Rush Limbaugh is a Big Mean Idiot

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Check out this piece from Canada. Link
Exactly what I have been saying since about page 3 of this thread. If Fox can look "normal" on TV why can't he look "normal" in a TV commercial? Why film the commercial at a time when he movements are at their worse? The ad is very dishonest on so many levels.

As a neurologist with a large number of Parkinson's disease patients, my impression of the video is that Mr. Fox displayed the poorly controlled "choreo-athetotic" movements seen when advanced Parkinson's patients take their medication to turn "on" and emerge from their natural state of rigidity and rest tremor. At some point after taking a pill, a patient's voluntary movements are freed up, without much excess involuntary movement.

The issue, then, is one of timing. Indeed, a few days after his political ad came out, Mr. Fox appeared at a Democratic event in Chicago with his movements under control, a situation he called "ironic." Strangely, however, he seemed unable to appear controlled for a pre-taped TV ad a few days earlier, when the appropriate timing should have been easier, given the possibility of multiple "takes." Lest this all sound too cynical, consider that Mr. Fox admitted in his 2002 autobiography to going off his medication to appear more disabled before a 1999 Senate subcommittee appearance.

Democratic party manipulation appears to go much further. In offering Mr. Fox as a spokesman, they have clearly hoped he would cut a sympathetic figure immune from criticism, and the faux outrage at Mr. Limbaugh's comments seems to confirm this. While Mr. Fox deserves sympathy for this medical plight, he must assume full responsibility for his words and actions when he chooses to enter the political arena. By politicizing a medical issue, he is, in effect, saying that anyone who cares about new treatment hope for Parkinson's disease patients must vote for the the Democratic candidate in Missouri -- not coincidentally, a pivotal state in the upcoming election to control the U.S. Senate.

This is not only unfair, but absurd. Everyone, including Republicans, supports the many new treatments emerging for Parkinson's patients that promise far more immediate application than do stem cells. Republicans also support stem cell research when it comes from ethically sound sources, such as adult tissues and umbilical cord blood. Ironically, these forms of stem cells have had greater success to date than the embryonic-source stem cells lionized in the Michael J. Fox TV ad.

I only hope you have to deal with a disease like he has to someday.. Karma will take care of kooks like you.. enjoy the life you create

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
In ref to your sig, "Prof" Jon.

It seems that your insistence on discussing MJF classifies you as a small-mined individual. I can't see that you are discussing an idea so much as you refer to an individual's choice; whether or not you see it as a politically motivated choice. The choice is about an individual...assuming the motivation behind individual choices is far too subjective to classify such discussion as one about ideas.

In the end, you are discussing a person (the main issue of this thread concerns Rush; and as he is widely accepted (among true conservatives) to have no valid ideas, any discussion relating to him can only amount to discussing him as a person)

In fact, your champion Rush is immune to discussion about motivation. His mind is perpetually influenced by what I like to call the "Rush 8-ball" A clever, and unprecidented mix of oxy, viagra, and underage hookers. How can anyone accurately surmise just what is going on within the grey matter of one under such stimulation?

Actually there is an idea behind all of this. And the idea is that you do not politicize diseases for partisian reasons. You don?t go on TV and make it look as if voting for the candidate you support will result in a cure for whatever ailment you suffer from.

If Fox wants to make a contribution to all of this then he should be out there running issue ads about stem cell research and the like. Not running ads that tug at the heart strings of people and make them feel sorry for him and then ask them to vote for his candidate of choice. Especially when the ads are dishonest. No one opposes stem cell research, some are just against federal funding of certain types of stem cell research.

The idea is that research to cure diseases like Pakison?s is not a Democrat or Republican issue, but an American issue. Sadly, Fox and the Democrats don?t see it that way.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: zinfamous
In ref to your sig, "Prof" Jon.

It seems that your insistence on discussing MJF classifies you as a small-mined individual. I can't see that you are discussing an idea so much as you refer to an individual's choice; whether or not you see it as a politically motivated choice. The choice is about an individual...assuming the motivation behind individual choices is far too subjective to classify such discussion as one about ideas.

In the end, you are discussing a person (the main issue of this thread concerns Rush; and as he is widely accepted (among true conservatives) to have no valid ideas, any discussion relating to him can only amount to discussing him as a person)

In fact, your champion Rush is immune to discussion about motivation. His mind is perpetually influenced by what I like to call the "Rush 8-ball" A clever, and unprecidented mix of oxy, viagra, and underage hookers. How can anyone accurately surmise just what is going on within the grey matter of one under such stimulation?

Actually there is an idea behind all of this. And the idea is that you do not politicize diseases for partisian reasons. You don?t go on TV and make it look as if voting for the candidate you support will result in a cure for whatever ailment you suffer from.

If Fox wants to make a contribution to all of this then he should be out there running issue ads about stem cell research and the like. Not running ads that tug at the heart strings of people and make them feel sorry for him and then ask them to vote for his candidate of choice. Especially when the ads are dishonest. No one opposes stem cell research, some are just against federal funding of certain types of stem cell research.

The idea is that research to cure diseases like Pakison?s is not a Democrat or Republican issue, but an American issue. Sadly, Fox and the Democrats don?t see it that way.

there is nothing dishonest about the MJF Ads.

if more repubs backed stem cell research you will see MJF backing more repubs. Just like he backs Specter.

Rush and Co made this a partisan issue. Sadly, you are too blind to see.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: OrByte
there is nothing dishonest about the MJF Ads.

if more repubs backed stem cell research you will see MJF backing more repubs. Just like he backs Specter.

Rush and Co made this a partisan issue. Sadly, you are too blind to see.

Rush made this a partisan issue? ummm Fox is the one making ads for candidates from one party.

From the MO ad:
Rough Text "Talent opposes the expansion of stem cell research Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us hope"
Truth is that Talent does not oppose stem cell research. He may oppose the use of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but he does not oppose stem cell research. What Fox says is an out right distortion.

From the Maryland ad:
"Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's," Fox says, his voice clear, but his head and body unsteady. "But George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research."
The truth is that Cardin is the only one in either the Missouri race or the Maryland race to vote against stem cell research, he did it as political ploy. But Fox leaves those facts out. Furthermore, Bush does not put limits on the "most promising" stem cell research. Adult stem cell research is FAR more promising than embryonic stem cell research, and no one is opposed to it.

In other words, the Fox ads are totally dishonest. Especially the Maryland one.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Rush made this a partisan issue? ummm Fox is the one making ads for candidates from one party.

This election cycle. In 2004 MJF did a ad for Arlen Specter(R).

 

[Aisengard]

ProfJohn, pretty much everything you just said is either distortion, misdirection, or a flat-out lie.

Adult stem-cells are NOT the most promising, they have limited use and are not considered to be the 'big blow' to diseases such as Parkinsons and Alzheimers. That is reserved for the infinitely more promising embryonic stem cell research. Think of baseball prospects. If you're a Yankees fan, adult stem cell research is like Kris Wilson. Sure he can fill in for a start here and there, but he'll never be a worthwhile pitcher. Embryonic stem cell research is like Philip Hughes, which while as yet unproven, has a very large ceiling for success.

Anyway, embryonic stem cell research is handicapped by lack of federal funding, which goes way beyond simply not giving money to stem-cell research, but not even allowing research to be done in existing science labs. Therefore, it is criminal to study stem cell research in federal-funded science labs. So yes, Talent did vote to criminalize research. Semantics, my friend, you are so prepared to use it against John Kerry, why ignore it here? Adult stem-cell research does not give many people hope.

"Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's," Fox says, his voice clear, but his head and body unsteady.

So medication from Parkinson's disease significantly impedes your ability to speak? That is a troll comment if I ever saw one.

The truth is that Cardin is the only one in either the Missouri race or the Maryland race to vote against stem cell research

Cardin wisely voted against the bogus bill introduced by soon-to-be jobless career GOP ass-licker Rick Santorum. Are you one of those people who still thinks Kerry was a flip-flopper because he voted for that bill, the GOP changed it so it was funded irresponsibly, then on the revote he voted against it? Get a brain. And I mean a real one, not the shriveled mass you currently have in your head.

Adult stem cell research is FAR more promising than embryonic stem cell research, and no one is opposed to it.

Wrongo. And people are opposed to adult stem cell research supplanting embryonic stem cell research, simply because it is NOT more promising.

 

[Agent11]

The republicans are the ones who are trying to gain political capital from this whole deal, they're only screaming 'save the blastocists!' because they want to please their pro life religious right base. . Who have not been too happy with shrub and co I might add.

At least they arent stupid

 

[ProfJohn]

Aisengard, if embryonic are so promising then why is it that adult stem cells have been used in 72 cures so far and embryonic have not been used in one yet? link
Can you explain that to me?

 

[Oblivionaire]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Aisengard, if embryonic are so promising then why is it that adult stem cells have been used in 72 cures so far and embryonic have not been used in one yet? link
Can you explain that to me?

Maybe because it's not legal to use them?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Oblivionaire

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Aisengard, if embryonic are so promising then why is it that adult stem cells have been used in 72 cures so far and embryonic have not been used in one yet? link
Can you explain that to me?

Maybe because it's not legal to use them?

It is legal to use them though. What we don't have is federal funding for them. And because all of the promise is in adult stem cells all the private money is heading that way.
Which is how we got to where we are. Some people want more money used for embryonic stem cell research, and the only place to get that money is the government.
However, Bush is opposed to using federal money for this for religious and moral reasons.
From my limited understanding you have to create and then destroy an embryo in order to carry out this research. And if you are a person who believes that life begins at conception then the idea of creating and destroying thousands of embryos is a pretty awful thing.

If I am wrong and anyone can dispute what I said please do so. But I am rather sure that I have the big picture correct.

 

[Oblivionaire]

ProfJohn, according to wikipedia

"Other states have, or have shown interest in, additional restrictions or even complete bans on embryonic stem cell research. These states include Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Virginia."

Also, when you say that embryos are destroyed in the process, that is untrue of the new method that allows the process to take place without destruction of the embryo. Also, even with the old method the embryos used for research were only those slated for destruction anyway.

 

[Aisengard]

http://www.alsa.org/research/stem_cells.cfm

That's a good article showing the importance of BOTH embryonic and adult stem cell research.

Basically, from what I read adult stem cells are good because they overcome rejection since they come from your own body, and can be cost-effective.

Emrbyonic stem cells are good because they can do everything adult stem cells do, and possibly more, since they grow more readily in culture and can treat diseases adult stem cells cannot hope to treat, such as neural diseases like Parkinson's (hence MJF's support of candidates who support embryonic stem cell research). It may be less cost-effective though, since the embryonic stem cells do have to be genetically modified to avoid rejection, and the research is years behind due to near-total lack of federal funding.

All in all, we should be researching both methods side by side, as they both have their benefits and downsides, and could be used to compliment one another. I feel that once the religious right has lost its strangehold on this society, we can finally fulfill the full medical potential of stem cells, maybe starting in 2006.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Rush made this a partisan issue? ummm Fox is the one making ads for candidates from one party.

This election cycle. In 2004 MJF did a ad for Arlen Specter(R).

He has conveniently ignored this fact. And that no one was bitching after MJF did the ad for Specter. Pure hypocrite.

 

[Oblivionaire]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
http://www.alsa.org/research/stem_cells.cfm

That's a good article showing the importance of BOTH embryonic and adult stem cell research.

Basically, from what I read adult stem cells are good because they overcome rejection since they come from your own body, and can be cost-effective.

Emrbyonic stem cells are good because they can do everything adult stem cells do, and possibly more, since they grow more readily in culture and can treat diseases adult stem cells cannot hope to treat, such as neural diseases like Parkinson's (hence MJF's support of candidates who support embryonic stem cell research). It may be less cost-effective though, since the embryonic stem cells do have to be genetically modified to avoid rejection, and the research is years behind due to near-total lack of federal funding.

All in all, we should be researching both methods side by side, as they both have their benefits and downsides, and could be used to compliment one another. I feel that once the religious right has lost its strangehold on this society, we can finally fulfill the full medical potential of stem cells, maybe starting in 2006.

Did you mean 2008? I fear that it may be too late for the U.S. Other nations are starting to see results from stem cell research (such as the recent BBC report on British scientists growing liver cells from umbilical cord blood)

Liver cells grown from cord blood

If the U.S. falls behind any further in the sciences thanks to the uneducated ignorant masses, we will fall behind economically as well. And we only have ourselves to blame. Oh but I'm sure we'll find a scapegoat in the form of terrorists or some such.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Rush made this a partisan issue? ummm Fox is the one making ads for candidates from one party.

This election cycle. In 2004 MJF did a ad for Arlen Specter(R).

He has conveniently ignored this fact. And that no one was bitching after MJF did the ad for Specter. Pure hypocrite.

Worse than a hypocrite.. heartless piece o crap.. anyone that listens to Rush deserves to be lied to and lobotomized

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Rush made this a partisan issue? ummm Fox is the one making ads for candidates from one party.

This election cycle. In 2004 MJF did a ad for Arlen Specter(R).

He has conveniently ignored this fact. And that no one was bitching after MJF did the ad for Specter. Pure hypocrite.

We already talked about this ad. I does not even mentions stem cell research, it is more about overall research. link

The incumbent touts his role in exponentially increasing research funding for the National Institutes of Health. In one of his latest campaign commercials, actor Michael J. Fox praises the senator for championing medical research.

In the commercial, Fox doesn't specifically mention stem-cell research, but as a Parkinson's Disease sufferer, he most likely approves of the senator's position on that issue.

Get it?
Plus Specter is not exactly a strong Republican, they tried to replace him in the primary ala Liberman, but they couldn't pull it off.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Oblivionaire
ProfJohn, according to wikipedia

"Other states have, or have shown interest in, additional restrictions or even complete bans on embryonic stem cell research. These states include Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Virginia."

Also, when you say that embryos are destroyed in the process, that is untrue of the new method that allows the process to take place without destruction of the embryo. Also, even with the old method the embryos used for research were only those slated for destruction anyway.

ummm Did you notice that the list of states above do NOT include the states where these ads are running?
Would you like to try another argument?

Also the liver they created is through the use of cord stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. Again your argument has no basis in reality.

As it stands Fox's ads mischaracterize the position of both Steele and Talent. And they are totally false in stating that ANYONE is against "the most promising" type of stem cell research. As I have shown the most promising by far is adult stem cells and NO ONE is opposed to that.

 

[theeedude]

If majority of the scientific community comes out and says "We don't need embryonic stem cell research" then I may agree with that. But if it's so called moral leaders doing it, then it holds no water with me. If you are saying that you'd rather discard embryos than harvest them to save lives, you have no moral leg to stand on, especially if you then mock sick people who want that research to happen.

 

[Oblivionaire]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
As it stands Fox's ads mischaracterize the position of both Steele and Talent. And they are totally false in stating that ANYONE is against "the most promising" type of stem cell research. As I have shown the most promising by far is adult stem cells and NO ONE is opposed to that.

ProfJohn are you being sarcastic and trying to get it all wrong or are you really that confused? Do you work in the stem cell research field and are qualified to give an opinion on which are most promising between embryonic and adult stem cells or are you just pulling BS out of your ass?

In the remote case you were serious and are really that ignorant of the issue you might like to read the post of one of our very own Anandtechers who actually DOES work in this field and who vehemently disagrees with you.

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I work with stem cells. No one, who has any experience or actual knowledge of what the data on stem cell research is, will ever claim that adult stem cells are more useful than embryonic. In fact...adult es cells are roundly considered useless within the field. Simply, there is no quicker way to transfer genetic information from one mammalian organism to another (in mice and other rodents) than by producing chimeric organisms from es cells. This may not mean anything to the righties, but that is not surprising. For the large part, they are incapable of forming an objective opinion that is not spoon-fed to them from the talking points of whatever weekly wacked-out fundie blogger they happen to be reading.

Stem cell research has not been banned. Such an act would doom the US into the fringes of scientific research for decades to come, and make us a joke in terms of world credibility. (Well, we are already well on our way...but it would be more so). Dubya signed a bill preventing federal funding for stem cell research, and banning the production of any new lines of human es cells. The 17 or so currently being used are mostly tainted...about 3 are actually useable. They also have a shelf life. Most have passed their expiration date, and the rest will be unusable within 3 years. Bush was in no way seeking the middle ground on his proposal. He seeks to ban such research. Luckily, most of the largest private donors have ponied up and much research can still be done...just not paid for by the feds. Again, the educated are left to fend for themselves in this fascist neo-theocracy.

Bottom line, if you're getting your science information from a politician, (right or left) then you're an idiot. In what way has any of this administration's science-based policies resembled anything approaching sound scientific method or reasoning? Science will be exploited by zealots or others seeking power (on either side) just as any other discipline will. Is Parkinson's disease an apt topic to discuss concerning es cell research? Absolutely. How about Alzheimer's disease? Hell no! While I am glad to see the reagans (talk about criminals) calling out the administration and appealing to the heartstrings of the ignorant throngs of neo-cons by evoking the spirit of "the great Reagan" in support of stem cells, there is absolutely no application for stem cell research regarding alzheimer's disease. The problem with politicians is that to them, negative data means no data...these are the horribly naive talking points that all the idiots who listen to them jump on. It doesn't matter that they have no business understanding real research; as long as they can interpret it how they wish, they should be able to shape economic policy based on their own uninformed idiocy. So...I'm glad that the "holiest" of the neocons, grand-puba reagan's family, are rallying to the stem cell cause to spread awareness. Am I happy that they are mis-representing the use of and validity of the research? Absolutely. All it does is serve to further confuse the allready mis-informed masses. How can any layman expect to form a valid argument on this subject when they are made so ignorant of the realities of the field by those that choose to exploit it?

 

[ProfJohn]

senseamp: As far as I know there has been no push by Bush or other Republicans to BAN embryonic stem cell research, what they oppose is federal spending to support it. And they limit the number of lines being used.

Oblivionaire zinfamous can say anything he wants to say, but the FACTS are that there has not been ONE cure based on embryonic stem cell research, while there have been 72 based on adult stem cells, and this liver break through is based on cord blood stem cells, not embryonic HUGE difference.
Saying embryonic stem cells are the most promising is 'pie in the sky' mentality. Sure it looks like it might be good for a lot of things, then again we may never see any results from it.

All this hype around embryonic stem cell reminds me of the hoopla that surrounded 'cold fusion.' Cold fusion sure sounded like a great idea, tons of energy created in a safe efficient manor, but we may NEVER achieve cold fusion, just like we may NEVER see any worthwhile results from embryonic stem cells. All the promise in the world does not amount to anything if you can create any achievements worth talking about.

 

[Oblivionaire]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Oblivionaire zinfamous can say anything he wants to say, but the FACTS are that there has not been ONE cure based on embryonic stem cell research, while there have been 72 based on adult stem cells, and this liver break through is based on cord blood stem cells, not embryonic HUGE difference.
Saying embryonic stem cells are the most promising is 'pie in the sky' mentality. Sure it looks like it might be good for a lot of things, then again we may never see any results from it.

As well you can say anything you want to say. But he seems more qualified to say it than you.

 

[Pens1566]

And I haven't been attacked ONCE by a tiger since I started carrying my anti-tiger keychain either.

edit: this is in response to PJ's "but the FACTS are that there has not been ONE cure based on embryonic stem cell research" comment.

 

[fskimospy]

This argument is so stupid. First of all, can anyone explain again to me why someone with a disease is wrong for
A.) showing the effects of his disease, and
B.) attempting to elect people who want to cure it?

Secondly the whole argument about whether adult or embryonic stem cells are more effective is stupid too. Say you have a disease, and there are two boxes in front of you. One has a 70% chance of having your cure in it. The other has a 30% chance of having your cure in it. Which one do you open? BOTH. You try all available options that show a reasonable chance of success which BOTH types obviously do.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oblivionaire zinfamous can say anything he wants to say, but the FACTS are that there has not been ONE cure based on embryonic stem cell research, while there have been 72 based on adult stem cells, and this liver break through is based on cord blood stem cells, not embryonic HUGE difference.

Saying embryonic stem cells are the most promising is 'pie in the sky' mentality. Sure it looks like it might be good for a lot of things, then again we may never see any results from it.

The facts of the matter are that adult stem cell research has been occuring for decades while embryonic stem cell research has only been viable for 8 years. Given the nature of research and the time it takes medicines to reach the market, you would expect results like this, especially with the restrictions place upon embryonic stem cell research funding in the US. Attempts to confuse the issue by making bogus scientific sounding assertions to support a religious agenda are simply contemptable. The nature of research means we don't know if any of the current adult stem cell research projects being funded will generate positive results either.

If we knew the outcome of the research for certain ahead of time it wouldn't be research anymore.:roll:

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
but the FACTS are that there has not been ONE cure based on embryonic stem cell research, while there have been 72 based on adult stem cells

Name them. I guarantee you cannot even come up with a fifth of the number you are claiming.

For those who actually care not to be misinformed again by the "professor" see the July 28th copy of Science.