Rush Limbaugh is a Big Mean Idiot

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: 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.

Exhibit "A"

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

NOTE to the bomb throwers, notice that Craig made a rational and eloquent statement, and I responded with one of my own. This is called debate, try it some time, you might actually enjoy it.

Yes, your use of the word MORON to describe your opponent is verrrrry eloquent....


You're a phony.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


Next they will roll out an ad with skinny school children and start the ?Republicans want to cut school lunch programs so these kids will go hungry? attack again.

What's wrong with that if they did plan to cut school lunches? (todays republicans would'nt dare but just hypothetical)

Apparently you are unaware that the Democrats did exactly what I said. Made an ad claiming that poor school kids would go hungry if Republicans were elected because the Republicans wanted to reduce the rate of spending increases for the school lunch program. In their twisted logic Democrats called it a "cut" and launched the ad.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: 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.

Exhibit "A"

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

NOTE to the bomb throwers, notice that Craig made a rational and eloquent statement, and I responded with one of my own. This is called debate, try it some time, you might actually enjoy it.

Yes, your use of the word MORON to describe your opponent is verrrrry eloquent....


You're a phony.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well, go look for facts then, no one's stopping you. Yet you seem to be ignoring the candidate's own platforms - even what they say on their own web sites. Allegedly what they stand for, no? As I said, it's obvious who is on which side.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Strk
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.

Thank you for that link, although I had to suffer through 3 mins of Olbermann before hand (thank god for mute)
I don't see how that ad can be compared in any way shape or form to the recent ad.
1. Fox is obviously not off his drugs and looks as if he does not even have Parkinson?s.
2. Fox is talking about biomedical research funding and stating that Specter supports it. He does not even talk about what he suffers from, nor does he leave the impression than some how by supporting Specter you will help Fox become cured.

Fox is within his right to support any candidate and take any position he wants. However, in doing so he is open to criticism, just like every other American.
Like I said before, if we rolled out some poor armless Iraq vet and filmed a commercial talking about how we need to 'stay the course so my sacrifice will not be in vain' The left would so freak out that what we hear about Fox and Rush would be a pin drop.
The left likes to think that certain people deserve 'protected' status. We can't criticize Fox because he has the disease, we can't criticize Sheehan because she lost a son, we can't criticize the NJ wives because they lost husbands, and any time someone violates this rule the left responds by raising hell "How dare you attack Fox." Don't believe me? Just read this thread for proof.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
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?

If you actually cared and read other people's posts in this thread and the other recent one on this subject, I noted that research has occured on the subject. However Bush's policies have crippled federal funding for stem cell research, and even complicated private funding. Many institutions have had to build whole new labs since they risked losing federal funding if they conducted the research in current labs.

Given the draconian restriction on the research and the fact its quite a new field and only really existed since 1998, and its not surprising that we don't have cures for humans yet given how long it takes medical research to typically get there. We have seen dramatic results in animals though during testing. If you talk to scientists who have actually looked at the issue, embryonic stem cell research clearly shows extremely dramatic promise of curing diseases while adult stem cell research is clearly not going to work anytime soon in many of these areas. (In fact one of them has posted in this thread.)

Ultimately I don't see how you can charactorize someone with no problems with embryos from invitro fertilization clinics continuing to get discarded in massive numbers but continues to block embryonic stem cell research as anything but evil. I certainly haven't seen any Congressmen proposing any bills to heavily restrict what invitro fertilization procedures can be used recently, so most of them are taking a clearly morally reprehensible position.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
1. Fox is obviously not off his drugs and looks as if he does not even have Parkinson?s.

Of course Fox is obviously on his drugs in his most recent ads as well.

In case you still don't get it, Fox has now publically said what every medical professional who knows about the subject already knew that his movements in the ad WERE A SIDE EFFECT OF TAKING HIS DRUGS FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE. The way he was acting is not actually caused by the disease itself but by the side effects of drugs for treatment of it.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Strk
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.

Thank you for that link, although I had to suffer through 3 mins of Olbermann before hand (thank god for mute)
I don't see how that ad can be compared in any way shape or form to the recent ad.
1. Fox is obviously not off his drugs and looks as if he does not even have Parkinson?s.
2. Fox is talking about biomedical research funding and stating that Specter supports it. He does not even talk about what he suffers from, nor does he leave the impression than some how by supporting Specter you will help Fox become cured.

Fox is within his right to support any candidate and take any position he wants. However, in doing so he is open to criticism, just like every other American.
Like I said before, if we rolled out some poor armless Iraq vet and filmed a commercial talking about how we need to 'stay the course so my sacrifice will not be in vain' The left would so freak out that what we hear about Fox and Rush would be a pin drop.
The left likes to think that certain people deserve 'protected' status. We can't criticize Fox because he has the disease, we can't criticize Sheehan because she lost a son, we can't criticize the NJ wives because they lost husbands, and any time someone violates this rule the left responds by raising hell "How dare you attack Fox." Don't believe me? Just read this thread for proof.

Bah.... I told you when it started, so quit kvetching!

And stop talking about the medication. He was on it. He said it in an interview today. The symptoms are a side effect of the medication.

The link to the full interview is on the right side of the page.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

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? 😕

I certainly don't expect them to take a side in a controversial debate that they don't intend to back up. Why would she do this? Your doubletalk on this issue is just surreal. It's like suggesting that a pro-choice candidate would mask themselves as pro-life, or vice versa. There are plenty of people who are vehemently opposed to embryonic stem cell research whose vote will presumably be affected by her opinion on this.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
1. Fox is obviously not off his drugs and looks as if he does not even have Parkinson?s.

Of course Fox is obviously on his drugs in his most recent ads as well.

In case you still don't get it, Fox has now publically said what every medical professional who knows about the subject already knew that his movements in the ad WERE A SIDE EFFECT OF TAKING HIS DRUGS FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE. The way he was acting is not actually caused by the disease itself but by the side effects of drugs for treatment of it.

I read what you said, many times since it keeps being repeated. And you know what? I DON'T CARE. Why?

Because Fox can film a TV show and ABC interview and look perfectly normal.
However, for this political ad he decides that it would be better if looks like someone who is suffering the ravaging effects of this disease. Now why would he do that? In order to get sympathy. "Oh, look at poor Michael J. Fox, I can't believe the mean Republican doesn't want him cured, that bastard, let's vote for the Democrat, that way Fox will be normal again."

That is exactly why the ad was filmed and released like it was. IF I am wrong, then explain to me why they would release an ad that shows Fox totally different than in almost every other appearance he makes?

It is very sad that Fox and others suffer the way they do. But pushing false hope and false cures will not solve this problem. Fox would be far better served by filming advocacy ads that supported his belief on certain types of research than in picking sides on this debate.
The only thing he has achieved by going the route he did is to make a lot of Republicans angry at Fox, and a lot of Democrats angry at Rush (like that makes a difference)

BTW: I can?t wait for the next round of MO polls to come out so we can see if there has been any movement.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
1. Fox is obviously not off his drugs and looks as if he does not even have Parkinson?s.

Of course Fox is obviously on his drugs in his most recent ads as well.

In case you still don't get it, Fox has now publically said what every medical professional who knows about the subject already knew that his movements in the ad WERE A SIDE EFFECT OF TAKING HIS DRUGS FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE. The way he was acting is not actually caused by the disease itself but by the side effects of drugs for treatment of it.

I read what you said, many times since it keeps being repeated. And you know what? I DON'T CARE. Why?

Because Fox can film a TV show and ABC interview and look perfectly normal.
However, for this political ad he decides that it would be better if looks like someone who is suffering the ravaging effects of this disease. Now why would he do that? In order to get sympathy. "Oh, look at poor Michael J. Fox, I can't believe the mean Republican doesn't want him cured, that bastard, let's vote for the Democrat, that way Fox will be normal again."

That is exactly why the ad was filmed and released like it was. IF I am wrong, then explain to me why they would release an ad that shows Fox totally different than in almost every other appearance he makes?

It is very sad that Fox and others suffer the way they do. But pushing false hope and false cures will not solve this problem. Fox would be far better served by filming advocacy ads that supported his belief on certain types of research than in picking sides on this debate.
The only thing he has achieved by going the route he did is to make a lot of Republicans angry at Fox, and a lot of Democrats angry at Rush (like that makes a difference)

BTW: I can?t wait for the next round of MO polls to come out so we can see if there has been any movement.

If you think the way Fox appears on that ABC interview is perfectly normal, I wish you a miserable death.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
1. Fox is obviously not off his drugs and looks as if he does not even have Parkinson?s.

Of course Fox is obviously on his drugs in his most recent ads as well.

In case you still don't get it, Fox has now publically said what every medical professional who knows about the subject already knew that his movements in the ad WERE A SIDE EFFECT OF TAKING HIS DRUGS FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE. The way he was acting is not actually caused by the disease itself but by the side effects of drugs for treatment of it.

I read what you said, many times since it keeps being repeated. And you know what? I DON'T CARE. Why?

Because Fox can film a TV show and ABC interview and look perfectly normal.
However, for this political ad he decides that it would be better if looks like someone who is suffering the ravaging effects of this disease. Now why would he do that? In order to get sympathy. "Oh, look at poor Michael J. Fox, I can't believe the mean Republican doesn't want him cured, that bastard, let's vote for the Democrat, that way Fox will be normal again."

That is exactly why the ad was filmed and released like it was. IF I am wrong, then explain to me why they would release an ad that shows Fox totally different than in almost every other appearance he makes?

It is very sad that Fox and others suffer the way they do. But pushing false hope and false cures will not solve this problem. Fox would be far better served by filming advocacy ads that supported his belief on certain types of research than in picking sides on this debate.
The only thing he has achieved by going the route he did is to make a lot of Republicans angry at Fox, and a lot of Democrats angry at Rush (like that makes a difference)

BTW: I can?t wait for the next round of MO polls to come out so we can see if there has been any movement.

This is completely moronic, and belies your claim, above, that you're not attacking Fox. You're calling him a liar in spite of the fact he looks essentially the same in the GMA clip and in the ad.

If you're going to be a snake, be honest with yourself about it. Don't be a jerk AND a coward.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is completely moronic, and belies your claim, above, that you're not attacking Fox. You're calling him a liar in spite of the fact he looks essentially the same in the GMA clip and in the ad.

If you're going to be a snake, be honest with yourself about it. Don't be a jerk AND a coward.

How am I attacking Fox? Pointing out that he looks different in the ad than in every appearance is not an attack.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Art Vandelay
If you think the way Fox appears on that ABC interview is perfectly normal, I wish you a miserable death.

I think we are talking about two different ABC interviews, the one I mention is the one from the TV show insideEdition. If there is a newer one then I have not seen it.
Look at him on Boston Legal, looks nearly "normal" So obviously they can find a way to film around his symptoms, why didn't that do that for this TV ad? What is the point of making him look the way he did?

Answer that question instead of attacking me.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is completely moronic, and belies your claim, above, that you're not attacking Fox. You're calling him a liar in spite of the fact he looks essentially the same in the GMA clip and in the ad.

If you're going to be a snake, be honest with yourself about it. Don't be a jerk AND a coward.

How am I attacking Fox? Pointing out that he looks different in the ad than in every appearance is not an attack.

You're calling him a liar. Do you not even read your own posts?

Because Fox can film a TV show and ABC interview and look perfectly normal. However, for this political ad he decides that it would be better if looks like someone who is suffering the ravaging effects of this disease.

There is simply nothing more pathetic to me than an adult (or at least someone who purports to be one) who can't even admit that he's being an asshole.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Art Vandelay
If you think the way Fox appears on that ABC interview is perfectly normal, I wish you a miserable death.

I think we are talking about two different ABC interviews, the one I mention is the one from the TV show insideEdition. If there is a newer one then I have not seen it.
Look at him on Boston Legal, looks nearly "normal" So obviously they can find a way to film around his symptoms, why didn't that do that for this TV ad? What is the point of making him look the way he did?

Answer that question instead of attacking me.

They can also make it look like Superman can fly - that doesn't mean that the actor who plays him has to fly in every PSA. It's absurd to conclude anything from a tightly-edited TV show, if he was playing a character NOT ravaged by disease.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: 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.

I'm not comparing Specter to anyone you retard. I'm asking where was all the bitching and moaning about MJF politicizing his condition when it was to benefit a republican. It isn't ok to question him only when he's doing it for a democrat. Can you understand that??? I can use smaller words if you like, but I don't think the forum has pop-up pictures so you might be out of luck.

 

[ProfJohn]

Don, I think we shall have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I think Fox appeared the way he did in the ad for maximum effect as it were, you don't. We may never know who is right, unless someone asks Fox that question.

In the long run I don't think this ad will be effective. Most of the publicity is aimed at either Rush, or whether or not stem cell research is going on or not.

I am not sure how Talent gets tied to the Rush comments.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Don, I think we shall have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I don't know why I'd want to be that civil, given your entirely uncivil treatment of a very sick man. I don't respect your position, and your unwillingness to acknowledge the mean spirit behind your comment means I can't really respect you either. You're a person who claims to support the troops and the war in Iraq, but could never be bothered to serve. You're a person who claims to be outraged about gay activists outing congressional staffers, in spite of the fact you've done the same thing yourself. You're also a person who can spread vicious innuendo about a terminally ill man and won't even admit he's doing it. In short, you're a hypocrite and, IMO, a very small man indeed.

So I think it's time to find out: who were you before you were banned?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Art Vandelay
If you think the way Fox appears on that ABC interview is perfectly normal, I wish you a miserable death.

I think we are talking about two different ABC interviews, the one I mention is the one from the TV show insideEdition. If there is a newer one then I have not seen it.
Look at him on Boston Legal, looks nearly "normal" So obviously they can find a way to film around his symptoms, why didn't that do that for this TV ad? What is the point of making him look the way he did?

Answer that question instead of attacking me.

Oh, I am not attacking you, I just wish you a miserable death.

God news for you: bullets don't kill in tv shows. I know! Amazing! Those actors should be the ones we send to Iraq!

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
1. Fox is obviously not off his drugs and looks as if he does not even have Parkinson?s.

Of course Fox is obviously on his drugs in his most recent ads as well.

In case you still don't get it, Fox has now publically said what every medical professional who knows about the subject already knew that his movements in the ad WERE A SIDE EFFECT OF TAKING HIS DRUGS FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE. The way he was acting is not actually caused by the disease itself but by the side effects of drugs for treatment of it.

The more "Prof" John keeps repeating this lame ass talking point from Rush about Fox being "off his meds," despite being proven wrong about a billion times now, the more ignorant he looks. Let him keep doing it!

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Don, I think we shall have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I don't know why I'd want to be that civil, given your entirely uncivil treatment of a very sick man. I don't respect your position, and your unwillingness to acknowledge the mean spirit behind your comment means I can't really respect you either. You're a person who claims to support the troops and the war in Iraq, but could never be bothered to serve. You're a person who claims to be outraged about gay activists outing congressional staffers, in spite of the fact you've done the same thing yourself. You're also a person who can spread vicious innuendo about a terminally ill man and won't even admit he's doing it. In short, you're a hypocrite and, IMO, a very small man indeed.

So I think it's time to find out: who were you before you were banned?

:thumbsup:😀

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I read what you said, many times since it keeps being repeated. And you know what? I DON'T CARE. Why?

Because Fox can film a TV show and ABC interview and look perfectly normal.
However, for this political ad he decides that it would be better if looks like someone who is suffering the ravaging effects of this disease. Now why would he do that? In order to get sympathy. "Oh, look at poor Michael J. Fox, I can't believe the mean Republican doesn't want him cured, that bastard, let's vote for the Democrat, that way Fox will be normal again."

That is exactly why the ad was filmed and released like it was. IF I am wrong, then explain to me why they would release an ad that shows Fox totally different than in almost every other appearance he makes?

It is very sad that Fox and others suffer the way they do. But pushing false hope and false cures will not solve this problem. Fox would be far better served by filming advocacy ads that supported his belief on certain types of research than in picking sides on this debate.
The only thing he has achieved by going the route he did is to make a lot of Republicans angry at Fox, and a lot of Democrats angry at Rush (like that makes a difference)

BTW: I can?t wait for the next round of MO polls to come out so we can see if there has been any movement.

Dude, your ignorance of Parkinson's is amazing! The only reason you can't shut up about this ad is because of how bad it makes the GOP candidates look and how this issue is coming back to bite the GOP in the ass. In other words, you're ticked off because it's an effective ad and the miserable GOP candidates can't put together an ad that matches its effectiveness.

Weak.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is completely moronic, and belies your claim, above, that you're not attacking Fox. You're calling him a liar in spite of the fact he looks essentially the same in the GMA clip and in the ad.

If you're going to be a snake, be honest with yourself about it. Don't be a jerk AND a coward.

How am I attacking Fox? Pointing out that he looks different in the ad than in every appearance is not an attack.

You're accusing him of faking it and/or exaggerating. That's an attack.

 

[dahunan]

Who fcking cares..

Bush pretended he was a Christian to get votes

Cheney has a homosexual daughter and slams gays so he can get votes

Rush faked like he wasn't a DRUG ADDICT for years and years and talked trash about drug users like himself - He was also caught on vacation in a country known for terrible child sex trade and terrible prostitution problems with a bottle of VIAGRA THAT HE TRIED TO HIDE

Anyone who defends Rush Limbaugh should go straight to hell.. Any self-proclaimed Christian or even religious person who defends a creep like Rush should also burn extra slow... He should have removed himself from the radio in deep disgrace.. yet you all just suck on his cock like he was your king