The title of this post is not quite what I was aiming for. But my song collection does not have “Drug-addled fuckwit” or “Self-righteous authoritarian-spooge-licking fascist nazi shitbag”
As the joke has it: What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenberg?
One's a flaming Nazi gasbag, and the other's a dirigible.
Yes, fat ass drug using sex trade aficionado Rush has seen fit to use his own unassailable morality to question the ads made by Michael J. Fox in support of several Democrats who advocate for stem cell research. (One of which will be appearing in support of our own Jim Doyle soon).
Yes, the Michael J. Fox who suffers from Parkinson's Disease.
As you may have heard (and may the Spaghetti Monster forgive you if you heard it directly from Rush's twisted propaganda show) Limbaugh felt that Fox was perhaps shaking a bit too much in this video. As the Nation's Most Famous Drug Addict said “...was either off his meds or acting. He was an actor, you know.” and claims to have received 'several' emails stipulating that Fox has admitted going off his medication.
Let's ignore the fact that if Fox was off his medication, he would have been unable to speak at all....
Let's ignore that for Limbaugh, a convicted drug abuser, to even hypothesize the misuse of medications by another human is a wonderful new height of hypocrisy...
Let's get by the sheer effrontery of a lying, scurrilous yellow media rightwing stooge like Rush spewing malicious meanderings like this in a petulant effort to discredit ANYONE who dares to even oppose the massive record of failure that is the Republican Party....
the disgusting depths to which Limbaugh has now descended cannot be excused. His rampant drug use, his wife-hopping and adulterous behavior, his questionable habits, all pale next to the soulless desperation necessary to malign the suffering of a human being (I can't say 'another' human being because Limbaugh's status is in question) is reprehensible to a factor that even I thought the Republicans would not, could not descend.
Parkinson's disease is one of the cruelest degenerative diseases out there, and to watch another suffer through it is heartbreaking; the medical community has seen some potential for treatment in the research of stem cells, and Michael J. Fox is speaking out as a generally respected actor and public personality to support politicians that support the research. To his credit, this is for the benefit of others; he will not be able to be spared. He could have spent the remainder of his days medicated into acceptance (a path it seems Limbaugh would choose) but instead has devoted what remains of his ability to creating a foundation for supporting and fighting the disease.
And Rush Limbaugh, and the Republicans who support him, immediately see nothing but a need to tear down these good efforts in a blindly partisan effort to prevent political loss.
If he had a molecule of humanity left, he would resign from the radio in shame.
I am sickened by the actions of this slime mold in human form. Howard Stern got fined for just talking about sex; The FCC should penalize him three times as much for saying truly abominable and obscene things on the public airwaves.
I suspect Mr. Limbaugh will be receiving a(nother) Worst Person IN The World Award very soon.
Disgusting.
Shameful.
Vile.
Loathsome.
Limbaugh.
I've never liked Rush-- a preening gas bag for certain, though I'm not sure about Nazi. Nazi/Nazism/Hitler are terms that get bantered about a bit too lightly for my taste. But I digress.
ReplyDeleteI never liked Rush, despising him on general principle when I was a liberal, and disliking him on grounds of condescension and hypocrisy since I've shifted my world view to a much more conservative lens. I used to listen very occassionally mid-day if I happened to be on the road and nothing but country music was on any other stations. Generally he just confirmed my opinion of him as a conceited sack who isn't half as clever as he thinks he is and just happened to hit the Ivory Tower/Liberal Media backlash at just the right moment.
So, I caught just a bit of his drivel the other day when I turned on the radio and he was on. I heard him talking about a new study out that indicates that marijuana use does, indeed, have medical uses and that it does not, in fact, have much of anything in the way of harmful side effects. Rush's take? I paraphrase:
"Well, I'm not saying this is the case or anything, but it wouldn't surprise me if some, maybe most, of the scientists doing the study were toking. These peeeepuhl have an agenda, and they want to get marijuana legalised because most of them smoke it anyway. Now, again, I'm not saying these scientists DO smoke pot, but it wouldn't shock me if they did."
Nearly crashed my car I was so stunned by the mindboggling mix of arrogance, hypocrisy, and sheer lunacy of such a statement. Not a shred of proof, mind you, and he's not saying it IS true, no, no, no, just that these peeeeepuhl have an agenda and it wouldn't surprise him.
I'm not a huge Al Franken fan since he got seriously political (and a lot less funny), but his title, _Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot_ is pretty DOBA (dead on balls accurate). Oh-- I forgot to mention. Right after the bit where Rush wasn't saying that all the scientists and doctors doing this study were potheads, the bumper plug was the following: "Rush Limbaugh, so smart you don't have to think-- he'll do it for you." Or words very much to that effect.
I will never listen to Rush again, as hypocritical blowhards who think they are smarter than everyone else are amongst my top five most annoying people on the planet.
Unrelated point-- goes back to the Lancet study on deaths in Iraq. You're pretty much right, sadly (sad because of the conclusion, not that you're right). Though there may be flaws in the methodology, that simply makes the results a question of degree. Iraq may not be quite as f'ed up as the study indicates, but it is definitely f'ed up.
Rumsfeld's fault, mostly, but W gets plenty of the blame for not only not firing Rummy, but for giving him a friggin' medal. I think it was right around the time that Bush gave Rummy that medal that I started to get a really bad feeling about the war in Iraq. I still think it was the right thing to do, but Bush and Rumsfeld were most definitely the wrong dullards to do it.
Ummm.... eh, thanks for the comment, Nick.
ReplyDelete[Dang. There goes another comfortable stereotype of conservatives as mindless automatons. (heh, right?)]
Kidding.
Yes, you've got it just right on the Lancet study. Not that there's much satisfaction to be had, even grim.
Any flaws in the methodology are due to the conditions in Iraq precluding better methods; the study used the best available data and methods to come up with the best analysis possible under the conditions; The result is of course an estimate, of some amount of indeterminacy- kind of the nature of statistics. But the answer is bad news not because the statisticians were looking to flog some ideology, but because the news is so bad.
As I said, I think the actual surprising thing is that even under a 95% interval, which is an immense part of the bell curve if you remember any basic statistics, it takes into account the various permutations and ramifications of the estimating methods shown, and at the maximum assumable favorable conditions, the results don't come out in the positive.
Meaning that even assuming the rosiest of pictures, the data now available are not consistent with a death rate that is lower than under Hussein.