that these campaign ads are untouchable news stories, that Michael J. Fox is a nonpartisan advocate suffering the horrors of a -- and the ravages of a horrible disease and as such he is nonpartisan -- he has no political stake here. But, yet, every one of his ads is run for the benefit of a Democrat. Even in Maryland, where the Democrat beneficiary of the Michael J. Fox ad voted against exactly what Michael J. Fox advocates in the ad. That would be Benjamin Cardin.
Let me tell you a something about how these political campaign ads get put together. They don't just happen. [Missouri Democratic Senate candidate] Claire McCaskill is out there saying the phone rang one day and it was Michael J. Fox; "Hey, I would like to come in and help you." She would love for us to believe that. But the way these political campaign ads are put together, they don't just happen. These aren't ads by some nonprofit health-related organization, these are ads paid for by Democrat campaigns. This ad is not paid for by a Parkinson's disease foundation, for example. These ads are scripted and written by Democrat campaigns.
How do you feel about Rush's deceitfulness?
Sorry if I'm late. Thanks for asking my opinion.
I don't claim to be the definitive source so maybe take it for what it's worth, but I do believe that in the reference to MJF only supporting Democrats, Rush is referring to the 2006 campaigns.
If you think this is a "gotcha", then by all means...
;-)
I was referring to Rush's statement about Rep. Cardin, although I admit I didn't make that clear.
But yet rUSH says that every one of his (MJF) ads is run for the benefit of a Democrat.
To me, that implies every ad past, present and (hopefully) future of MJF's is for the benefit of a Democrat.
Just a semantical observation.
...and that is the supposed reason why MMFA posted this link.
It is only my opinion, but like many other threads, MMFA is not looking for greater understanding or truth but only fanning the flames to advance their particular agenda.
Anyway, as in many cases, it seems to me there are two legitmate points of view.
Just because MMFA takes one slant, does not mean there isn't another.
Oh well...
He is a professional broadcaster he knows how to choose his that all his ads. That is factually incorrect, your mindreading about what he MEANT instead of confining yourself to what he SAID shows how weak the position is, if he needs YOU to explain him to people he isnt doing his job. Why isnt it just as reasonable to assume he meant exactly what he said, since it is his JOB to express himself and consider it misinformation?
reminds me of a circus tamer trying to get his freaks and midgets in line before the big show. Except he is one of the freaks, the biggest freak of them all.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
Every one of Rush's idiotic comments is said for the benefit of a Republican.
Never mind that it's not true, but even if it was, what's his point?
In his last few months, he couldn't control his muscles well enough to swallow.
I think I feel more sorry for Rush though. At least my uncle had a soul.
My condolences on your uncle's passing.
God bless him and your family.
Rush, keep it up and you will soon catch up to Ms. Coulter in Republicant speak, passing misinformation. However the liberals just see it as more lies. How can a man of your stature, a GIFT FROM gOD, make all of these errors? Either your staff needs a good butt whoopin' or you are on drugs again. They are the only two chioces I will give you...right AA.
AA, I believe the Spector ad was previously mentioned so it seems that Mr. Fox is not a democratic plant but an advocate for what he believes. But Rush continues to try to make this a wdge issue. Shame on him
I'm not quite getting your reference to me, but I appreciate the thought. :-) If you haven't already, take a look at my reply to Rusty.
As far as you
Nobody, including Rush, has said that MJF is a Democratic plant.
Nobody, including Rush, has argued that MJF can't express his opinion, be an advocate for causes he believes in, or go on air in support of anyone he wishes.
So, it seems to me that to argue otherwise is moot.
Please apply your famous logic to Limbaugh's claim. Is he pandering and pitiful? Does this pass the "Wesley Test"? Just wondering. You are the watchdog. Enlighten us.
Digging the hole depper for the Republicans.
Wow-
What a powerful interview. His grace and humility and intelligence was incredibly inspiring.
Rush Limbaugh, you should be ashamed for mocking this great man and calling him a liar and a dupe.
MJ Fox is so far above the people like Rush, it's like Fox is high on a mountain in heaven and Rush is wallowing in a filthy gutter.
Couric, but just now read about it. So he WAS on his meds. And he has also done an ad for Arlen Spector as everyone here now knows except for the dittos who love Druggie Limbaugh.
Rush is the shameless huckster. Did you all see him on the Tee Vee flailing about when reporting this story. It was truly disgusting, and not just because he's an ugly human inside and out. MJF on the other hand is a class act all the way.
and watched that interview. It was exceptional. It's long, but everyone should go see it. MJF is extremely well informed and articulate and eloquent. Wow, indeed.
Why not discuss the ad contents and how false and missleading they are, nope, cant do that can ya. Its typical leftest tactic, make Rush Limbaugh the issue who is nothing more than a talk show host instead of engaging in the issues.
Media Mattters? ... roflmol.
Why don't you share your knowledge and insight with us on why the ads are so misleading?
Foxs ad: [link to www.youtube.com]
Cathy Ruse Explains the Ammendment: [link to www.youtube.com]
Look what happend in California ont the same issue!! $6Billion tax payers money spent and no cures! [link to www.youtube.com]
MIssourians Against Human Cloning? The amendment states clearly that it would ban human cloning or attempted cloning. I know this is going to get into an argument about the semantics of what life actually is and its going to fall along the lines of Pro-Choice / Pro-Life.
"Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) or therapeutic cloning involves removing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg cell, replacing it with the material from the nucleus of a "somatic cell" (a skin, heart, or nerve cell, for example), and stimulating this cell to begin dividing. Once the cell begins dividing, stem cells can be extracted 5-6 days later and used for research. The AAMC supports on-going research into SCNT and has endorsed legislation that would allow such research to flourish." Reproductive cloning, on the other hand, is intended to create human beings by cloning human embryos. The AAMC and the National Academy of Sciences recommend a ban on all forms of this type of cloning. [link to www.aamc.org]
It's interesting that they will not acknowledge the semantics of the difference between cloning cells and cloning a human being.
I would also point out that a large portion of their arguments are misleading at best. Unproven Science? Can you please tell me what research or search for a cure wasn't unproven science at one point? With the argument these folks are using you would be against almost all research that is occurring in the US for every major disease. How much money do you think we've spent on Cancer or AIDS? Do you want us to spending money to look for a cure?
Too exploitive? Woman can already get paid for their eggs at a fertility clinic and men get paid to donate sperm. Should this "mini-gold rush" have already occurred?
According to MAHC "Amendment 2's 2,100 words would alter 45 different sections of Missouri's Constitution. And those changes would last forever" Last forever? Do you understand how the law works?
Its interesting that this sigh avoids mentioning their religious beliefs which obviously plays a major part in their rational on what is considered human cloning/human life. Their Executive Director Jaci Winship was the director of Operations for Lay Renewal Ministires.
Their slogan is tricky.org - yes too tricky indeed.
MHK, no I'm not going to argue over when life begins, this is about MM not adressing the issue but attacking a commentator to distract from the issue. Our exchange is excatly what needs to get out and folks need to decide on facts.
One major point your leaving out, no body here is against reasearch! Its the forced use of Federal or State Tax dollars to do it. Thats the argument and thats the descsion people need to make, either you want it or you dont. Throw in the moral componet, misleading ads and ammendments and its very easy to distract from the real issues.
I'm self employed and need to get back to work, patients waiting and uncle sam wants my wallet ;-)
are you being selective about the research $$$ issue? Why aren't you addressing the fact that we already spend millions of tax dollars on medical research in a number of different areas? The only objection one could have on this type of research would be a "moral" objection... We spend tons of money on a number of things that I personally object to, but I realize that many of these things are necessary to some extent so I live with it.
We should be spending tax money on this as, it benefits all of man kind. If your going to leave the research up to companies, let me know how well Viagra and Claritin work if you get cancer.
This forum belongs to MMFA and THEY say the issue is LIMBAUGH LYING. ALL of MJFs ads are NOT for democrats period. I dont choose to follow you off topic just because that is YOUR choice.
But if you don't mind, let me just post what opponents to the Missouri cloning bill have say about your your first assertion.
You said: "The amendment states clearly that it would ban human cloning or attempted cloning. ..."
Here is a reply from: [link to www.2tricky.org]
To clone or not to clone? That’s the question.
But it's not the question Missourians will be asked in November when they vote on Amendment 2. The question they will see in the voting booth is different from the actual language of the Constitutional Amendment.
When you see Amendment 2 at your polling place, you will be asked to decide whether to "ban human cloning or attempted cloning." Sounds good so far, right? Who's in favor of human cloning anyway?
But the 2,100-word Constitutional Amendment — which you won't see on election day — actually creates legal protection for human cloning. Hard to believe? It's true. Amendment 2 only outlaws reproductive cloning, which no one in Missouri (or anywhere else on earth) is doing.
Meanwhile, it protects anyone who wants to clone human beings for science experiments. Amendment 2 glosses over the issue of lab-created human life with complicated phrases like "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer." But cloning is cloning, and Amendment 2 would put this ethically questionable practice beyond the reach of state law.
Amendment 2 is "2 tricky." And the human-cloning "bait and switch" is just the beginning.
--------
Apparently your not reading the same thing I'm reading There is a differance between cloning cells for scientic research and reproductive cloning (an actual human) the vast majority of people are against cloning actual humans. From what I've read of the amendment it does not support or allow reproductive cloning. Your not addressing that and neither is that website.
They are trying to make it appear as if all cloning (cells v. reproductive) is the same issue which it is not.
Half of the points on that site are misleading garbage and scare tactics.
"When you see Amendment 2 at your polling place, you will be asked to decide whether to "ban human cloning or attempted cloning." Sounds good so far, right? Who's in favor of human cloning anyway? "
This doesn't sound good. It sounds to simplistic for an issue that is anything but that.
I wonder who wrote the language on this?
Nice to see that so far out of 12 comments, 2 actually are regarding the subject at hand.
Way ago to all the commenters with a mental capacity of a 5 year old that can only call people names, instead of actually debate an issue.
Hmmm since we all know that MJF has made ads for people other then Democrates and its not debatable what exactly would you like people to talk about?
and don't you think its a little ironic that your going to complain about name calling and then turn around and name call?
Rush did basically accuse MJF of being a fraud and a partisan... I just know that you send him a scathing e-mail requesting that he stick to the real issues on his show and to refrain from person attacks.
Did your message sound something like "Hey der ditto head, can ya please stick with discussing da pros and da cons of dat der steam cell research stuff on yer show and stop saying mean things bout dat Alex Keaton! You know dat boy sure luvs da Republican party. P.S. Da drugs are in da mail"
No? Maybe you should get right on that...
Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is opposed by a small number of extremely superstitious people who share the bizarre religious belief that a dot of cells smaller than the period at the end of this sentence, which will never ever grow to be a human being, possesses a unique human soul and is therefore so sacred that it must be flushed down a toilet rather than used for research that has the potential to benefit millions of full-grown human beings.
I argue that the people who oppose this research are foolish and deeply immoral because they are sacrificing the chance to help people on the altar of their extremist religious beliefs.
Your turn.
Aren't embryonic stem cells the left overs from artificial fertilization processes? Are these same right to lifers going to protest a woman's right to have a baby?
And geewhiz, LAME, 6 billion dollars wasted on a search for a cure, as opposed to what, half a trillion wasted on killing women and children in Iraq.
Scientific research does not always yield immediate results. Sometimes discoveries in one field of science inadvertently benefits another field. So does that make seemingly fruitless research a waste?
mixed up LAME and WHIZBOR on the 6 billion part. But it is probably equally applicable to both posters.
But your very first sentence right off the bat starts with a falsehood.
Rusty wrote: "Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is opposed by a small number of extremely superstitious people..."
WASHINGTON, May 16 /PRNewswire/ -- A majority of Americans, 52 percent, oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research while just 36 percent support it, according to a new poll commissioned by the Secretariat for Pro- Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
[link to www.icrsurvey.com]
While you may disagree with the statistics, and may have statistics of your own, I doubt any sane person would characterize 60% of Americans as a small group.
As an aside, it looks to me like you are letting your biases and prejudices against religious people interfere with an objective view of the arguments they offer.
Haven't I seen you castigate Rush for supposedly doing the same thing?
;-)
I was responding to Rusty.
Sorry for the confusion.
As an aside, it looks to me like you are letting your biases and prejudices against religious people interfere with an objective view of the arguments they offer.
The arguments they offer - which, at root, are religious - cannot be considered objectively. Unless you can show me proof of the existence of the human soul.
And yes, I am extremely biased and prejudiced against religious people when they subvert science with their superstitions.
I note that the questions in the poll you cite mention nothing about why stem cell research might be beneficial, and I discount them accordingly. And I maintain that it is the religious extremists who are behind the politicization of this issue.
Are you as biased against anti-religous people who use fake promises of non-existant science to further their political agenda?
Let me say I do appreciate you honesty.
:-)
I don't know of any such people.
You prove my point. ;-)
...anti-religous people who use fake promises of non-existant science to further their political agenda?
If you're saying that is me, you are a liar. I am not anti-religious. The promises are not "fake." The science exists. So either you're talking about something else altogether, or you are lying about me. Which is it, AA?
Non existant science? Why do most biologists disagree with you? It is a new science not fake nor non existant. It looks promising but hey pack up your nobel prize for biology and tell all those scientists how much more YOU know than they do
Here is a list of Nobel Prize winners from Europe opposing the stem cell research ban, obviously they dont think it is a FAKE promise of non existant science
08-03-06 - Sign the Petition to the European Parliament on Embrionic Stem Cell Research -
Signatures by Nobel Prize-winners: - Alexei Abrikosov (Nobel Prize-winner for Physics) - Paul Berg (Nobel Prize-winner for Medicine) - Christian De Duve (Nobel Prize-winner in Medicine) - Herbert A. Hauptman (Nobel Prize-winner for Chemistry) - Jean-Marie Lehn (Nobel laureate in Chemistry) - Richard Roberts (Nobel Prize-winner for Medicine) - Donnall Thomas (Nobel Prize-winner for Medicine) - Steven Weinberg (Nobel Prize-winner for Physics) - Eric F. Wieschaus (Nobel laureate in Medicine) - Jack Steinberger(Nobel Prize in Physics 1988) - Edmond H. Fischer (Nobel laureate in Medicine) Other signatures
[link to www.freedomofresearch.org]
Oh, and I note that while you devote energy to providing a statistic generated by a pro-life group, and to tut-tutting me in general, you avoid the point, which is:
Tiny dot of undifferentiated cells that is going to be destroyed anyway vs. potential to relieve a lot of human suffering.
I choose "potential to relieve a lot of human suffering." But I fully respect your right to choose tiny dot of undifferentiated cells. I guess our views of morality just differ that way.
I see you have avoided the jist of my post which was prove to you that your statement of there being a "small amount" of people who oppose embryonic stem cell research is outrageously false.
Not to belabor the point, or to pick on you, as I do enjoy our discussions, but I've been down this road many times before.
When someone posts a ridiculous assertion and I point it out, they simply change the subject. You've done so here.
When you assert that your on the side that wants to "relieve pain and suffering", you make the implication that anyone who doesn't belive the same as you is for "pain and suffering". To me that is sloppy logic.
The reason I believe it is sloppy logic is that it makes you the arbitor of what one can do to human embryos in the hopes to relieve someone else's the pain and suffering. In your case, you think it is okay to kill these human embryos.
Here is where the slippery slope comes in. By your line of reasoning wouldn't someone who believes it is okay to kill a 9 month old fetus's to harvest their cells or body parts in order to relieve "pain and suffering" of others be just as legitimate an outlook as yours? What about someone who has an incurable disease? Can we kill them while their organs are functioning. so we can help others? After all, they are going to die anyway and it would help others. Sliding down the slope, the same could be said of old people, people with deformities, people in comas, etc...
My whole point is that you have created a class of human beings, in this case people who are at the very first stages of life, that you believe should be denied the same rights to life and liberty that you posess only because they are incredibly small.
It is my opinion that this same line of reasoning and denial of humanity that lead to slavery, because people were denied their humanity, not for their size, but the color of their skin. The same can be said of the holucost. People were experimented on, and killed simply because of their religion. In each of these cases, human beings, because of their skin, religion, and now size and age, are being treated as less than human in argument so that they can be disposed of as others see fit.
By doing this, in my opinion, you are siding with side that side that thinks THEY can determine who lives and who dies.
All this for a non-proven idea that maybe, just maybe there might be somewhere at sometime some possible benefit by using embryonic stem cells; that ignores the fact there are alternative stem cells that have been proven to be much more effective and actually help all without having to harm one embryo. The research is finding more and more ways almost weekly where adult stem cell research is providing relief from the same pain and suffering you mentioned.
I know we disagree, and I know many will take issue with what I've just discussed.
Please everyone spare me the "we don't know what we can cure until we find out" argument. That is silly and that line of reasoning can be used by anyone for any purpose.
What is so ironic in this discussion and forgotten by people like you is that embryonic stem cell research IS funded by the federal government! It is also legal in every State. You already have your cake and are slicing and dicing it. Your real argument is you want me to pay for it.
I am saddened by the prospect but if you want to go kill embryos in the name of unproven science, you can. I object that you want me to pay for what I belive is killing of an innocent human life.
AA, I absolutely reject the slippery slope argument in this case. To accept that argument one has to accept several outrageous propositions.
One is that making the judgment, as I and many, many others do, that a dot of frozen cells is not a human being, will naturally lead to judgments that nine-month-old fetuses, old people, the handicapped, etc., are not human beings. That is inconceivable. It takes the slippery slope argument to an absurd length.
And think about it: if I, and others, already believe that the dot of cells is not a human being, why haven't we already been down the slope? Why aren't we already advocating for harvesting organs from the infirm?
When you assert that your on the side that wants to "relieve pain and suffering", you make the implication that anyone who doesn't belive the same as you is for "pain and suffering".
I don't mean to imply that. I mean what I said: that your side prefers the destruction of the blastocyst to allowing it to be used for research that could alleviate pain and suffering. That doesn't mean you're for pain and suffering; I know that you are not. But you have been very clear about your preference between the two options.
The reason I believe it is sloppy logic is that it makes you the arbitor of what one can do to human embryos in the hopes to relieve someone else's the pain and suffering.
And you would prefer that you be the arbiter. There's going to be an arbiter one way or the other. We humans have to make this decision; nobody's going to make it for us.
Please everyone spare me the "we don't know what we can cure until we find out" argument. That is silly and that line of reasoning can be used by anyone for any purpose.
No, it isn't silly at all. It's the crux of the whole argument. You expect scientists to be able to prove the benefits of research to you before they do the research. That's not how pure science works. Scientists have ideas about how this technology can be beneficial, but of course they can't show anything until research is done. To believe otherwise is what's silly.
The research is finding more and more ways almost weekly where adult stem cell research is providing relief from the same pain and suffering you mentioned.
Indeed. Yet you continue to characterize the potential benefits of ESC research as far-fetched or "non-existent." Curious.
If you believe that destroying blastocysts is the killing of innocent human life, are you in favor of criminalizing IVF labs and charging people who run them with murder?
I wish I had the time.
As for your last question:
"If you believe that destroying blastocysts is the killing of innocent human life, are you in favor of criminalizing IVF labs and charging people who run them with murder?"
No. I believe they, as you, are well meaning people who are tragically wrong. Just as don't advocate charging mothers and doctors with murder for abortions.
However, I do belive the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 0:-)
The whole argument comes down to when does a human being actually become a human being. It is scientifically proven that a new human being, with all the genetics and all the chromosones of a human being is created at conception.
To say a human being is created somewhere else along the line of development is simply an arbitrary guess. Pick any point. When do you say a human being comese into existance? Whatever that arbitrary point, I suggest you take one microstep back in that babies development and ask you what is the difference that makes your point a human and mine not? By my reckoning, in every case, it is only size and location. So your position is not scientific but only arbitrary if you ask me.
that as the day wears on, my spelling and grammar, (which is not good to begin with,) goes down it's own slippery slope.
Take care!
boils down to saying that a "human being" exists when there's a full set of chromosomes. That's as arbitrary as any developmental point I could pick.
I'm going to throw this one out there again, just because I like it: if there's no head, it's not a human being. A human being cannot live without a head. A blastocyst does not have a head. Therefore a blastocyst is not a living human being. QED
No more arbitrary than the chromosome thing.
If that is your arbitrary definition, maybe you can tell me at what point a "head" on a human being becomes a "head"? Don't worry, I know you can't.
Besides, you are conflating the development of a head with the removal of one. Obviously the embryo is living, (and has everything genetically human that you and I have.) It is a human being, just the same as you or me, but only a small one. To say otherwise is to deny biology.
It is just as obvious that Marie Antoinette was a human being the moment before the guillotine did its work. By your logic, (if there's no head, it's not a human being,) you are saying she isn't a human being just because she suffered that unfortunate separation. I'm afraid you'll get an argument from not only science but history as well. ;-)
Everyone but liberals it seems, ;-) know that a distinct human being comes into existance the moment the egg and sperm join and they combine their chromosones. Before that moment they were individual cells that could not divide, and afer conception they can and do. It is the start of life, not a dog life, or a frog life, but a human life. If you can't see this you need to go back to high school biology.
I'd love to discuss more.. but I really must be 'heading' out.
cya
then you said 60%. Which is it, and is it true 83% of statistics are made up right there on the spot?
Why not discuss the ad contents and how false and missleading they are, nope, cant do that can ya. Its typical leftest tactic, make Rush Limbaugh the issue who is nothing more than a talk show host instead of engaging in the issues.
Media Mattters? ... roflmol.
- wizbor4654 / Friday October
Well, Gee Wiz,
I'm so glad that you have such a keen, robust and well developed sense of humor that you are rolling around the floor laughing.
But we are still waiting for you to tell us about the "misleading" ad. And also answer why it is that the man on hillbilly heroin is attacking the messenger instead of dissecting the ad as you wish us to do.
You are obviously so evolved, please enlighten us with your keen intellect and wisdom. Of course, do remember as someone mentioned, that Cardin voted for bill 810, the same one MJF endoresed and that MJF also did ads for Spector in 2004.
I wonder if it even occurs to you that you are making light of one person's affliction, pain, and subsequent addiction in order to supposedly defend another.
Do you see any contradiction at all?
Sadly, your reference to Rush's former addiction looks to me to be typical of the 'liberal logic' I see posted around here.
she's simply pointing out his hypocrisy.
You know he never holds back, why should an anonymous poster?
By the by, addictions are never former. Addicts are addicts in varying stages of remission. For that reason alone even Limbaugh has my best wishes. He does not, however, get a pass beyond that. Whatever happened to that conservative principle of tough love?
that Rush was addicted to pain pills. Oxycontin is a valuable and effective pain killer and many people need pain relief. I do not think anyone should be denied pain relief. On the other hand, Rush obviously used a legimate pain reliever in a non legitimate way. That is to crush it up and use it like heroin. In fact many heroin users go to oxycontin when they can't obtain heroin. And this is not to even mention the doctor shopping which he should have been thrown in jail for.
Amd JScott is right. It was the hypocrisy of Rush and his ilk that I intended to highlight.
Also Rush could have lost the huge amount of excess weight that is obviously not good for his frame and alleviated his back pain to some extent. Whenever I have back pain it's usually because I've put on a few pounds, although there are many and varied reasons for back pain.
And further, you come on this board and project your shame on everyone here. You are the standard bearer for the authoritarian follower type of individual and can't bear your own shame. So stop the crap. You don't seem to be overly concerned with the dumptruck load of insults hurled at us everyday by your ilk in the form of lies, disinformation, misinformation, dirty tricks, and filthy names. If you are so indignant, why not write the people who fills the NATIONAL airwaves everyday with this garbage. You are an insincere imposter with blinders on.
the duck and weave.
Obviously you are arguing that it is okay for you to insult, smear, defame, and besmrich someone whom you dislike for what you think are insults, smears, and besmirches.
Some people might call that hypocricy. I call that, "typical liberal logic". ;-)
Thanks for the discussion. I'm outa here. Have a great weekend!
that maybe it's possible that if Rush didn't lie, defame, besmirch and ridicule on his NATIONAL show everyday, then maybe he could make it through the day without oxycontin. But that would be assuming he has a conscience.
# In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA, granted an interview to Prism magazine, then a publication of the American Medical Association. Time later reported the interview to the general public, quoting Watson as having said, "If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have."
# In January 1978, Francis Crick, also a Nobel laureate, was quoted in the Pacific News Service as saying "... no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live."
# At a population-control conference in Washington D.C. one speaker saw "no reason why anyone who accepted abortion should balk at infanticide." Another urged certain medical qualifying tests for all newborns. These would determine their genetic characteristics and, thus, whether their right to life should be forfeited. Of course, at present only a few hold these ideas, but unfortunately they are presenting these ideas again and again. Taken a little more seriously each time, they become just a little more thinkable each time.
# Forty-two percent of women studied in a medical study in France said that if they gave birth to a severely deformed baby, they would favor killing the child. Twenty percent said no, and the rest were undecided.
# Certain segments of the church are also not without a positive opinion on the subject of infanticide. A task force of the Anglican Church of Canada reached a conclusion in a 1977 report that it could be morally right to terminate the lives of newborn infants with severe brain damage. The callousness of the report is evident in its phraseology: "Our sense and emotions lead us to the grave mistake of treating human-looking shapes as if they were human, although they lack the least vestige of human behavior and intellect. In fact the only way to treat such defective infants humanely is not to treat them as human." Happily, the general synod of the Anglican Church in Canada did not approve the report, but that such a report came forth from an official group of a major denomination in our day says much about the direction taken by certain segments of the church in regard to infanticide.
[link to www.jeremiahproject.com]
None of the horrors implied by those factoids has come to pass. The slippery slope argument does not work here.
Let me give you an example of why not.
You say that if people are allowed the power to choose death for a class of people in order to pursue some benefit, that we'll be headed down the slippery slope. Well now, do we not execute the worst of our murderers? Yes we do. We (some of us, anyway) believe that it deters future murders.
Do we execute shoplifters? No we do not. Why? Would it not deter shoplifting? No doubt it would! And yet, we haven't slid down that slippery slope. Why not? Because doing so would be monstrous, and we all understand that. You might find a handful of extremist law-and-order types who think it would be a good idea, but they'd never amount to more than a few crackpots.
Slippery slope arguments rely on the inevitability of people succombing to their darker impulses - greed, lust, etc. People do not have an impulse towards infanticide.
Take a look at the death rate in Holland.
15% of deaths are due to euthanasia.
How's that for the slippery slope?
I'll also toss in partial birth abortion as another part of the slope.
Terri Schiavo ring a bell?
In boxing this is called
the duck and weave.
Obviously you are arguing that it is okay for you to insult, smear, defame, and besmrich someone whom you dislike for what you think are insults, smears, and besmirches.
Some people might call that hypocricy. I call that, "typical liberal logic". ;-)
Thanks for the discussion. I'm outa here. Have a great weekend!
- anotheramerican / Friday October 27, 2006 04:59:20 PM EST
Rush IS a drug addict. It's just a fact. Sorry that causes you pain, bud.
...end of the round.
Take care.
when I get a NATIONAL radio show with millions of minion listeners. In the meantime, stop the crap. Until then you have no point.
the likes of mr. limbaugh can sit in air-conditioned studios,high on illegally procured narcotics,and spin tales of hate,terror and deception,while closing their narco-laden eyes to the problems of working men and women of america;he is a type of aperson who would grow marijuana in his spacious bed-rooms ,while asking for tough laws on drugs etc etc;more than 1% of population of usa suffers from parkinson's disease;if we were to cure all these unfortunate persons by finding a cure for them,where would a joker like limbaugh find a fox to ape and ridicule his adversity;these people gloat on working- people's misery and pains ,so they can make millions by puking ugly thoughts on the tubes;any and every thing that is done for poor and unfortunate is considered by these millionaires as attack on their bank-balance,earned on other people's sweat
c.m