U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-26-2006, 08:29 PM
 
Location: Colorado
10,017 posts, read 16,724,440 times
Reputation: 2096

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoMark View Post
I'm not trying to get in slugfest with you Nea1, honestly! I feel just as strongly as you and Mark S. and others in this thread feel about this issue. I realize you have personal reasons for hoping for the success of any therapies that could provide insurance against future issues affecting your own children. That's understandable and commendable. I simply feel, myself, that Michael J. Fox, or anyone else suffering from a horrible disease that might be alleviated by stem cell research, can't justify the destruction of a human embryo to search for a cure. In my research, I've found numerous well documented sources from world-recognized scientists and medical experts who claim that beyond the ethical problems of embryonic stem cells, they have proven wildly unpredictable and beyond control when inserted into a human brain, resulting in horrible worsening of conditions or death. Yet adult stem cells are in fact easily obtainable, no one dies, they have proven to be stable and predictable and effective. I'm not against stem cell research or therapy, I'm against using unborn children whose deaths provide the living material for it. That's all


And I didnt see it as a slug fest,Ii respect your views I do. I too have done research for 4 years now since the death of my family members, I have talked to researchers and gone to public conferences, if they find a better way, which as they say may take many years, I am all for it, but we cannot wait that long to start helping people, Billions could be saved now and in the future and their lives are just as valuable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-26-2006, 08:39 PM
 
Location: Tucson, AZ
1,696 posts, read 3,063,221 times
Reputation: 1535
Quote:
Originally Posted by the dufferz View Post
That's a little out of line. you really should stick to facts and not drop to the level of the "I don't have an arguement, so I am just going to name call". The FACT is MJ Fox did fact admit that he on purpose did not use his drugs when he testified before congress. He in fact is being deceptive in not clarifying that it is FETAL stem cell research. It is a fact that he did not once mention fetal stem cell research during the commercial. He is, whether he was aware of it or not, misrepresenting the facts.

If you were to take the time to listen to the whole debate, you would find out that Rush was one of a multitude of voices on the political end that comdemed or at least questioned what Fox did.

The fact is, if you dive into the political arena, you need to be ready to be treated like a politician, not a holywood celeb. Just because he has this aweful disease, he does not get a pass on criticism. Remember, it was he who entered the ring. His choice.
I don't have an argument? The issue raised here wasn't that Fox went off his meds for his Congress appearance. The issue was the one put forth by Limbaugh that Fox went off his meds to appear worse off for that ad, which was patently and blatantly false.

The fetal stem cell research comes from leftover cells from fertility clinics that would just be thrown out anyway. No fetus or other life form is being created for the sole purpose of being destroyed for this. I don't see how Fox was deceptive by not mentioning this in his ad, and even if the ad is construed as such, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt enough where I'm sure he didn't make that ad with the intent to deceive anyone. The man is ill and wants to see a cure for his disease. I don't see what's so bad about that.

Did you see the clip of Rush showing him mocking Fox's spasms? THAT'S what has me so fired up- the guy is entitled to his opinion. Why anyone would choose to put any stock in it is beyond me, but he's entitled to it. It's the classless, insulting, grade-school way in which he expresses that opinion that is disgusting, and it's even more disgusting that his bloviating passes for discourse.

I'm also quite sure that Fox knew what he was getting into by making what was sure to be an emotionally charged political ad during one of the most hotly contested election cycles in recent history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2006, 09:03 PM
 
Location: Bothell, Washington
454 posts, read 641,288 times
Reputation: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl View Post
SFW if MJ Fox went off his meds for the commercial .. HE STILL HAS PARKINSONS no matter if he's on or off meds. He's still probably going to die from the disease. He's going to leave a wife and family behind. I don't blame him one bit if he went off his meds for his political commercials. People need to see what Parkinson's is like. And even if it was the medicine he was on that made him act like that, well, people need to see that as well. You see, Parkinson's sucks and Michael J. Fox being willing to appear on behalf of stem cell research is a wonderful and brave thing to do. Don't think for a minute that he doesn't know how he is setting himself up for ridicule. And your guy Rush was there to take the bait.

Did you see the film of Rush MOCKING, YES, MOCKING MJ Fox's movements? You can't spin that in any way. He was mocking Michael J. Fox's ailment. What a classless A@#bag Limpbaugh is.

This is a new low for him and it's going to hurt the GOP more that he will ever know.

If you were asked to describe the ad, and show somebody what you saw, would you not make some movements to show what it looked like? Would that make you guilty of mocking him? What is the difference between that and what Rush did? Sure, Rush was criticizing what Fox was doing, but I considered it be to Rush immitating what the ad looked like.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2006, 09:08 PM
 
Location: In exile, plotting my coup
2,408 posts, read 13,175,464 times
Reputation: 1784
Odd how much of an identifier the middle initial can serve as if someone were to mention "Michael Fox" to me, I'd have no clue who they were talking about, but with the "J" there, I would. Funny. Anyways, carry on.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2006, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Bothell, Washington
454 posts, read 641,288 times
Reputation: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb919 View Post
I don't have an argument? The issue raised here wasn't that Fox went off his meds for his Congress appearance. The issue was the one put forth by Limbaugh that Fox went off his meds to appear worse off for that ad, which was patently and blatantly false.

Let's explore the "blantant" falsehood. What proof can you supply to substantiate that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2006, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Tucson, AZ
1,696 posts, read 3,063,221 times
Reputation: 1535
Quote:
Originally Posted by the dufferz View Post
Let's explore the "blantant" falsehood. What proof can you supply to substantiate that?
The blatant falsehood is that people with Parkinson's disease can exaggerate their spasms by going off their medications. The truth is that victims become immobilized when going off their medications, and the spasms are a side effect of the medications. Limbaugh's whole disgusting diatribe stemmed (no pun intended) from that falsehood.

When Fox did a similiar ad for Arlen Spector two years ago, when his disease was less advanced and less pronounced, did you consider him doing that ad in any way deceptive? Because he said basically the same things 2 years ago that he did in this ad, using the same terminology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2006, 09:29 PM
 
Location: Maine
15,163 posts, read 19,812,140 times
Reputation: 17381
I don't know whether or not Mr. Fox was exaggerating his condition or not, and Rush doesn't either. As usual, Rush is claiming his opinions are facts. This is a new low for him.

I don't agree with Mr. Fox's views on this issue, but Rush should be ashamed of himself.

Here is a better response to Mr. Fox's ad that reinforces my concerns over this legislation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nguJQ_dRPXw
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2006, 09:37 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
12,775 posts, read 7,433,698 times
Reputation: 13044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
Again, that depends upon the cost. The end does not justify the means.

If we can find cures for all these diseases in ethical, humane ways, then yes we need to do so. But we cannot rob others of life in order to help the lives of others. Killing one group to save another group is neither justice nor mercy.

If scientists come along and say that we can cure ten people of cancer by killing ten Texas oil men, would it be right? No. Even moreso if we did it against the will of the Texans.

If we can find a way to develop stem cells without destroying an embryo, then let's do it. Giddyup. Until then, I'm not willing to countenance taking one person's life to possibly (and that's still a big possibly!) improve another's.
I just have to jump in here to point out that almost all medical advances have come about due to WAR, an arena wherein physicians saw and had to treat horrendous trauma to human bodies. Much medical knowledge is/was learned that way. War is not ethical to me!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2006, 09:43 PM
 
Location: Tucson, AZ
1,696 posts, read 3,063,221 times
Reputation: 1535
From Fox's interview with Katie Couric:

His body visibly wracked by tremors, Fox appears in a political ad touting Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill's stance in favor of embryonic stem cell research. That prompted Limbaugh to speculate that Fox was "either off his medication or acting."

Fox told Couric, "At this point now, if I didn't take medication I wouldn't be able to speak."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2006, 09:52 PM
 
2,542 posts, read 3,539,678 times
Reputation: 993
Does anyone remember Christopher Reeves in the last big election. Hmmm..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top