Rush Limbaugh is a Big Mean Idiot

[Pens1566]

I'll laugh when Talent ends up losing this race because the attention Limbaugh brought to this ad/race. Way to cause a backlash Rush!


Still waiting on lies from the MJF ad for Mckaskill, and for examples of republicans complaining about MJF's ad for Specter. Don't worry, I'll wait.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Still waiting on lies from the MJF ad for Mckaskill, and for examples of republicans complaining about MJF's ad for Specter. Don't worry, I'll wait.

First of all, where and when has McCaskill ever supported the research MJF is advocating? And please, no blog posts or propaganda.

Secondly, since you keep bringing up Arlen Specter, let me put it to rest for you. Specter has been a hefty supporter of stem cell research (as has Rick Santorum, though he gets no credit) for some time. Specter was credited with significantly increasing NIH funding for bio research in this area (though he certainly wasn't alone) and Fox created an ad praising him for both before his re-election campaign in 2004.

If you are trying to draw some kind of line between McCaskill and Specter, forget it. One has a record to back it up, one has nothing but rhetoric and a television commercial.

 

[loup garou]

Katie Couric is interviewing Fox on CBS Evening News tonight, in the promo, he's shaking like in the political ad.

 

[Skyguy]

Almost a shame Fox doesn't mention about Limbaugh's pill addiction, etc.

Wonder if that makes Rush a classic hypocrite for calling the kettle black, except his statements are baseless conjecture. Rush's own "sickness", however, is a fact.


I'm curious what Rush would think/say if someone famous (like Fox) said that he faked his addictions for added publicity, and that he should just get over because it's all in his head. I bet Rush would really appreciate that......guess Limbaugh doesn't practice what he preaches, eh? Such people......not worth the time.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Still waiting on lies from the MJF ad for Mckaskill, and for examples of republicans complaining about MJF's ad for Specter. Don't worry, I'll wait.

First of all, where and when has McCaskill ever supported the research MJF is advocating? And please, no blog posts or propaganda.

Secondly, since you keep bringing up Arlen Specter, let me put it to rest for you. Specter has been a hefty supporter of stem cell research (as has Rick Santorum, though he gets no credit) for some time. Specter was credited with significantly increasing NIH funding for bio research in this area (though he certainly wasn't alone) and Fox created an ad praising him for both before his re-election campaign in 2004.

If you are trying to draw some kind of line between McCaskill and Specter, forget it. One has a record to back it up, one has nothing but rhetoric and a television commercial.

I'm asking for where the lies in the ad are since you and your friends keep bringing them up. Where are they? That she hasn't voted for it? Well that would be a neat trick since she isn't the incumbent or anything. 🙁

Specter is mentioned since no one seemed to mind when MJF did an ad for him in '04. But now that its an ad for a democrat it's not ok. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. Wouldn't expect you to understand.

 

[judasmachine]

all these misstatements, slips, etc. are all intended to make the base react. the next day they'll go publicly retract their statements, but it doesn't matter the damage is done.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
all these misstatements, slips, etc. are all intended to make the base react. the next day they'll go publicly retract their statements, but it doesn't matter the damage is done.

Reminds me astonishingly of the Arab PR strategy. Blame with horns blaring today, apologize in a meek press conference weeks later.

I wonder how these people would feel being compared to them?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
I'm asking for where the lies in the ad are since you and your friends keep bringing them up. Where are they? That she hasn't voted for it? Well that would be a neat trick since she isn't the incumbent or anything. 🙁

MJF says McCaskill "supports his vision" et al. yet she has no record of such. And no one ever takes politicians at face value, and for good reason.

Specter is mentioned since no one seemed to mind when MJF did an ad for him in '04. But now that its an ad for a democrat it's not ok. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. Wouldn't expect you to understand.

To which I specificially responded - Specter has a track record of supporting stem cell research. McCaskill has no such record. Therefore, your pathetic comparison and rhetoric is garbage. You're comparing apples to oranges. Might work with the sheeple, won't work with me.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Pabster
To which I specificially responded - Specter has a track record of supporting stem cell research. McCaskill has no such record. Therefore, your pathetic comparison and rhetoric is garbage. You're comparing apples to oranges. Might work with the sheeple, won't work with me.

Do we have any possible reason to think McCaskill won't support such research??? Even from a pure political calculation perspective, voting against such research would likely ensure McCaskill doesn't make it out of the primary in six years. You seem to be making an utterly absurd agrument that you can only support incumbants because you can't know how anyone without a Congressional record will vote. Its a laughable argument that would prevent any cause from gaining steam since you can argue you don't know what the challenger's actual position will be on any issue once elected.

 

[DealMonkey]

From McCaskill's own site:

"We should be promoting hope for people suffering with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, ALS, spinal cord injuries, and other debilitating diseases. Stem cell research holds the promise of saving lives and alleviating the pain and suffering endured by so many of our people. This initiative enables Missouri doctors and researchers to be at the forefront of lifesaving research and it has my support. When I think about the conversations I have had with a mother whose child suffers from diabetes, or someone caring for a patient with Alzheimer's, it is so clear to me why we need to do everything we can to promote research to help these patients."

Link

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Aegeon
Do we have any possible reason to think McCaskill won't support such research??? Even from a pure political calculation perspective, voting against such research would likely ensure McCaskill doesn't make it out of the primary in six years. You seem to be making an utterly absurd agrument that you can only support incumbants because you can't know how anyone without a Congressional record will vote. Its a laughable argument that would prevent any cause from gaining steam since you can argue you don't know what the challenger's actual position will be on any issue once elected.

That is true, but isn't it only common sense to use a candidate's track record as a prelude to how they might vote in the future?

And how in the world does MJF know McCaskill 'shares his vision' when she has no track record to prove that? Like I said earlier, I guess we are supposed to take that at face value and ask no questions. More hypocrisy from the usual sources.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
From McCaskill's own site:

"We should be promoting hope for people suffering with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, ALS, spinal cord injuries, and other debilitating diseases. Stem cell research holds the promise of saving lives and alleviating the pain and suffering endured by so many of our people. This initiative enables Missouri doctors and researchers to be at the forefront of lifesaving research and it has my support. When I think about the conversations I have had with a mother whose child suffers from diabetes, or someone caring for a patient with Alzheimer's, it is so clear to me why we need to do everything we can to promote research to help these patients."

Link

Thanks for your propaganda post.

What do you expect the candidate to say on their own web site? 😕

 

[DealMonkey]

The stem cell bill currently on the ballot in Missouri is important because it establishes its legality, whereas there have been numerous attempts to criminalize embryonic stem cell research in the state as recently as last year by conservative legislators in the state.

While Missouri?s proposed constitutional amendment would not commit state funds to the science, it would ensure its legality, unleashing private funding and removing a cloud over the research created by repeated state legislative attempts to criminalize it.

Last year, Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt (R), an anti-abortion conservative, opposed a measure pushed by conservative legislators that would have made involvement in the science a felony. Blunt worked to derail the bill because he feared it would cause scientists and the research money backing them to leave the state.

Link

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
From McCaskill's own site:

"We should be promoting hope for people suffering with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, ALS, spinal cord injuries, and other debilitating diseases. Stem cell research holds the promise of saving lives and alleviating the pain and suffering endured by so many of our people. This initiative enables Missouri doctors and researchers to be at the forefront of lifesaving research and it has my support. When I think about the conversations I have had with a mother whose child suffers from diabetes, or someone caring for a patient with Alzheimer's, it is so clear to me why we need to do everything we can to promote research to help these patients."

Link

Thanks for your propaganda post.

What do you expect the candidate to say on their own web site? 😕

What does her opponent's web site say? Not a damned thing that I could find.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The stem cell bill currently on the ballot in Missouri is important because it establishes its legality, whereas there have been numerous attempts to criminalize embryonic stem cell research in the state as recently as last year by conservative legislators in the state.

While Missouri?s proposed constitutional amendment would not commit state funds to the science, it would ensure its legality, unleashing private funding and removing a cloud over the research created by repeated state legislative attempts to criminalize it.

Last year, Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt (R), an anti-abortion conservative, opposed a measure pushed by conservative legislators that would have made involvement in the science a felony. Blunt worked to derail the bill because he feared it would cause scientists and the research money backing them to leave the state.

Link

And that entire piece provides only this one line on McCaskill: McCaskill has made support for embryonic stem cell research a keystone of her campaign, while Talent steadfastly opposes the science on moral grounds.

Is that supposed to prove her support?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Aegeon
Do we have any possible reason to think McCaskill won't support such research??? Even from a pure political calculation perspective, voting against such research would likely ensure McCaskill doesn't make it out of the primary in six years. You seem to be making an utterly absurd agrument that you can only support incumbants because you can't know how anyone without a Congressional record will vote. Its a laughable argument that would prevent any cause from gaining steam since you can argue you don't know what the challenger's actual position will be on any issue once elected.

That is true, but isn't it only common sense to use a candidate's track record as a prelude to how they might vote in the future?

And how in the world does MJF know McCaskill 'shares his vision' when she has no track record to prove that? Like I said earlier, I guess we are supposed to take that at face value and ask no questions. More hypocrisy from the usual sources.

As I've pointed out previously, most of the Congressional stem-cell bills have been do-nothing bills to give the GOP politcal cover on the issue. In fact the last time the GOP brought up a stem-cell bill it was a specifically designed dog-and-pony show designed for maximum veto action by Bush.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The stem cell bill currently on the ballot in Missouri is important because it establishes its legality, whereas there have been numerous attempts to criminalize embryonic stem cell research in the state as recently as last year by conservative legislators in the state.

While Missouri?s proposed constitutional amendment would not commit state funds to the science, it would ensure its legality, unleashing private funding and removing a cloud over the research created by repeated state legislative attempts to criminalize it.

Last year, Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt (R), an anti-abortion conservative, opposed a measure pushed by conservative legislators that would have made involvement in the science a felony. Blunt worked to derail the bill because he feared it would cause scientists and the research money backing them to leave the state.

Link

And that entire piece provides only this one line on McCaskill: McCaskill has made support for embryonic stem cell research a keystone of her campaign, while Talent steadfastly opposes the science on moral grounds.

Is that supposed to prove her support?

It's quite clear who is on what side when it comes to embryonic stem cell research. Your lame attempts to muddy the waters notwithstanding.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's quite clear who is on what side when it comes to embryonic stem cell research. Your lame attempts to muddy the waters notwithstanding.

Yeah, shame on me for looking for facts!

We should just take her at her word.

November 7 is going to be interesting.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
What's more misleading MJF or the self proclaimed King of Conservatism who conviently forgets...

3 ex wives
drug addict
going alone on vacation to a place that specializes in underage hookers with his bottle of Viagra with at least one missing. No I have it wrong Viagra does really come in bottles of 29!

You are a moron, Viagra is a prescription drug, it does not come in bottles of anything. The Doctor decides how many you get, if he wants you can get a bottle of 1.

I know this because I worked for Walgreens and would waste time in the pharmacy acting as a Pharm Tech counting pills and filling prescriptions.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
We do, a viscious attack by an overweight drug addled hypocrite and the shameless support he receives from partisan assholes on the Fringe Right. It's all good though, it's having the opposite effect the Lunatic Fringe on the Right were hoping for.

You complain about a "vicious attack" by launching one of your own on Rush?
Why is what Rush said wrong, but what you just said right?

Aren't all of you with your "drug addict, pill popper, Viagra user, over weight, 3 ex wives, racist commentator" lines doing the kind of thing you are objecting to?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
And yet the idiots only complain when the ad is for a democrat. Not one peep for the Arlen Specter ad in '04. They've all proven that they're nothing but hypocrites.

Post a link to the 04 ad, so we can see or hear it and understand what you are talking about. Or maybe a link to whatever blog you got this information from.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Pabster
And the Rush attacks begin ... diversion, obfuscation, diversion, obfuscation ...

I expect nothing less when the tools have been pulled out of the drawers.

Cry me a river. Rush (and you, and ProfJohn, and innumerable other conservatives with an axe to grind) have come out with both barrels against a man with a crippling, terminal illness, simply because his sentiments aren't yours. Rush is a complete blustering hypocrite, and is in no position to be casting stones at anyone for what he claims are lapses in integrity.

It's sad how shameless and blackhearted the post-Rush/Rove iteration of the Republican party has become. Karl Rove and his late protege Lee Atwater, in particular, have taken away much of the common decency that used to serve as a backstop in political discourse.

Don, reread my comments, I never attacked Fox. All I have done is stated that what Rush said about him being off his meds was in fact right.
And I posted proof of the fact that he goes off his medicine for "dramatic effect" <-- Fox's words, not mine.

BTW: If we think this is bad, wait till 08, apparently this is just the warm up for the 08 election season by the pro-embryonic stem cell research crowd.

It is really sad that we have to politicize diseases now. Use to be a time when disease, like foreign policy was something that we talked about in a bipartisan fashion, not anymore.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is really sad that we have to politicize diseases now. Use to be a time when disease, like foreign policy was something that we talked about in a bipartisan fashion, not anymore.

Indeed, but we have some very evil conservatives out there which are restricting medical research to cure diseases purely in order to satisfy there religious theology. In many cases the politicians have no problem with the embryos created in invitro fertilization being simply thrown away, but continue to block them being used for such vital medical research.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Pens1566
And yet the idiots only complain when the ad is for a democrat. Not one peep for the Arlen Specter ad in '04. They've all proven that they're nothing but hypocrites.

Post a link to the 04 ad, so we can see or hear it and understand what you are talking about. Or maybe a link to whatever blog you got this information from.

It starts at around 3:25

Oh, and as you keep going on about Michael J. Fox going off of his medication -- yes, he has gone off it in the past. But here's the thing about the symptoms he was showing in the commercial: they're from the medication.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is really sad that we have to politicize diseases now. Use to be a time when disease, like foreign policy was something that we talked about in a bipartisan fashion, not anymore.

Indeed, but we have some very evil conservatives out there which are restricting medical research to cure diseases purely in order to satisfy there religious theology. In many cases the politicians have no problem with the embryos created in invitro fertilization being simply thrown away, but continue to block them being used for such vital medical research.

Nice, I can tell you are open minded with you "evil conservatives" line. I guess you are completely ignorant of the fact that embryonic research is going on now, and that as of today NOTHING has been cured because of that research?