Alex P. Keaton’s Nemesis
October 25, 2006
Rush Limbaugh said what? Is Rush’s answer for everything - take more pills?
The Republican logic never ceases to disgust me. Swift-boating - fine. Talking about one’s illness and politics - not ok. What?
Comments
9 Responses to “Alex P. Keaton’s Nemesis”
Got something to say?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Did you make any effort to look for additional information on this melee? Be fair–the two Limbaugh quotes in this article do not fully represent what was actually said.
I’m well aware that Mr. Limbaugh apologized. It doesn’t make what he said any less troubling.
Am I somehow missing out on some kind of “compassionate conservative” statement that Limbaugh otherwise made about M.J. Fox’s ad?
did he apologize? ( i don’t know)
You might want to actually visit Rush’s website (talk about visiting the enemy’s lair!) and get his stance. Or find a tape of the broadcast. I know that Rush recalled that Fox, when testifying before the Senate years ago about medical research, admitted to appearing before the Senate committee in a purposefully unmedicated state so as to enhance the appearance of his testimony. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with doing it now. Rush also accused Fox of using some factually-untrue statements in the ad. He also pulled the Dixie Chicks accusation out, saying that if you jump in the public debate forum, you are a legitimate target for counter-accusations. No biggie.
That’s all good, but I think it’s messed up for Limbaugh to imply that Fox is trying to “mislead” people when he doesn’t take his meds. There’s nothing misleading or “exaggerating” about showing people what a disease looks like when not on meds.
Hence my comment that perhaps Limbaugh is a little to dependent on dope (in prescription form or otherwise)!
The big arguments are that the Fox ads pass some contested ideas that are not factual and there’s at least one instance where his ad (not sure which state) clearly misrepresents the opponent’s position.
This is one I’ll leave to Factcheck.org, if and when they can get their rearends moving.
As I understand it, it is being claimed as “not factual” because the Republican candidate supports some stem cell research, though Fox is advocating all - even embryonic.
I’m not convinced that that makes Fox’s ad “not factual.”
Why is there always so much passive agressive, agressive (twice the agressiveness) anger in the world. I mean can’t i just say it without being labeled a homosexual or hippie… can’t we all just get along? We should all have a common trust and something to agree on, like Ralph Nader… that would pull this country together!
Surprisinglysoft…are you for real? Unless you have something semi-intelligent to say, take your antics elsewhere…the bums lost! Put down the pipe and pick up a book. Your kind of naive optimism is the kind that can only be found in a ‘04 back issue of HighTimes endorsing RN.
vicious