What's everyone think about the MJ Fox deal and R. Limbaugh?

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. What's everyone think about the MJ Fox deal and R. Limbaugh?


    Just catching glimpses of the ordeal but it's basically coming down to whether or not Fox was exaggerating his illness for politics and whether or not Limbaugh should of made the statement he did.

    My take? Fox has the disease and will most likely die regardless if they find a cure or not so the research will benefit someone hopefully. I don't know if he overdid his symptoms but if it were me and I had a voice loud enough to make a difference for those who couldn't get the care I did, I would have no problem doing just that.



  2. I'm not sure I've got this right, but the way I understand it is that when MJ Fox testified before Congress asking for stem cell research, that he purposly did not take his medication beforehand, so that his symptoms would be more pronounced during his testimony. I believe he has admitted to doing this.

    I think Limbaugh was more or less saying if he'd done it before, maybe he was doing the same thing again.
    •   
       


  3. Yeah, even if he did it's not like he's faking the disease and those less fortunate to have the medical aid he has would probably function just like he did. He'll even probably die from the disease.

    So did he overstate his problems to help move along research? yeah but does this cover up the central theme he was trying to get across?

    Just asking.

  4. I think he did it with good intentions, but when it comes out it blows his credibility. I don't pay much attention to him anyway, but, I think anything else he says now would be suspect.

  5. MJF is an actor, so actors act a certain way to express a point. The man has a disease and wants to be cured of it. He is really just trying to improve his position in life to follow his dreams and live long enough to make sure his children can do the same. I can't imagine why anyone would not want him to achieve that goal.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by RedwolfWV
    I'm not sure I've got this right, but the way I understand it is that when MJ Fox testified before Congress asking for stem cell research, that he purposly did not take his medication beforehand, so that his symptoms would be more pronounced during his testimony. I believe he has admitted to doing this.

    I think Limbaugh was more or less saying if he'd done it before, maybe he was doing the same thing again.
    Doesn't the medication make you more shakey, for want of a better word? That's why he didn't take it before filming during the last series of Spin City

  7. Not taking his medicine to display the true nature of his disease is nothing but honest. Rush should have just taken some oxy's and stayed out of it. Perhaps it is possible that MJF exaggerated to some degree, so what? He has the disease and anybody that has witnessed it in other people knows what it looks like. He didn't make the #$%@ up. Rush of all people knows how to exaggerate the facts, let alone get creative with fiction.

    Think about it, if you were trying to show people your condition (one you hope can be treated in the future thanks to stem cell research) would you do everything you can to look normal and hide all of the symptoms??

    TSC

  8. Just watched it and I don't think he was acting, if you look at a few of the other videos of him in an interview he'll start having involentary movements within minutes. Whether or not he had taken his medication...who cares? It get's the point across.

  9. I was just watching his interview w/ Katie Couric and he stated it was more of a case of over-medication. A condition called Descinasea (sp??), which results in the slow-rocking motion. I honestly think it is entirely pitiful for Rush Limbaugh of all people to accuse Michael J. Fox of faking his condition.

  10. You said what I was thinking 100% TSC. When I go to the doc I overstate the condition just enough so I know it won't be ignored.

  11. Yep, he HAS Parkinson's and you can't take that away from him. Rush is just being Rush..and that's to say an apalling huckster who's living is made by making a stink.

    It's just pathetic that in this day and age, people would stoop to question the veracity of a dying man..and in such a classless way.
  12. Smile


    Quote Originally Posted by bioman
    Yep, he HAS Parkinson's and you can't take that away from him. Rush is just being Rush..and that's to say an apalling huckster who's living is made by making a stink.

    It's just pathetic that in this day and age, people would stoop to question the veracity of a dying man..and in such a classless way.
    Rush has a disease as well, he suffers from chronic A*s*s*holism, and its not pretty. Unfortunately, there is no cure except death. He needs our love and understanding, just don't accept anything he says as a true opinion because its really just the disease talking.
    Sadly his condition is exasperated by exposure to any broadcst medium.

  13. I know your going to get me for this jayhawk but WTF! I think it was best , If he would have takin his meds it would have masked his problems. I think they need to seethe truth of problem. And as for Rush , I won't even waste the time. OK let me have it Jayhawk!!

  14. Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    Rush has a disease as well, he suffers from chronic A*s*s*holism, and its not pretty. Unfortunately, there is no cure except death. He needs our love and understanding, just don't accept anything he says as a true opinion because its really just the disease talking.
    Sadly his condition is exasperated by exposure to any broadcst medium.
    LOL...and whats the sickness called where people actually hang on his every dispicable word?

  15. Quote Originally Posted by zbtboy
    LOL...and whats the sickness called where people actually hang on his every dispicable word?
    I believe the latin name is Gullabulus Douchebagus

  16. Everyone knows he has Parkinson's and admitting to not take his medication to induce a more dramatic effect isn't the most honest things to do when you are trying to effect an election. Its just as bad as the fear tactics used by the Republicans to play on voters emotions. Yes he is trying to find a cure but even the latest studies show that in Parkinson's disease that embyonic cells caused brain tumors but they won't tell you that.

    What I also find disturbing is the ad implies that Jim Talent doens't care about Fox and/or research which is also misleading. Talent is against the federal government FUNDING embryonic stem cell research. He is in favor of adult stem cell research and/or the private sector further enhancing research but he doesnt want the federal government to fund a research method in which many people believe its cloning human embryos for their "parts".

    So when it comes down to it he is supporting a research method which has shown almost zero advantages in his particular disease, is severely challenged by those who view this as cloning human embryos for their parts, and wants the federal government, not the private sector, to fund it.

    Do you want your tax dollars going to a research method like this? That's the question and its a tough answer because you have a financial and a moral question to answer for you to really make the decision.

    IMO I don't know. For all the reading I have done I simply don't know and in my case I wouldn't pass a law if I was that unsure.

    I see a lot of truth in what Rush said because its based on words that Fox has used himself and admitting to using these tactice but he could have done it in a much less abrasive way. The gyrations he mimicked are way over the top.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  17. When he dies will they say he is just acting?

  18. Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    MJF is an actor, so actors act a certain way to express a point. The man has a disease and wants to be cured of it. He is really just trying to improve his position in life to follow his dreams and live long enough to make sure his children can do the same. I can't imagine why anyone would not want him to achieve that goal.
    I agree, but the problem I see is running an ad that implies, "If you vote for Talent, Parkinson's won't be cured and since he doen'st support embyonic (which they don't mention) stem cell research that he doens't care". Playing on the emotions of lawmakers for a political agenda (a $6 billion dollar political agenda in wihch the tax payers will fund) isn't always the wisest of moves. I just wish he could have said "embryonic" stem cell research and brought in the federal funding part.

    I don't think anyone in their right mind doens't want him to be cured and to imply otherwise with a political ad doens't sit right with me. THis is why people hate politics and polticians.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by ryano
    When he dies will they say he is just acting?
    What point does that make?

    Is it wrong to doubt him because he has Parkinson's? Is it off limits to bring up the fact that Fox admits to manipuling his meds to get a dramatic effect?

    Thats how we went to war. Playing on emotions and lack of evidence in which both are present in abundance on this issue.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    What point does that make?

    Is it wrong to doubt him because he has Parkinson's? Is it off limits to bring up the fact that Fox admits to manipuling his meds to get a dramatic effect?

    Thats how we went to war. Playing on emotions and lack of evidence in which both are present in abundance on this issue.
    I agree with alot of the issues you brought up. I do believe using peoples emotions to push a political agenda is a careless approach. However I also believe that this is an effect to push his real reason for doing the ad.

    What did you mean by "Is it wrong to doubt him because he has Parkinson's?" Doubt his reasons for doing the ad? Or not taking his meds or possibly overacting his condition? Maybe $$?

    As far as manipulating his meds...I believe ( I might be wrong..please correct if I am) he admitted to NOT taking his meds so people realise the debillatating(spell) effect of this disease.

    Comparing the war to stem cell research is like comparing apples to oranges. As far as the lack of evidence that is not present...I believe that is what the research is for.

    In short I guess the point I was trying to make is one that has been already stated by everyone else. Just in a different way. It doesnt matter if he is dramatising his condition or not. This man and others have a deadly disease that can be possibly be cured by research that is being held back and will possibly continue too by a certain candidate.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by ryano
    I agree with alot of the issues you brought up. I do believe using peoples emotions to push a political agenda is a careless approach. However I also believe that this is an effect to push his real reason for doing the ad.

    What did you mean by "Is it wrong to doubt him because he has Parkinson's?" Doubt his reasons for doing the ad? Or not taking his meds or possibly overacting his condition? Maybe $$?

    As far as manipulating his meds...I believe ( I might be wrong..please correct if I am) he admitted to NOT taking his meds so people realise the debillatating(spell) effect of this disease.

    Comparing the war to stem cell research is like comparing apples to oranges. As far as the lack of evidence that is not present...I believe that is what the research is for.

    In short I guess the point I was trying to make is one that has been already stated by everyone else. Just in a different way. It doesnt matter if he is dramatising his condition or not. This man and others have a deadly disease that can be possibly be cured by research that is being held back and will possibly continue too by a certain candidate.

    Actually, no he specifically stated he did not take them in front of Congress to have a more dramatic effect.

    See I think it DOES matter if he is trying to dramatize the issue especially when he is not being completely honest in his message. If he actually stated what Talent's position was, actually identified embryonic stem cell research, then my only problem is if he didn't take his meds to get a more dramatic effect because when it comes to judicial law, your lawmakers should not pass and/or reject laws based on emotion. There has to be some sort of logical debate and exchange of facts and there isn't anything close to that with his ad.

    Yes he does have a deadly disease but where does he mention that is will cost $6 billion dollars in federal funds in which all taxpayers will pay for? Did he mention the cure is probably at least 15-20 years away and that the current research on embryonic stem cell cells for Parkinson's showed it actually HURT the condition?

    What did you mean by "Is it wrong to doubt him because he has Parkinson's?" Doubt his reasons for doing the ad? Or not taking his meds or possibly overacting his condition? Maybe $$?
    It means that people automatically assume there is no truth in what Rush says and let their sympathy for an illness blind them to the facts of the amendment.

    Comparing the war and this is not apples and oranges because its the same political tactic used. Play on your emotions to achieve a political agenda. You don't get an 80% approval rating of going to war by the general public if you aren't pulling the emotional strings. In this case, use a victim to get your point across because if you even criticize him you look like an a$$hole. They played it, and the public opinion, very well.

    Everyone wants a cure, nobody wants to see him die, but to some people you are funding research that is basically cloning for the body parts and that isn't even mentioned. It also implies that if you don't believe in stem cell research then you don't care and that's wrong. This is pure politics and the exploitation of a disease and victim to get a law passed. It just doesn't sit well with me. They do the same on the other side when they have these doom and gloom war ads. Both sides take it to far.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    I was just watching his interview w/ Katie Couric and he stated it was more of a case of over-medication. A condition called Descinasea (sp??), which results in the slow-rocking motion. I honestly think it is entirely pitiful for Rush Limbaugh of all people to accuse Michael J. Fox of faking his condition.
    I agree, it's more than a bit ironic when you think about it. If Fox was faking, at least it was for a cause other than his next fix.

    In the end though, who gives a **** about whether Limbaugh was an ******* or Fox was exagerating his symptoms? Isn't the real issue the legislation/politicians in question and what it/they will and will not do?

  23. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    What point does that make?

    Is it wrong to doubt him because he has Parkinson's? Is it off limits to bring up the fact that Fox admits to manipuling his meds to get a dramatic effect?

    Thats how we went to war. Playing on emotions and lack of evidence in which both are present in abundance on this issue.
    I certainly agree with the lack of fact based debates in politics. Playing on emotions is all that seems to work unfortunately. However, I don't find MJF's actions offensive, as I don't consider not taking one's medicine as "manipulating" them. The medicine only controls some of the symptoms, it is certainly not a cure. If you want to demonstrate the condition, doing it while controlling the symptoms is pointless. Whether or not you find the message appropriate is a different story. I find Bush more offensive after his veto, as he did the obligatory 'surround myself with kids' photo op to give the fake appearance that he is saving the babies. The embryos that are not used are rarily ever "adopted" out as the donors more often that not don't want them to be adopted out and would rather them go to research. In addition, most considering adopting want a baby or young child as they can't or don't want to go through the pregnancy.

    My problem with not allowing federal funds is that often this is the only source for funding. This doesn't just cover stem cell research, but research in general. If there is a huge commericial potential or enough public interest in something, the funding MAY be available from the private sector. The money for "basic research" needs to be there. There is no telling what will come out of it, and when congress gets involved the end result is never good. People will easily protest research done on animals, with stem cells etc. etc. However, these same people will be more than happy to benefit from the end result is a cure is found. I think people would think differently on the issue if laws were passed to forbid any public funding for treatment with any medicines or therapies that have come out of research that public funds were not allowed for.

    TSC

  24. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    In the end though, who gives a **** about whether Limbaugh was an ******* or Fox was exagerating his symptoms? Isn't the real issue the legislation/politicians in question and what it/they will and will not do?
    And playing on the emotions of the public makes them forget that and gets someone elected.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by tsc
    I certainly agree with the lack of fact based debates in politics. Playing on emotions is all that seems to work unfortunately. However, I don't find MJF's actions offensive, as I don't consider not taking one's medicine as "manipulating" them. The medicine only controls some of the symptoms, it is certainly not a cure. If you want to demonstrate the condition, doing it while controlling the symptoms is pointless. Whether or not you find the message appropriate is a different story. I find Bush more offensive after his veto, as he did the obligatory 'surround myself with kids' photo op to give the fake appearance that he is saving the babies. The embryos that are not used are rarily ever "adopted" out as the donors more often that not don't want them to be adopted out and would rather them go to research. In addition, most considering adopting want a baby or young child as they can't or don't want to go through the pregnancy.
    Yes but its ultimately up the parents of the extra embryos what is to be done with them. Then you go into the area of "is an embryo a human person" and what is and where does the essence of life originate? Do the parents have the right to authorize such research on embryos? Some major questions that should be answered by people that can actually debate the topic, not an emotional ad to sway public opinion.

    My problem with not allowing federal funds is that often this is the only source for funding. This doesn't just cover stem cell research, but research in general. If there is a huge commercial potential or enough public interest in something, the funding MAY be available from the private sector. The money for "basic research" needs to be there. There is no telling what will come out of it, and when congress gets involved the end result is never good. People will easily protest research done on animals, with stem cells etc. etc. However, these same people will be more than happy to benefit from the end result is a cure is found. I think people would think differently on the issue if laws were passed to forbid any public funding for treatment with any medicines or therapies that have come out of research that public funds were not allowed for.
    Well, many of the companies that will benefit form the federal government funding such studies are pouring money into to getting these bills passed. Why? Because they make money. There is a huge industry for this in the private sector as you already see in England and Japan. I think there is also some wording in this amendment would could be a loophole for human cloning as the definition is somewhat vague in this bill. I haven't seen it though.

    So you really have one extreme not agreeing because of their moral and ethical values and youhave some very large corporations that want to fund such research because the profits are enormous. So either way, its a tough decision that should not be swayed by emotion IMO.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by tsc
    I find Bush more offensive after his veto, as he did the obligatory 'surround myself with kids' photo op to give the fake appearance that he is saving the babies. The embryos that are not used are rarily ever "adopted" out as the donors more often that not don't want them to be adopted out and would rather them go to research. In addition, most considering adopting want a baby or young child as they can't or don't want to go through the pregnancy.
    What would you find more offensive, someone holding their moral ground and not profiting from it, or companies pouring money into getting this bill passed so they could make enormous profits if and when their is a cure?

    Just curious.

    I think both are wrong so it doens't matter to me.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    What would you find more offensive, someone holding their moral ground and not profiting from it, or companies pouring money into getting this bill passed so they could make enormous profits if and when their is a cure?

    Just curious.

    I think both are wrong so it doens't matter to me.
    Could you clarify this? What do you mean by holding their moral ground? by 'pouring money into ...bill' do you mean in political donations, payoffs, advertising?? I'd be happy to answer... just not sure exactly what you are asking. Perhaps an example for each, as I can see a couple different ways to read what you were asking??

    until then, your other quote :

    Yes but its ultimately up the parents of the extra embryos what is to be done with them. Then you go into the area of "is an embryo a human person" and what is and where does the essence of life originate? Do the parents have the right to authorize such research on embryos? Some major questions that should be answered by people that can actually debate the topic, not an emotional ad to sway public opinion.

    My view on this is it from a legal standpoing, creating an embryo in this fashion is perfectly legal. Since multiple embryos are developed and rarely all are used, extras are made. This is fine. However, if using these for research is considered wrong, than why is destroying them acceptable? If this is destroying a life, then are the "parents" required to go through X amount of pregnancies so that they all develope?? Should it be illegal to destroy them, and then they must be required to be stored until some other couple wants to use them? As the "parent" must you be forced to allow some other couple to use your creation since you don't want any more children? What is the appropriate use for these unused embryos? As to your last line, therein lies the problem: Those questions, and that debate will never be handled without emotions as much of the "when life starts" question is tied into religious and moral view (which of course vary widely among "believers" themselves). That said, I agree I would much rather see the removal of all emotional pleas from politics and everything else for that matter. If critical thinking was given a little more (ok, a hell of a lot more) attention in our education system this might be more of a possibility. In all reality though, where in the world is anything presented to the masses done so in a cut and dry fact based fashion?? Its human nature to only see the presentation and not the intention.

    Here's one for you: Which is worse; A politician votes against his moral views to allow this research because his constituents support it (in the majority at least). or This same man votes against the research for due to his moral issues, but later benefits from the research in any form (financial from stocks, medical treatment for himself of family members etc.).??

    TSC

  28. No where in the ad does Fox mention anything about embryonic stem cell research. He does mention stem cell research. Is this entire 6 billion dollar budget going towards just "embryonic" stem cell research or stem cell research in general?

    I also wonder how much of our tax dollars will be saved as a result of the 200 or plus diseases that can be treated or cured with this research. How many new jobs will this create. How many people sitting around at home collecting our tax dollars will be able to return to work?

  29. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    What would you find more offensive, someone holding their moral ground and not profiting from it, or companies pouring money into getting this bill passed so they could make enormous profits if and when their is a cure?

    Just curious.

    I think both are wrong so it doens't matter to me.
    Manipulating people's emotions for anything is offensive. It happens to be the most effective method for achieving political goals. I don't have to look any further than my ex-wife to prove it.

    I thought that there was some research on molecular manipulation of adipose tissue(fat) to retrieve stem cells from a less "morally conflicting" source. Perhaps they could create a temporary" phase I type" rule : whereas they would permit the use of "embryonic" tissue until the "fat cell" method evolves to fruition?
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. What do you think about The Singularity?
    By TheDarkHalf in forum General Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-01-2011, 06:14 PM
  2. what does everyone think about testopro plus DAA plus SARM?
    By schwellington in forum Supplements
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 08-26-2010, 02:24 PM
  3. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-07-2008, 11:33 PM
  4. What do you guys think about the new stimulant x
    By Kirkatis in forum Supplements
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-12-2007, 08:18 AM
  5. What you guys think about the WEC?
    By pistonpump in forum MMA
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-02-2007, 08:51 AM
Log in
Log in