Rush Limbaugh/Michael J. Fox

[Lord Mhoram]

Bill and Hillary Clinton, both of whom he makes fun of, are definitely easy targets, so it's encouraging that he pokes fun at both of them. Bush he tools on incessants. I think Stewart was struck with Senator Kerry's inability to inspire, and his stiffness, much like Vice-President Gore circa 2000. But everybody knows which party Jon Stewart would rather see in control in Washington.

If, however, the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress, and/or the presidency, I can't wait to see what Stephen Colbert will have to say.

[Cail]

Heh, yeah Colbert will have massive fun with that.

[spacemonkey]

Indeed Colbert will, and Rush bitching the entire way.......

[sgt.null]

let us see.

Michael J Fox has a serious illness that is life altering, that he did nothing to get.

Rush Limbaugh is a junkie who should still be in prison for scrip shopping. and may have gone deaf beccause of his drug habit.

Rush is still an asshole. who had some unregistered viagra on his way to vacation.

[spacemonkey]

let us see.

Michael J Fox has a serious illness that is life altering, that he did nothing to get.

Rush Limbaugh is a junkie who should still be in prison for scrip shopping. and may have gone deaf beccause of his drug habit.

Rush is still an asshole. who had some unregistered viagra on his way to vacation.

YOW!!!! THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! I still can't stand Rush, he's STILL an asshole for attacking Mike Fox!! At least Fox is legit, his scrips are his own..........

[Kil Tyme]

Rush Limbaugh is a junkie who should still be in prison for scrip shopping. and may have gone deaf beccause of his drug habit.

Wow, if you are truely a compassionate man then you should feel sorry for Rush and feel sad what he is going through...you should want to hug him and help him...

hahah ok I can't say that with a straight face...

[Cail]

Addiction is a disease for everyone except Conservatives.

[Lord Mhoram]

[spacemonkey]

Addiction is a disease for everyone except Conservatives.

[sgt.null]

Addiction is a disease for everyone except Conservatives.

well it was Rush who himself was against the idea of addiction being a disease. he was all for locking up addicts and throwing away the key until he was caught buying drugs ilegally. and let's remember, he wasn't only an addict, a no good junkie, he had his housekeeper buying the dope.

[spacemonkey]

Typical conservative, let someone else take the fall for you.......Really lame at any rate........i wonder if Rush addressed himself like he has so many other addicts? Called himself lame ass names? Probably not.

[sgt.null]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8lsjfjgAA8

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhtYk5crxVY&NR

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGlsyuivCYA

[Holsety]

www.steeleformaryland.com/supportsstemcellresearch.htm

Not related to Rush, but rather to the general situation. It'd be nice to know his particular view on stem cell research; but since he's against abortion the logical conclusion would be that he's against stem cell research.

Well, if Fox is going to throw himself into the political arena, what is so wrong with someone questioning his claims? I think you guys just hate it because Rush is the one who is doing the questioning. Last I heard, Americans are entitled to freedom of speech. Just as Fox can say what he wants, so can Rush.

They (stem cell supporters) just want federal money - free money - because they can't get funding anywhere else.

Well, these are MY tax dollars and I have a right to decide where they are used. IF - IF I were against stem cell research, I would not want my tax dollars going towards it.

Rush is just issuing a dissenting opinion about what Fox said and the media jumps all over him for it. Pretty sad that an American can not express an opinion without being called a "... drug-addicted, souless, delusional fatty who must go to the Dominican to get laid." (Sorry, Guns, I adore you and I don't mean to pick on you. Your statement was just perfect for my point)

The media is not focused on the issue of stem cell research. The media is not focused on the science behind stem cell research or showing the pros and cons of said research. What the focus is on is Rush and what a horrible guy he is for criticizing Fox's ad. What is wrong with this picture?

Again, the media is trying to sway the opinions of the voters by telling you only what they want you to know.

The problem with what Rush did is that he attacked Fox without any credibility whatsoever, and is now trying to cover it up by acting like there's still something to be angry about. Most radio hosts in particular, I've noticed (Rush, Mike Savage, Air America assholes), tend to act the same way, decrying others whenever they can with little or no knowledge of the situation.

Moreover, the article explicitly quotes Fox saying "George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research". It's addressing the same arguments made many times in favor of embryological stem cell research, which Bush at least is against.

As far as the whole tax $ thing, it may be true that you do not support embryological stem cell research, and that's fine; vote against people who support it. But that doesn't actually support or undermine it. Moreover, it's complete hogwash that stem cell researchers don't get support outside of the feds, but again, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be getting funding. Doesn't the government fund christian conversion/parole'ish type program in Iowa?

[Xar]

Embryonic stem cells research is obviously a controversial matter, but as it has been clearly stated before, what stem cell researchers are asking is basically to use stem cells from blastocysts which would otherwise be discarded.

Not to insult anyone's sensibilities, but as a biologist myself, I can't understand why people would be against that. Whether or not the cells are taken, the blastocyst (it's too young to even be called an embryo) will die anyway; so the choice is not between killing it and letting it live, but actually between simply killing it and instead make sure that at least something good might come out of its death. In a way, it's the same choice a family goes through when a relative dies and they are asked to give their consent to organ donation: no choice they can make will give them back their relative, but if they choose to donate his or her organs, they may still save other lives.

There are children being born even now who can or will manifest genetic diseases such as Parkinson's, or far worse; we may never know we met one, but would any of you - any of you - want to face and tell the child who was just diagnosed with an incurable, progressive degenerative disease which will kill him before he is old that yes, there is a possibility stem cell research might cure him, but no, you're against it?

Make no mistake; it's true that stem cell research in the U.S. can still go on with private funding, but if there is one thing that is true about research is that it is costly; you couldn't believe the amount of money one needs to spend even to progress a tiny bit. When a vial of 20 microliters of one specific restriction enzyme costs $300, the sequencing of 600 base pairs of DNA costs $30, a PCR machine costs $15,000, a fluorescence microscope costs $25,000, and a single lab mouse can cost up to $3,000, not to mention the stipend of your typical Ph.D. student (around $18.000 yearly) or your typical postdoc (more or less double the stipend of a Ph.D.)... well, when you add all these costs together, and you realize that even counting all machines as a one-time expense, just to restock your supply of restriction enzymes you're going to have to spend about $300,000, you understand that money IS an issue scientists need to deal with. When you run low on funds, you have to slow down your research, and it already takes years as it is. By restricting funding, what you do is delay any possible results, and not by months, but by years.

[Kil Tyme]

"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."

Bush has signed off experimenting on existing 60 stem cell lines a few years ago. Are you a stem cell researcher yourself? How many of those lines exist today? And is he stretching the truth when he says those human embryos that could be used for stem cell research "have at least the potential for life"?

www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/0 ... 809-1.html

[Cail]

-Steele is for government funding all stem cell research except embryonic.

-No one is talking about banning embryonic research, just not funding it with federal dollars.

-Fox's commercials are disingenuous because he does not make that distinction.

[Avatar]

Not to insult anyone's sensibilities, but as a biologist myself, I can't understand why people would be against that. Whether or not the cells are taken, the blastocyst (it's too young to even be called an embryo) will die anyway; so the choice is not between killing it and letting it live, but actually between simply killing it and instead make sure that at least something good might come out of its death. In a way, it's the same choice a family goes through when a relative dies and they are asked to give their consent to organ donation: no choice they can make will give them back their relative, but if they choose to donate his or her organs, they may still save other lives.

Excellent post Xar. I couldn't agree more.

And is he stretching the truth when he says those human embryos that could be used for stem cell research "have at least the potential for life"?

From what I've gathered, yes he is. The cells don't come from embryo's, they come from the collection of cells that would become embryo's if they weren't being thrown out like bio-trash. IIRC, they're the left over cells from after in vitro fertilisation has taken place. The process always ends up with far more viable blastocysts than can be put into a womb. They implant a few, (which is why twins so often result), and dump the rest.

They're never going to become embryo's let alone babies. So they're being wasted.

--A

[Xar]

"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."

Bush has signed off experimenting on existing 60 stem cell lines a few years ago. Are you a stem cell researcher yourself? How many of those lines exist today? And is he stretching the truth when he says those human embryos that could be used for stem cell research "have at least the potential for life"?

www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/0 ... 809-1.html

No, I'm not a stem cell researcher myself, but I have worked with stem cells and I have a personal interest in the field. In any case, there is a fundamental difference between using cells taken from embryos and using existing stem cell lines. First of all, existing stem cell lines are, in most cases, simply not useful for purposes of stem cell research. They may be too old, or they may be already partly differentiated, and trust me - keeping stem cells from differentiating is not an easy task, especially for an extended period of time. Secondly, these existing stem cell lines have been grown in flasks and dishes for years now - and it has been scientifically demonstrated that cell cultures grown in vitro eventually develop genetic abnormalities; thus, not only do these stem cells become useless for research (since your data could be an artifact due to these genetic abnormalities), they also could not be used for clinical purposes anyway, since there would be no telling what could happen - although cancer would be a likely outcome. I remember when I heard about Bush's decision, and I also remember everyone among my colleagues acknowledging that by saying he allowed research on those stem cell lines, he was basically just giving "political smooth talk" which would easily trick anyone not familiar with the field. In fact, as I recall, there have been scientists rising up in arms against the claims, pointing out the oversimplification he was making with his statement.

As for stretching the truth, yes, he is; those embryos may still have the potential for human life, but they will be trashed anyway, so according to his logic, he is being inconsistent; if he believes those embryos should not be used for stem cell research because they retain the potential for human life, how can he allow scientists to trash them, thereby killing them anyway? As far as I can see, he has two options if he wants to be consistent:

1) Admit that the fate of these leftover embryos is always death, and admit that since they are doomed anyway and will never develop into human beings, taking stem cells from them should be acceptable, since they will die anyway;

2) Admit that trashing these whole embryos is as morally questionable to him as it is taking their stem cells, and therefore find a way to save all of them (I assume this would involve implanting them into willing women, since research on a synthetic uterus is still far from its goal).

Choosing option C (no to stem cell research, yes to trashing) is not only morally questionable by itself, it's also inconsistent and - if you think about it - it seems to be simply a statement against science ("no, you can't do this research and save other human lives, it's better to just throw the embryos away"). But I would still want to see him face a child who has been diagnosed with a degenerative disease and explain that he has chosen not to fund research which might help him, for the sake of leftover embryos who will be thrown into the trash can and die there.

[sgt.null]

seems the bill in question would allow for human cloning and that many are against it for that reason.

[A Gunslinger]

The upshot in polling is that Rush has stepped in it big time. Attacking Fox was a bad idea.

www.nbc10.com/politics/10172653/detail.html


Further proof? The fat, drug-addled master of hyperbole has issued not one, but two "kinda" apologies.