Rush's Interview with President George W. Bush

well at least the republicans are taking this football downfield a little bit. they need every yard they can get before election day.
 
mmarsh said:
I dunno if Rush's comments mocking a person with Parkinson's disease is the sort of people the GOP wants running its team.

That was a reminder of how cold, ill-informed, and nasty Republicans can be.

And if you dont believe me ask Patty Davis (Ronald Reagans daughter)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15417821/site/newsweek/
Click to expand...

Patty had so much disdain for her father's politics that she changed her name from Patty Reagan to Patty Davis, her mother's maiden name. Patty Davis is a now what I consider a flaming liberal, what kind of credibiltiy do you expect her to have regarding the republican / conservative view?

MJF admits to being over medicated, that was maybe intentional and maybe not, but the results of someone with Parkinsons that is over medicated is very similar to one that is under medicated. Was it planned? Who knows. Rush was wrong in this case by commenting on MJF's disease, but then MJF was pimping stem cell research to help with Parkinsons. I'm sorry, but to back an objectionable, and questionable, study seems to be very self-serving as well as giving the public the idea that a movie star's life is more important than the life of the person that is killed for the stem cell harvest.

Rush Limbaugh gives a whole new meaning to ultra conservatism, he often goes overboard. I agree with some of his points, but by far, not all of them. I also do not agree with his approach to many topics. He is what I would call a mean spirited man.
 
Last edited:
The way I view it...

Rush Limbaugh is a nasty person, always has been, this is hardly the first time he's opened his fat mouth. On top of it, he is grossly uninformed on most of the subjects he comments on. There are better commentators of conservative ideology than Rush. I went to school with Jonah Goldberg, now Editor of the National Review. I have also read David Brooks and occasionally Bob Novak makes a good point. I dont agree with them most of the time; but all of these guys are far better informed than Rush Limbaugh. And I include Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Malkin and a bunch of others into that group as well. They are mean, and they are wrong.

Stem cell research can be helpful in curing several diseases. The GOP has decided to ally itself with religous crazies who biblical theology belongs back in the 15th century. Can you really blame someone like Fox, or the late Chris Reeve for campaigning with the party that chose to support research for cures over illness over religous fundimentalism?

I hope incidents such as this (and the Shiavo matter) finally convince the GOP that the religous right is deadweight. I admit they are helpful come election time but they demand too heavy a price once you guys are in power.
 
mmarsh said:
The way I view it...

Rush Limbaugh is a nasty person, always has been, this is hardly the first time he's opened his fat mouth. On top of it, he is grossly uninformed on most of the subjects he comments on. There are better commentators of conservative ideology than Rush. I went to school with Jonah Goldberg, now Editor of the National Review. I have also read David Brooks and occasionally Bob Novak makes a good point. I dont agree with them most of the time; but all of these guys are far better informed than Rush Limbaugh. And I include Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Malkin and a bunch of others into that group as well. They are mean, and they are wrong.

Stem cell research can be helpful in curing several diseases. The GOP has decided to ally itself with religous crazies who biblical theology belongs back in the 15th century. Can you really blame someone like Fox, or the late Chris Reeve for campaigning with the party that chose to support research for cures over illness over religous fundimentalism?

I hope incidents such as this (and the Shiavo matter) finally convince the GOP that the religous right is deadweight. I admit they are helpful come election time but they demand too heavy a price once you guys are in power.
Click to expand...

I think you are lumping all of the conservatives on one side and all of the liberals on the other. Don't feel bad almost everyone does depending on their beliefs. This isnt' a case of all or none, each of the conservative talk show hosts have their agenda and are of varying degrees on target. The liberals are somewhat the same however, the liberals don't need the talk show people to push their agenda, the mainstream media does it for them. They also deal in half truths or outright lies. The sad part of this is that a once reliable method of reporting has lost ground to the agenda of the owners or announcers/reporters.

As far as stem cell research. I personally feel that it is wrong to attempt to evaluate the value of someone's life and gauge it against someone else. I enjoyed Christopher Reeve in the movies he made. He had an accident, which if happened to me I would have died because of the lack of funds to get the treatement that he got. There are many in today's society that have been slotted per their income or status in that society. Killing innocent life to try to extend lives of others is not good, in the same light it is very sad that a woman can decide that she doesn't want to be pregnant after having intercourse (I am intentionally leaving the rape/incest question out of the argument). The Supreme Court has decided that until a certain time in the pregnance that a life is not viable and therefore disposable. I cannot accept that nor would I ever consider that as an alternative to having a child.

Here is a hypothetical comment. Suppose a man and a woman get together and "make a baby". Their genetic make up individually is nothing spectacular, but the combination of their genes creates a life that has the potential to cure a disease (name your preferred disease). If that baby is born we have an addition to mankind that might be the catalyst to eliminate the specified disease. On the other hand, should that baby be aborted for convenience the disease could eventually eliminate mankind.

As for Limbaugh, I made my comments on him. The rest have their agenda's as well but are more common sense than he is and are no where as mean spirited as he is. The libertarian talking head, Neal Boortz is just about as bad as Limbuagh. As I said, there isn't a small group of voices for the democrats because they are covered, as stated, by the liberal media, both written as well as broadcast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top