PDA

View Full Version : Rush criticizes MJF



Bravo
10-25-2006, 09:30 PM
rush is opposed to stem cell research.

so now, his rational, eloquent self has decided to target michael j fox, saying he's:
"exaggerating the effects of the [parkinson's] disease. He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act. … This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.”

"This is the only time I've ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has," Limbaugh said. "He can barely control himself."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102400691.html

so the only question now is:

what sort of internment camp does rush deserve to spend the rest of his miserable life in?

Kate Thornton
10-25-2006, 09:39 PM
OMG - that is really low. Parkinson's is progressive, and MJF has been such an eloquent spokesman. If his symptoms are now showing, it's because the condition has unfortunately progressed.

I don't think there's a suitable place on this planet for rush.

Gary
10-25-2006, 09:43 PM
You are reporting what he said completely out of context.

According to several sources, including Fox's book and an interview with Diane Sawyer, he said he stops taking his medication when he testifies before congress or does interviews when fund raising for Parkinson's, so they can see the symptoms.

Rush is also not against stem cell research. He is opposed to federal funding of research using embryonic stem cells beyond those already approved.

Bravo
10-25-2006, 09:50 PM
You are reporting what he said completely out of context.

then let's see it in full context. i read the transcript on rush's site as well.

let's see what im missing.



According to several sources, including Fox's book and an interview with Diane Sawyer, he said he stops taking his medication when he testifies before congress or does interviews when fund raising for Parkinson's, so they can see the symptoms.

several issues here:

1) you do not accuse some1 of getting off their meds. ever.

and this is almost like complaining about cancer patients who dont put on wigs when they are asking for donations.

it's idiotic and barbaric.

2) rush is ignorant. not taking medication for parkinson's disease actually makes a patient more rigid.

3) rush has been caught several times now w meds that he did not have prescriptions for. he's the last person on earth to patronize any1 regarding an actual illness.




Rush is also not against stem cell research. He is opposed to federal funding of research using embryonic stem cells beyond those already approved.

fine, embryonic stem cells.

whether you agree or disagree w his position, it still doesnt excuse his obnoxious statements.

Gary
10-25-2006, 10:12 PM
whether you agree or disagree w his position, it still doesnt excuse his obnoxious statements.

I happen to disagree with Rush, but I believe in honest reporting of what he said and the context in which it was said.

Michael Fox stepped into the political arena when he began making ads for a candidate. It removed him from victim status and put him into the line of fire. There is no reason to let a misleading ad be run and the Democrat party was using Fox with the hope that political correctness would prevent rebuttal.

blacbird
10-25-2006, 10:16 PM
A couple of years ago I expressed the opinion that I hoped Rush Limbaugh recovered from his hearing loss.

I hereby retract that sentiment.

Do you suppose Rush is still on his meds?

This is nothing new for him, by the way. In the past he's made fun of Robert Reich, Clinton's Secretary of Labor, for being short (Reich had a childhood affliction that stunted his growth, and is something like 4'11" tall). He's made fun of the speech accents of African-Americans.

For a guy who avoided the draft in the 1960s by being too fat to engage in this stuff is plain unconscionable, regardless of your views on his politics.

caw.

dclary
10-25-2006, 10:30 PM
You can't be THAT upset at me... er... Rush. Yeah. Rush.

Crap.

wordmonkey
10-25-2006, 10:30 PM
Ask a specialist if you wanna check, but the shaking is a result of the medications NOT the ailment. In the past he stopped the meds to be on TV not to show the effects but so he wouldn't shake so much.

In context RL is disgusting. Out of context he is disgusting.

Jamesaritchie
10-25-2006, 10:39 PM
rush is opposed to stem cell research.

so now, his rational, eloquent self has decided to target michael j fox, saying he's:
"exaggerating the effects of the [parkinson's] disease. Heís moving all around and shaking and itís purely an act. Ö This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didnít take his medication or heís acting.Ē

"This is the only time I've ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has," Limbaugh said. "He can barely control himself."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102400691.html

so the only question now is:

what sort of internment camp does rush deserve to spend the rest of his miserable life in?

Have you read Fox's book? Obviously you haven't. Rush actually quoted from the book, and somehow this gets overlooked by people who think they know what they're talking about, or already have their minds made up.

In his book, Fox states that when he's called to testify, he stops taking his medication so he'll tremble and look pitiful. So in a sense, it is largely an act. And, for me, that's about as low as it gets.

So Fox may not be exaggerating the way UNTREATED Parkinson's makes you act and look, but he's sure as anything not playing fair, and intentionally not using his medication just so he can sway the people he's talking to.

He's also considerably less than honest about what stem cell research could mean to him, and others like him. Blatantly dishonest. He wants this research done, and he'll do anything to see it happens.

Fox only exhibits symptoms when and if he wants to, and that's truly low.

Jamesaritchie
10-25-2006, 10:45 PM
Ask a specialist if you wanna check, but the shaking is a result of the medications NOT the ailment. In the past he stopped the meds to be on TV not to show the effects but so he wouldn't shake so much.

In context RL is disgusting. Out of context he is disgusting.

I don't know where you got that from, but it's nonsense. The exact reverse is true. We have Parkinson's in the family, we talk to a specialist regularly, and the shaking IS caused by the disease, not the medication. The medication, in fact, stops the shaking almost immediately. You can actually watch the results happen.

Go off the meds, and the shaking returns in very short order. I've watched this happen, as well.

If you look at the symtoms of Parkinson's, tremor is the first in line.

The tremor and shaking, in fact, are why most patients go to the doctor to find out what's wrong with them.

Bravo
10-25-2006, 10:54 PM
In his book, Fox states that when he's called to testify, he stops taking his medication so he'll tremble and look pitiful. So in a sense, it is largely an act. And, for me, that's about as low as it gets.

please explain how not taking medicine that hides your symptons are an "act".

parkinson patients have uncontrollable tremors but reduced voluntary motion.

in other words, not taking your meds does not make you "move all around" it makes you immobile, with continuous shaking.



So Fox may not be exaggerating the way UNTREATED Parkinson's makes you act and look, but he's sure as anything not playing fair, and intentionally not using his medication just so he can sway the people he's talking to.

okay let's say for the sake of argument that he is not playing fair by not taking his meds.

does it really change the fact that he has a disease that makes walking across a room as difficult as running a marathon? or a disease in which speaking, swallowing, and breathing become chores w/ or w/out meds?

does any of that really change?




He's also considerably less than honest about what stem cell research could mean to him, and others like him. Blatantly dishonest. He wants this research done, and he'll do anything to see it happens.


no he's not.

i have a hard time understanding what conservatives want to do w/ several million frozen embryos (esp. when thousands of embryos are destroyed every year), but any1 who looks into the subject objectively can see that there is an enormous amount of potential in stem cell research.



Fox only exhibits symptoms when and if he wants to, and that's truly low.

well, im still waiting for conservatives to show their "compassion". so far, the symptons ive seen from them is a disease of sociopathic disregard for the weak and ill.

dclary
10-25-2006, 11:09 PM
Uh, that's called adhering to the rules of evolution, Bravo, not sociopathy.

We're the only species that gives a damn about the dead and about-to-die.

Does that make us better or worse?

blacbird
10-25-2006, 11:16 PM
We're the only species that gives a damn about the dead and about-to-die.

Well . . . some representatives of the species do.

caw.

kikazaru
10-26-2006, 12:11 AM
I swam with a woman who had Parkinson's. She took her meds, however she still shook, and her gait was extremely awkward, necessitating the use of a cane. When she spoke you could rarely understand her. The thing about these medications that they don't work for everyone the same way and the dosage may not be correct from one day to the next.

She died btw, at the age of 48 from Parkinson's - leaving behind a husband and two children.

Imo MJF is a very brave man, in the same vein as was Christopher Reeve - exposing themselves, to put a recognizable face on their conditions in order to bring attention to the numbers of people who also suffer. MJF has a devastating disease which has certainly curtailed his career, if not halted it entirely, but he willingly bares himself to show the effects to the world. It cannot be easy for anyone to withstand the scrutiny of the public eyes, yet to go and show how advanced his condition is, takes a lot of courage. He is a spokesperson for all of those who suffer from it, and their families. Whether or not he takes his medication before he speaks - and some medications for this disease can slow the thought processes and remove the ability to have very much facial expression - makes no difference to the fact that this is a very cruel affliction.

And speaking of cruel afflictions - Limbaugh is just truly malignant - a boil on the buttocks of humanity, and mere words just cannot express how truly despicable he is.

wordmonkey
10-26-2006, 12:17 AM
I don't know where you got that from, but it's nonsense. The exact reverse is true. We have Parkinson's in the family, we talk to a specialist regularly, and the shaking IS caused by the disease, not the medication. The medication, in fact, stops the shaking almost immediately. You can actually watch the results happen.

Go off the meds, and the shaking returns in very short order. I've watched this happen, as well.

If you look at the symtoms of Parkinson's, tremor is the first in line.

The tremor and shaking, in fact, are why most patients go to the doctor to find out what's wrong with them.

I thought I had heard him say that in an interview. However....

I stand corrected.

I would say though, that given the stakes involved, showing people an unsanitized version of his state of health is valid. He can get a lot of top flight medication. Not everyone is so lucky.

And RL is still scum. Talk about meds that you take for kicks and get maids to buy round the back a burger joint if you wanna talk about meds.

Gary
10-26-2006, 12:19 AM
well, im still waiting for conservatives to show their "compassion". so far, the symptons ive seen from them is a disease of sociopathic disregard for the weak and ill.

I wonder if you are aware that Rush conducts a Cure-a-thon for Leukemia on his radio show every year. In 2006, he personally kicked of the show by contributing $300,000. At the end of the one day show, he had raised about $1.7 million. This is the 15th year he has held the fund raiser and the amount he gives and raises goes up every year.

I also recall the charity donations reported by the president and vice-president candidates in 2000. All Gore, a multi-millionaire, gave a few hundred dollars, so political affiliation has nothing to do with compassion, but it has a lot to do with who gets the press coverage.

Charitable contributions and federal funding decisions for diseases should never be a tool of political operatives and if victims are dragged into the debate by supporting one party or the other, fund raising will suffer.

Those who think Rush is wrong to criticize Fox's misleading ad would cry like banshees if Iraq war veterans, with limbs missing, appeared in ads that supported the Republicans and said that Democrats would cause more death and injury by cutting and running.

Gary
10-26-2006, 12:21 AM
And RL is still scum. Talk about meds that you take for kicks and get maids to buy round the back a burger joint if you wanna talk about meds.

Are you saying that people addicted to pain killers are only doing it for kicks?

blacbird
10-26-2006, 12:24 AM
Are you saying that people addicted to pain killers are only doing it for kicks?

What do you say about people who are addicted to heroin? Cocaine? Methamphetamines? Alcohol? Tobacco? I know what Rush says about such people, or at least what he used to say, before he himself got busted.

caw.

wordmonkey
10-26-2006, 12:26 AM
Are you saying that people addicted to pain killers are only doing it for kicks?

Actually no. He wasthe one ranting about how addicts were there by choice and deserved nothing but contempt. He was the voice of righteous indignance against addicts. Oh, and then he's suddenly a sad victim. And what about the viagra that wasn't his on a guy's fishing trip?

He's scum. If he's so compassionate, why doesn't that extend to everyone? It's a prop. $300K is nothing to him. But what does his charity gesture have to do with anything else? Did anyone here bring up Gore? He has nothing to do with it, but the Culture of Responsibility espoused by Bush in 2000 likes to do nothing more than point the finger while deny they are pointing.

Scum, dude. Scum.


LATE EDITION AMMENDMENT:

STOP PRESS:

I'm sure you, however, are a jolly decent guy and I'd buy you a beer if we were in a pub.

dclary
10-26-2006, 12:28 AM
Well . . . some representatives of the species do.

caw.

Touche

Perks
10-26-2006, 12:51 AM
Oh, and then he's suddenly a sad victim. And what about the viagra that wasn't his on a guy's fishing trip?

A guy's fishing trip? Well, it's a bit compulsive if you have to take a pill to have a decent yank, but, in a way, it's a relief. (Wait, I'm also assuming he didn't need Viagra to hang out with a bunch of men, because Rush in a gay orgy would just be too, too much.) As it stands, if he was only keeping himself company, at least the - what is it now? - thrice divorced Limbaugh wasn't drowning in that particular hypocritical stew, seeing as how he's against extra-marital sex and all.

He's an arrogant blowhard. Very bright. But anything he gets right is ruined by swagger, hypocrisy, sneering and general a$sholery. Personally, with as much finger-pointing and contemptuous spewing he manages, I cheer his every misstep. I can't think of another person who produces that reaction in me. No amount of acumen can surmount how hated he's become. Conservatives have better spokesfaces.

Gary
10-26-2006, 01:01 AM
Actually no. He wasthe one ranting about how addicts were there by choice and deserved nothing but contempt. He was the voice of righteous indignance against addicts. Oh, and then he's suddenly a sad victim. And what about the viagra that wasn't his on a guy's fishing trip?

He's scum. If he's so compassionate, why doesn't that extend to everyone? It's a prop. $300K is nothing to him. But what does his charity gesture have to do with anything else? Did anyone here bring up Gore? He has nothing to do with it, but the Culture of Responsibility espoused by Bush in 2000 likes to do nothing more than point the finger while deny they are pointing.

Scum, dude. Scum.


LATE EDITION AMMENDMENT:

STOP PRESS:

I'm sure you, however, are a jolly decent guy and I'd buy you a beer if we were in a pub.

I never even hinted that Rush was a victim, and he certainly hasn't. I was only trying to understand if addiction is only acceptable and worthy of sympathy for those on the left. I believe everyone who has an addiction makes a choice, but it's easier for some to break than it is for others.

As for the Viagra, it was in his doctor's name. What do you think the local drug store pharmacist would have done if he had the information that Rush Limbaugh suffered from ED?

Al Gore was brought up in response to the charge that conservatives were not compassionate. As I said, politics should not get into the business of fund raising for disease. It only hurts the cause, and shame on those who attempt to further their political agenda by using sick people to support one candidate or another with the idea that electing that candidate will make them well.

Thanks for the beer offer, but I'll have to pass. I quit that addictive habit over 30 years ago.

dclary
10-26-2006, 01:03 AM
But anything he gets right is ruined by swagger, hypocrisy, sneering and general a$sholery.

Honestly, Perky... isn't this true of ALL the media whores for BOTH sides? Sometimes they have good points, most of the time they're attention-hungry a$$es. Their fans ignore the stench of fertilizer for the one or two flowers that occasionally bloom. Everyone else says "Hm. Smells like shaite."

Perks
10-26-2006, 01:07 AM
If you had any clue, you'd never call me 'Perky.'

And no, on bile/hypocrisy cocktails, no one's drunker than Limbaugh.

billythrilly7th
10-26-2006, 01:25 AM
I agree and disagree with every post in this thread.

dclary
10-26-2006, 01:25 AM
Do you like Perkster better?

And I disagree with you here. Harry Reid crucified Tom Delay for taking money from Abramoff, despite knowing he had personally taken MORE from Abramoff than Delay had (as did Murray and Rangel. Daschle took just a little less. Durbin, Clinton, Feinstein and Pelosi took smaller amounts). They're all a$$es. They're all hypocrites. The whole lot of them.

Or is there one or another who you DON'T feel is a liar, scum, or jerk?

billythrilly7th
10-26-2006, 01:45 AM
I think we should fund our 2024 campaign out of our screenplay spec money.

dclary
10-26-2006, 01:47 AM
I think we should fund our 2024 campaign out of our screenplay spec money.

Ok.

How's your script coming?

I just saw "The Prestige" and had to throw my script away, since Nolan mindwiped me and stole my script line-for-line.

AGAIN!

billythrilly7th
10-26-2006, 01:48 AM
Sorry yours was stolen.

Mine are coming along fine..

I think we'll be okay.

Maybe we'll take small donations.

We'll figure it out.

Plenty of time.

wordmonkey
10-26-2006, 01:49 AM
I never even hinted that Rush was a victim, and he certainly hasn't. I was only trying to understand if addiction is only acceptable and worthy of sympathy for those on the left. I believe everyone who has an addiction makes a choice, but it's easier for some to break than it is for others.

The addiction was in reference to his hypocracy, dude. What I think about addicts doesn't make them quit. Doesn't make them better than me or worse then me. Like Popeye, they are what they are. Whether you believe they have a chemical imbalance, a psychological wrinkle, or simply make a self-indulgent choice, makes no odds either. But if someone set themself up as the voice of all that is decent and righteous, they better damn well be above reproach themself.


As for the Viagra, it was in his doctor's name. What do you think the local drug store pharmacist would have done if he had the information that Rush Limbaugh suffered from ED?

Laughed? Been professional? Not had a clue who this fatmouth was standing across the counter? Wondered why this hispanic maid was called Rush? I don't know. Neither do you. Neither did he.

And if you or I went to the doctor and said, "Hey, Doc. The old schmeckle ain't poppin' up to attention like it used to, can you give me the magic pill? Oh, and it's staggeringly embarrassing, so can you put it in YOUR name instead of mine, and then call the pharmacy so they know it's for you and not me, but it really is for me." Y' know what the doctor would say? Second word would be "off." I've been fishing and it bores the hell outta me, but it doesn't bore me so much that I'd need to take meds to go have a hand-shandy on the bank.

I am of course being generous and assuming it was just a quick hand-shandy (though frankly if you need viagra for that, you are sad strange little man) and not some liason with a hooker, or maybe he wanted to compare domestic inflation with a fishing buddy.


Al Gore was brought up in response to the charge that conservatives were not compassionate. As I said, politics should not get into the business of fund raising for disease. It only hurts the cause, and shame on those who attempt to further their political agenda by using sick people to support one candidate or another with the idea that electing that candidate will make them well.

Who ran on a platform of "Compassionate Conservatism"? then screwed the nation and poor? Started a war? Bilked tax payers? Lined the pockets of oil companies and war profiteers? Compassionate?


Thanks for the beer offer, but I'll have to pass. I quit that addictive habit over 30 years ago.

Dude, the offer was a friendly gesture. If you have an issue, you could just say no and leave it at that. Or was I supposed to feel guilty for making that insensatively nice gesture? I insulted your hero? Too bad. If I insulted you by association, I'm sorry, but you pick your heroes, if they stand for filth, lies and deciet, not my fault.

Maybe I missed something. Maybe this is all about the first and last paragraph and you think I'm in someway slamming you if you had addiction issues with alcohol in the past. Who knows? Not I. But I do know I'm done here, ditto.

MacAllister
10-26-2006, 01:52 AM
Okay, folks. Let's not make this personal between members, okay?

Perks
10-26-2006, 01:58 AM
Do you like Perkster better?

And I disagree with you here. Harry Reid crucified Tom Delay for taking money from Abramoff, despite knowing he had personally taken MORE from Abramoff than Delay had (as did Murray and Rangel. Daschle took just a little less. Durbin, Clinton, Feinstein and Pelosi took smaller amounts). They're all a$$es. They're all hypocrites. The whole lot of them.

Or is there one or another who you DON'T feel is a liar, scum, or jerk?
Not at all. The lot of them make me sick. But I do admire the ability to keep ones peccadilloes, deviances and skeletons in their respective closets. There's something to be said for not being such a sh!thead that everyone cannot wait to dance on the grave of your ego.

They all lie, cheat, steal and a good few of them probably murder. We always think we want a moral, upstanding citizen in our elected offices and positions of punditry, but unfortunately, the nature of these jobs attracts a different sort. So, I will admire what I can - decorum, the ability to work with those around you, a civil tongue and the shrewdness to not get caught so as not to embarrass all those who defend you.

Cynical? Eh. Whatever.

And Perkster's alright. It's a stupid screen name anyway.

dclary
10-26-2006, 01:59 AM
What was this thread called? Man, it's like living in Dark City here sometimes.

;)

dclary
10-26-2006, 01:59 AM
And Perkster's alright. It's a stupid screen name anyway.

You know I love you, right?

Perks
10-26-2006, 02:09 AM
This is all so sudden, Dave. Hold me.

Gary
10-26-2006, 02:18 AM
The addiction was in reference to his hypocracy, dude. What I think about addicts doesn't make them quit. Doesn't make them better than me or worse then me. Like Popeye, they are what they are. Whether you believe they have a chemical imbalance, a psychological wrinkle, or simply make a self-indulgent choice, makes no odds either. But if someone set themself up as the voice of all that is decent and righteous, they better damn well be above reproach themself.



Laughed? Been professional? Not had a clue who this fatmouth was standing across the counter? Wondered why this hispanic maid was called Rush? I don't know. Neither do you. Neither did he.

And if you or I went to the doctor and said, "Hey, Doc. The old schmeckle ain't poppin' up to attention like it used to, can you give me the magic pill? Oh, and it's staggeringly embarrassing, so can you put it in YOUR name instead of mine, and then call the pharmacy so they know it's for you and not me, but it really is for me." Y' know what the doctor would say? Second word would be "off." I've been fishing and it bores the hell outta me, but it doesn't bore me so much that I'd need to take meds to go have a hand-shandy on the bank.

I am of course being generous and assuming it was just a quick hand-shandy (though frankly if you need viagra for that, you are sad strange little man) and not some liason with a hooker, or maybe he wanted to compare domestic inflation with a fishing buddy.



Who ran on a platform of "Compassionate Conservatism"? then screwed the nation and poor? Started a war? Bilked tax payers? Lined the pockets of oil companies and war profiteers? Compassionate?



Dude, the offer was a friendly gesture. If you have an issue, you could just say no and leave it at that. Or was I supposed to feel guilty for making that insensatively nice gesture? I insulted your hero? Too bad. If I insulted you by association, I'm sorry, but you pick your heroes, if they stand for filth, lies and deciet, not my fault.

Maybe I missed something. Maybe this is all about the first and last paragraph and you think I'm in someway slamming you if you had addiction issues with alcohol in the past. Who knows? Not I. But I do know I'm done here, ditto.

I was only trying to clear up some misconceptions from earlier posts, and my thanks for the drink offer was genuine. I did have an alcohol problem and quit. If you somehow misconstrued my response to be an insult, I apologize. Make it a diet Coke or a cup of decaf, and I'll buy the 2nd round.

We obviously have a different political view, but I won't challenge your beliefs unless they are factually incorrect, and then I won't hesitate.

dclary
10-26-2006, 02:26 AM
This is all so sudden, Dave. Hold me.

We're like Hawkeye and Hot Lips in the cabin during the artillery shelling.

Perks
10-26-2006, 02:34 AM
We're like Hawkeye and Hot Lips in the cabin during the artillery shelling.That was great. You may stay. For a little while, anyway.

wordmonkey
10-26-2006, 02:56 AM
I was only trying to clear up some misconceptions from earlier posts, and my thanks for the drink offer was genuine. I did have an alcohol problem and quit. If you somehow misconstrued my response to be an insult, I apologize. Make it a diet Coke or a cup of decaf, and I'll buy the 2nd round.

We obviously have a different political view, but I won't challenge your beliefs unless they are factually incorrect, and then I won't hesitate.

Dude:

I admit I've had a pretty cr@ppy week. Flu coming on, a comic deal I had fell apart, argument with my good lady, lack of sleep, you name it, this week if it's been small, cr@ppy and annoying, I've had it.

That decaf is there and a hand offered to shake. And an apology for any misconceptions given or interpretted. And next round, I'll have leaded coffee, I'm immune to the effects of caffine.

dclary
10-26-2006, 02:57 AM
See! We're all one big happy family!

:D

billythrilly7th
10-26-2006, 02:59 AM
So were the Mansons.

dclary
10-26-2006, 03:09 AM
And, too, the Hansons.

wordmonkey
10-26-2006, 03:38 AM
And the Partridges.

Though poor little Danny.

dclary
10-26-2006, 03:42 AM
And the Partridges.

Though poor little Danny.

You gotta wonder what the hell his agent was thinking, huh?

"Hey Dan. You're on the comeback of the century, man. Top-rated radio show, great tv show. The world's your oyster. Hey, I got this new show for you. It's called "breaking bonaduce, and it's pretty much designed to see just how f*cked up we can get you, see if maybe we can cost you your career, marriage, you know. Everything. You game?"

Lyra Jean
10-26-2006, 06:48 AM
Don't forget the The Brady Bunch.

Southern_girl29
10-26-2006, 09:25 AM
Have you read Fox's book? Obviously you haven't. Rush actually quoted from the book, and somehow this gets overlooked by people who think they know what they're talking about, or already have their minds made up.

In his book, Fox states that when he's called to testify, he stops taking his medication so he'll tremble and look pitiful. So in a sense, it is largely an act. And, for me, that's about as low as it gets.

So Fox may not be exaggerating the way UNTREATED Parkinson's makes you act and look, but he's sure as anything not playing fair, and intentionally not using his medication just so he can sway the people he's talking to.

He's also considerably less than honest about what stem cell research could mean to him, and others like him. Blatantly dishonest. He wants this research done, and he'll do anything to see it happens.

Fox only exhibits symptoms when and if he wants to, and that's truly low.

When I read the story on the AP wire at work this morning, I was infuriated. I dislike Rush with a passion anyway, but this just made me sick.

I could care less if MJF doesn't take his medicine when he testifies. What does it matter? If he's working toward getting help for people, what does it matter if he doesn't take his meds?

My grandmother has Parkinson's. I also had three aunts and two cousins who have it. Some days, she doesn't shake at all. Others, that's all she does. It doesn't matter if she takes her medicine or not on a bad day. It isn't something that can be controlled at will. I have watched her go from being a vibrant woman with a great sense of humor to one who doesn't even like to leave the house because she can't speak anymore and has to have help walking. I've watched her personal dignity being torn to shreds because she couldn't even help herself in the bathroom. This disease is progressive, which means it will only get worse. She'll have more bad days than good, when the medication won't work at all. One of these days, as the disease progresses, her mind will start to go and she'll have bouts of senility. The end stages will consist of her barely knowing anything. It breaks my heart, because she is truly my hero, and I hate to see her go through any of that.

I don't see how MJF or anyone else for that matter can exhibit symptoms at will. This disease just doesn't work that way.

No one deserves it. No one. I am thankful that MJF is doing the work he's doing. I applaud him. If not taking his medication so his disease appears worse than it is leads to more funding for research against this disease, I am all for it. I don't think not taking his medicine is low. He's making himself more uncomfortable for the sake of research, for something that will probably not help him in his lifetime. I don't think that's selfish or low at all.

johnnysannie
10-26-2006, 04:39 PM
rush is opposed to stem cell research.

so now, his rational, eloquent self has decided to target michael j fox, saying he's:
"exaggerating the effects of the [parkinson's] disease. Heís moving all around and shaking and itís purely an act. Ö This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didnít take his medication or heís acting.Ē

"This is the only time I've ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has," Limbaugh said. "He can barely control himself."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102400691.html

so the only question now is:

what sort of internment camp does rush deserve to spend the rest of his miserable life in?


It's not just Rush who is attacking Michael J. Fox. In Missouri - where an ammendment regarding stem cells is on the ballot - there is also a very close Senate race between Democrat Claire McCaskill and Repulican Jim Talent (the incumbent). McCaskill launched a television ad with Fox as spokesperson and Talent's immediate response was to lash out at Fox with the same allegations made by Rush.

IMO this just demonstrates what a shmuck Talent is - he's a sorry little weasel and I have never voted for him. I support Ms. McCaskill and can only hope that enough of my fellow Missourians feel the same.

SeanDSchaffer
10-26-2006, 07:03 PM
rush is opposed to stem cell research.

so now, his rational, eloquent self has decided to target michael j fox, saying he's:
"exaggerating the effects of the [parkinson's] disease. Heís moving all around and shaking and itís purely an act. Ö This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didnít take his medication or heís acting.Ē

"This is the only time I've ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has," Limbaugh said. "He can barely control himself."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102400691.html

so the only question now is:

what sort of internment camp does rush deserve to spend the rest of his miserable life in?


My grandfather died from a case of Parkinson's Disease, and I've seen first-hand what that disease can do to a person. My opinion: Rush wouldn't know Parkinson's Disease and its effects if it slapped him up alongside the head.

I'm sure others have pointed this out by now, but, Parkinson's Disease gets gradually worse. It eats away at a person's ability to control their own bodies to the point that they cannot eat, sleep, or go to the bathroom without there being a major event.

Two years after my grandfather was first diagnosed, he died in a fetal position in a comatose state. His condition was a horrible way to die, and I was with him when he passed away. I hope to God no one ever has to deal with that disease again.

Kasey Mackenzie
10-26-2006, 08:46 PM
And the most asinine thing about this whole accusation is...if medication actually COULD completely control the tremoring and shaking at all times someone takes it, then WHY ON EARTH would MJF have had to give up his acting career in the height of a most spectacular resurrection? Spin City was riding high thanks to MJF, and it meant a LOT to him, and from all the interviews, etc. I've seen, it pretty much killed him to have to give that up completely. He went as long as he could without telling anyone he had Parkinson's, to the point that all his castmates thought he was being a royal pain in the *** showing up late to work all the time while he waited for his MEDICATION-CONTROLLED symptoms to improve to the point he actually COULD act for periods of time without shaking and jerking all over the place.

I especially love the heartfelt apology Rush has offered..."If this isn't an act, I apologize."

Yeah, I feel the love Rush. You ignorant @$$.

Bravo
10-26-2006, 08:53 PM
it reminds me of the time yasser arafat did interviews on american TV.

he was on CNN once, and both of the "reporters" had smirks on their face as he stuttered and shook.

they kept going: "we can't understand you". "what?? what are you saying?" and laughed as he talked.

just awful.

it made me nauseous.

MajorDrums
10-26-2006, 09:56 PM
I especially love the heartfelt apology Rush has offered..."If this isn't an act, I apologize."

Yeah, I feel the love Rush. You ignorant @$$.

and then he went on to say that MJF is allowing his illness to be exploited or something. and how the h*ll does someone ACT like they have Parkinson's??? if limbaugh or anybody can show me a convincing portrayal of this debilitating disease, i will personally eat my keyboard.

TheGaffer
10-27-2006, 12:16 AM
Michael Fox stepped into the political arena when he began making ads for a candidate. It removed him from victim status and put him into the line of fire. There is no reason to let a misleading ad be run and the Democrat party was using Fox with the hope that political correctness would prevent rebuttal.

I'm getting real sick of this horsesh*t opinion on things. A person steps into the political arena and therefore is fair game to question whether they have/don't have a disease, or "enjoyed their husbands' deaths," or some kind of rot like that, and the moron saying such things gets to back it up by saying "they're fair game." Fair game to attack their disease?

Disagree with his view, fine, or say he's a tool, or that he's saying things that aren't supported by facts. But nobody should have to endure this kind of bullcrap mudslinging, and while it's a free country for Rush to say what he wants, he deserves to be called out on this, and his non-apology-apology that he threw out after that.

billythrilly7th
10-27-2006, 12:23 AM
But nobody should have to endure this kind of bullcrap mudslinging

Like Bush being called a murdering Nazi Fascist war criminal?

I agree.

TheGaffer
10-27-2006, 12:33 AM
Like Bush being called a murdering Nazi Fascist war criminal?

I agree.

Sorry, man. Not the same. As odious as it is to say Bush is an a**hole, or Kerry is a loser who looks like an idiot while he's windsurfing, simply calling someone an idiot, war criminal, fascist or dirtbag just doesn't rise to the level of what I'm talking about. Or saying they have dumb opinions, or whatever. Personally I think the personal attacks -- even on the level you're describing -- are pretty damned stupid, too, and don't really advance any kind of argument, like saying someone who disagrees with the administration is a terrorist. Unfortunately this is all part of the usual rhetoric now, in which it takes about seven seconds for all the vitroil to come out -- the aforementioned "Bush is Hitler" comparisons, or the "Democrats are terrorists" baloney. I'd love it if we were a level more enlightened to kick that stuff out of the conversation, but we're not. Either way, that stuff all falls into the level of "dumb statements that don't advance anyone's argument."

But we're at a point where that stuff looks squeaky-clean compared to this, where someone can suggest someone is faking their symptoms or call it an act when, well, they have friggin' Parkinson's, and it's somehow considered a legit line of discussion.

Do you see where I am on this? The line of demarkation?

billythrilly7th
10-27-2006, 12:46 AM
Do you see where I am on this? The line of demarkation?

Ever so slightly.


Thank you.

TheGaffer
10-27-2006, 12:55 AM
thanks.

bloemmarc
10-27-2006, 12:56 AM
If you'd actually pay attention to what Rush was saying, you'd understand that he wasn't critizing MJF ability to want to help others, and even cure himself.
All he was saying was that the ad wasn't even connected to any organization that donates money for research of the disease, that it has been purely political. Come on, their an eleventh hour ads, put up right before the election. You can't say that's not purely political; why wasn't he running those ads previous to help other victoms of the disease?
Also, he was saying that other types of stem cell research like cord blood research show much more promise then embryonic research does, which doesn't kill life giving embryos.
he was saying he understands MJF desire to help others, and to show the effetcs of the disease when he is off his medication. He just thinks there are other ways to go about it, rather than putting up ads at the eleventh hour, and making it political.
Rush is right, MJF is a good person, but just because he has a disease does not mean that he is above citicism.
Most liberals just take a couple things that Rush says, and then run with it, and say all sorts of horrible stuff about him, without even truly listening to the man.

bloemmarc
10-27-2006, 12:58 AM
Eush never said he was faking his symptons. I know, I heard it.



thanks.

aghast
10-27-2006, 01:05 AM
Michael Fox stepped into the political arena when he began making ads for a candidate. It removed him from victim status and put him into the line of fire.

huh, when did speaking up for a cause make someone less of a 'victim'? no matter what he does, his parkinson wont disappear - you sound as heartless as the man, rush, you are defending - so what do you expect, that all victims should keep the mouths shut and let souless fat guys say whatever they damn well please on radio? and you know the only person taking meds is rush oxycontin limbaugh - and yes that guy is disgusting beyond belief - you pays something 20 million to talk talk talk on radio and sooner than later crap is going to fly out of their mouths - the problem with rush limbaugh is that he doesnt know when to quit

bloemmarc
10-27-2006, 01:11 AM
Rush never said he should shut up about his affliction, and he became exploited and a victim when he decided to run his ads on the eve of the election. I haven't heard this much of MJF and his disease as I have the last week.
Where was he in the public eye the last year, or a couple years before that speaking out about his cause? It's only been right before November, and that is solely political. he should be out there speaking about it with a research foundation or chairty group, not an election for embryonic research which has shown little or no value as of yet.




huh, when did speaking up for a cause make someone less of a 'victim'? no matter what he does, his parkinson wont disappear - you sound as heartless as the man, rush, you are defending - so what do you expect, that all victims should keep the mouths shut and let souless fat guys say whatever they damn well please on radio? and you know the only person taking meds is rush oxycontin limbaugh - and yes that guy is disgusting beyond belief

MacAllister
10-27-2006, 01:12 AM
Awright. Let's raise the level of discourse a bit, shall we? Or else let it drop. Enough with the trash-talk, though.

For the record, MJF has been doing a ton of work (http://www.michaeljfox.org/) to raise money for Parkinson's research and education, Bloemmarc, since the diagnosis. Where on earth have you been that you somehow missed that?

blacbird
10-27-2006, 01:24 AM
It's all Bill Clinton's fault, anyway.

caw.

bloemmarc
10-27-2006, 01:28 AM
I'll bet it's Monica's or Hillary's as well.



It's all Bill Clinton's fault, anyway.

caw.

blacbird
10-27-2006, 01:52 AM
One thing I'd bet on: The candidate Rush sought to defend in this sorry episode is wishing to hell he'd just kept his mouth shut. Public sentiment is not running real heavy in Limbaugh's favor. In part, no doubt, because on issues involving the use of medications he has less credibility than Bill Clinton has on issues involving marital fidelity.

caw

Gary
10-27-2006, 01:53 AM
I agree with the idea to not attack the messenger, but attack the message. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen in politics...or in the entertainment industry. When you take sides and climb into the mud puddle, mud flies in every direction. The difference is in what is reported and what is not.

George Clooney from Wikipedia....Along with his public criticisms of Jack Abramoff and other Republicans, Clooney once remarked, "Charlton Heston announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's." When asked if he went too far with his comment, he said, "I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."

blacbird
10-27-2006, 01:58 AM
Then Clooney deserves criticism for what he said. It does nothing to justify support of Limbaugh for what he said.

caw

Del
10-27-2006, 02:01 AM
Ask a specialist if you wanna check, but the shaking is a result of the medications NOT the ailment.

I was misdiagnosed with Parkinson's and I was told this as well.

billythrilly7th
10-27-2006, 02:01 AM
Then Clooney deserves criticism for what he said. It does nothing to justify support of Limbaugh for what he said.

caw

Yes, but it does justify the "theory of rampant hypocrisy."


Thank you.

bloemmarc
10-27-2006, 02:16 AM
YYYep, but you know as well as I do though Billy that any disrespectful words that come out of Clooney's mouth will never receive nearly the amount of attnetion. Guys like him get free passes to say whatever they want by the drive by media.



Yes, but it does justify the "theory of rampant hypocrisy."


Thank you.

Perks
10-27-2006, 02:32 AM
Rush never said he should shut up about his affliction, and he became exploited and a victim when he decided to run his ads on the eve of the election. Because people who will be elected shortly will have a great effect on how and when this research is greenlighted. It would hardly make sense to run the ads months and months before the elections if he was looking to have his points fresh in the minds of the voters. The timing is not insidious, it's sensible.

You don't have to be a proponent of embryonic stem-cell research to see that this campaign is smart, timely and fair to those who do desperately want to see the research done. There's no reason to attack them - just state why you're against such research and the alternatives. Convince me. Don't waste my time bellyaching about the other guy.

(Not you, bloemarc, you know... the talking faces.)

blacbird
10-27-2006, 02:34 AM
YYYep, but you know as well as I do though Billy that any disrespectful words that come out of Clooney's mouth will never receive nearly the amount of attnetion. Guys like him get free passes to say whatever they want by the drive by media.

Yeah, right, like Clooney is ever-present on soooooo many more media outlets than Rush is.

caw

TheGaffer
10-27-2006, 02:35 AM
YYYep, but you know as well as I do though Billy that any disrespectful words that come out of Clooney's mouth will never receive nearly the amount of attnetion. Guys like him get free passes to say whatever they want by the drive by media.

Get over your persecution complex, please.


Eush never said he was faking his symptons. I know, I heard it.
He made all kinds of herky-jerky movements when talking about MJF. I saw the clip. He was saying he was acting or off his meds.


All he was saying was that the ad wasn't even connected to any organization that donates money for research of the disease, that it has been purely political.
He has a right to make a political ad! And if you disagree with his view, so be it -- then shout it to the rafters! How is it you don't see that to go after his illness is beyond the pale?

bloemmarc
10-27-2006, 02:41 AM
He wasn't going after his illness. He was going after the fact that he was making it political.
You know what, the Deomocrat party is are the ones who truly persecution most times. You have to answer the hypocresy of what Gary had spoken of, or is that alright in your book. Liberals can trash talk, but conservatives can't, and Rush wasn't even trash talking for real.

Many liberal do the same thing as Rush every year, yet never get called on it or half the attnetion that Rush has because of his comment.
The hypocresy is unreal, which means liberals can dish it out, but can't take it back.



Get over your persecution complex, please.


He made all kinds of herky-jerky movements when talking about MJF. I saw the clip. He was saying he was acting or off his meds.


He has a right to make a political ad! And if you disagree with his view, so be it -- then shout it to the rafters! How is it you don't see that to go after his illness is beyond the pale?

bloemmarc
10-27-2006, 02:44 AM
Why aren't they studying adult stem cell or cord blood, which has proven more resoucreful than destroying life giving embryos for research?



Because people who will be elected shortly will have a great effect on how and when this research is greenlighted. It would hardly make sense to run the ads months and months before the elections if he was looking to have his points fresh in the minds of the voters. The timing is not insidious, it's sensible.

You don't have to be a proponent of embryonic stem-cell research to see that this campaign is smart, timely and fair to those who do desperately want to see the research done. There's no reason to attack them - just state why you're against such research and the alternatives. Convince me. Don't waste my time bellyaching about the other guy.

(Not you, bloemarc, you know... the talking faces.)

bloemmarc
10-27-2006, 02:46 AM
Give me a break. It's not liek clooeny doesn't have a big name; everyone knows who the guy is. Hollywood celebrities are always out there with their mouths flapping gathering attention to themselves.



Yeah, right, like Clooney is ever-present on soooooo many more media outlets than Rush is.

caw

bloemmarc
10-27-2006, 02:47 AM
[quote=TheGaffer]Get over your persecution complex, please.

By the way, I believe I made this paticular comment to Billy, one die hard conservative to another.

Perks
10-27-2006, 02:50 AM
Why aren't they studying adult stem cell or cord blood, which has proven more resoucreful than destroying life giving embryos for research?Who's 'they'? They are studying all avenues. It's a race. There are researchers working on both. Are you suggesting that MJFox just wants to kill potential babies for evil, maniacal, Halloween giggles.

Some people are convinced that embryonic stem cells are more promising. Some believe that adult or cord cells show more potential. It's a fight for the funds on who has the better science. That's what they're arguing. Someone has convinced MJFox that the embryonic researchers are making more headway. He believes it.

bloemmarc
10-27-2006, 02:52 AM
It's destroying life giving embryos though.



Who's 'they'? They are studying all avenues. It's a race. There are researchers working on both. Are you suggesting that MJFox just wants to kill potential babies for evil, maniacal, Halloween giggles.

Some people are convinced that embryonic stem cells are more promising. Some believe that adult or cord cells show more potential. It's a fight for the funds on who has the better science. That's what they're arguing. Someone has convinced MJFox that the embryonic researchers are making more headway. He believes it.

MacAllister
10-27-2006, 02:53 AM
By the way, I believe I made this paticular comment to Billy, one die hard conservative to another.If you don't want a response from the other people on the thread, then send a PM, instead of posting it in public. And what the heck is a "life-giving embryo" anyway?

dclary
10-27-2006, 02:57 AM
If you don't want a response from the other people on the thread, then send a PM, instead of posting it in public, then. And what the hell is a "life-giving embryo" anyway?

That's what I call my denver omelette.

blacbird
10-27-2006, 03:01 AM
Bloemm,

You have serious misconceptions about stem-cell research. First, adult stem-cell research is going on and has been going on for many years. There are even mature adult stem-cell therapies in use; that's exactly what a bone-marrow transplant is, for instance.

The major difference between adult stem-cells and embryonic stem-cells is that adult stem-cells can only grown into the kind of cell they were derived from, as in transplantantion of bone marrow cells. Embryonic stem-cells, in contrast, have the capacity to develop into a full spectrum of different types of cells, nerve, muscle, bone marrow, etc. That's how a human being develops from an embryo. And that's why the use of embryonic stem-cells holds such promise for repair of things like spinal cord injury or brain malfunctions like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

As I said, adult stem-cell research is going on all the time. If a way can be found to trick an adult stem-cell into producing daughter cells of a different type, that would be great. But nobody's been able to get to square one on that front as yet; you may (or may not) recall the recent story out of Korea about a researcher who claimed to have accomplished just such a thing. It turned out to be a complete fraud, and I believe he may actually have gone to jail over it.

Now, I have a degree of respect for the position of those who find the use of embryonic cells a moral problem, although considering that the source of those embryonic cells is left-over embryos which are never going to be used in in vitro fertilization, but are otherwise simply going to be destroyed, I disagree with it. But if you're going to argue against something, at least make some effort to understand what you're arguing against.

caw.

Perks
10-27-2006, 03:03 AM
It's destroying life giving embryos though.Then this is the argument. Michael J. Fox can hardly exaggerate his dire need and it's sinister for anyone to have said that he can and did. He, and many others, feel that their afflictions trump the claim to these many thousands, if not millions, of embryos that will never see implantation.

His urgency is very honest. There are ethical ramifications if embryos result in treatments for Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries and the like. So many people want to halt the research, because they feel the debate is too hot.

It is totally forgivable and understandable that Michael J. Fox just wants to know if there's hope for him.

Southern_girl29
10-27-2006, 03:05 AM
No one is going to go out and have an abortion simply because of stem-cell research. Instead, why not use the aborted embryos for something good, so something good will come from the abortion? Or how about those frozen embryos many couples who have gone through in vitro fertilization havel left over? Many of those are just being thrown away. I happen to know two or three couples who want to donate their embryos to research. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, I see it as a whole lot better than just throwing the embryos away.

I have a friend whose child was injured at birth. He wasn't even supposed to live, but now, he's three. His family traveled to Mexico so he could have a stem cell transplant. After the transfer, he could smile, lift his head, babble, and many other things he couldn't do before. If he's able to continue with the treatments, who knows what might happen, how far he'll come.

Instead of throwing away the embryos that have been aborted or those frozen embryos, give them to a cause that will help out many, many people.

TheGaffer
10-27-2006, 03:29 AM
He wasn't going after his illness. He was going after the fact that he was making it political.
He did both. Did you not see what he said? He called it an act. That's going after the illness.


You know what, the Deomocrat party is are the ones who truly persecution most times. You have to answer the hypocresy of what Gary had spoken of, or is that alright in your book.
Fill me in, please.


Many liberal do the same thing as Rush every year, yet never get called on it or half the attnetion that Rush has because of his comment.
Baloney. Example A: the flap John Kerry got over mentioning that Lynn Cheney was a lesbian, which is what she is.

Bravo
10-27-2006, 04:47 AM
it's good to see you again, gaff.

:)

billythrilly7th
10-27-2006, 04:52 AM
I think Gaffer and Bravo would be great friends if they knew each other in real life.

TheGaffer
10-27-2006, 06:15 AM
We just might as well, Billy. ;)

billythrilly7th
10-27-2006, 06:31 AM
I have no doubt we'd be good friends.

But I could really see something special develop between you and Bravo.

FADE IN:

OFFICE WORKER
Bravo and Gaffer are going out to lunch again together. They're like Siamese twins those two.

FADE OUT:

Except that the hump doesn't like sports. That could be a problem in the friendship. Bravo is a raging metrosexual.

Bravo
10-27-2006, 07:30 AM
Except that the hump doesn't like sports. That could be a problem in the friendship. Bravo is a raging metrosexual.


:roll::roll::roll:


but i consider myself an ubermale.

like george clooney, with better hair.

thank you.

OneTeam OneDream
10-28-2006, 01:48 AM
I support Ms. McCaskill and can only hope that enough of my fellow Missourians feel the same.


Fortunately, I don't see your hope coming true. McCaskill should really try a different racket beside politics, she's not cut out for it.

She's got the lying and the deception down, that's for sure, however, she is lacking intelligence.

aghast
10-28-2006, 01:57 AM
He wasn't going after his illness. He was going after the fact that he was making it political.

how the heck is speaking out for a cause he truly beleives in making it poltical? i think its those loudmouths like rush limbaugh who is making it poltiical - mjf simply wants research and fed money for these researches - and that may or may not include embryoic - if you wanna bring up god so you can stop progress thats fine but dont make a demon out of someone just because of your own strawman arguments - rush limbaugh is an big a** for calling someone with parkinsons an act - no matter what you believe in about stem cell research, you have to agree that guy is a moron

dclary
10-28-2006, 02:10 AM
how the heck is speaking out for a cause he truly beleives in making it poltical?

The cause he believes in has political repercussions.

Gary
10-28-2006, 04:00 AM
how the heck is speaking out for a cause he truly beleives in making it poltical?

When he puts it in a campaign ad that is misleading and has been approved by the person who is seeking the office.

Christine N.
10-28-2006, 05:55 AM
Bloemm,

You have serious misconceptions about stem-cell research. First, adult stem-cell research is going on and has been going on for many years. There are even mature adult stem-cell therapies in use; that's exactly what a bone-marrow transplant is, for instance.

The major difference between adult stem-cells and embryonic stem-cells is that adult stem-cells can only grown into the kind of cell they were derived from, as in transplantantion of bone marrow cells. Embryonic stem-cells, in contrast, have the capacity to develop into a full spectrum of different types of cells, nerve, muscle, bone marrow, etc. That's how a human being develops from an embryo. And that's why the use of embryonic stem-cells holds such promise for repair of things like spinal cord injury or brain malfunctions like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

As I said, adult stem-cell research is going on all the time. If a way can be found to trick an adult stem-cell into producing daughter cells of a different type, that would be great. But nobody's been able to get to square one on that front as yet; you may (or may not) recall the recent story out of Korea about a researcher who claimed to have accomplished just such a thing. It turned out to be a complete fraud, and I believe he may actually have gone to jail over it.

Now, I have a degree of respect for the position of those who find the use of embryonic cells a moral problem, although considering that the source of those embryonic cells is left-over embryos which are never going to be used in in vitro fertilization, but are otherwise simply going to be destroyed, I disagree with it. But if you're going to argue against something, at least make some effort to understand what you're arguing against.

caw.


I just think it deserved to be repeated. Taking embryos that are otherwise going to be destroyed and using them for research to help mankind cure diseases, IMO, is a noble and worthwhile enterprise. And the government would be foolish not to support it.

MJF and until their deaths, the Reeves, are just a couple of the faces of the millions of people that could be helped by using cells that otherwise would be flushed down the drain.

Jean Marie
10-28-2006, 07:41 AM
Rush is a twisted dweeb, IMO, and was obviously going after MJF. Rushie probaby took too much viagra before the comments.

blacbird
10-28-2006, 07:57 AM
When he puts it in a campaign ad that is misleading and has been approved by the person who is seeking the office.

How in hell is it misleading, Gary? I've seen the ad; have you? I didn't see one thing in it that was in any way inaccurate, including the point about the two candidates' stands on the issue.

Or is the kitchen just getting too hot for you guys over there on the right? A funny aspect of this election cycle is that, for the first time in about fifteen years, Democrats aren't just rolling over and playing dead. Republicans seem to be having a hell of a time handling that.

caw.

blacbird
10-28-2006, 07:58 AM
The cause he believes in has political repercussions.

It does. It damsure does. And my educated guess is that MJF is way over on the winning side of those repercussions.

Deal with it.

caw.

SeanDSchaffer
10-28-2006, 08:01 AM
Or is the kitchen just getting too hot for you guys over there on the right? A funny aspect of this election cycle is that, for the first time in about fifteen years, Democrats aren't just rolling over and playing dead. Republicans seem to be having a hell of a time handling that.

caw.


It's talk like this that makes me overtly glad I am an Independent.

blacbird
10-28-2006, 08:10 AM
It's talk like this that makes me overtly glad I am an Independent.

Which means exactly what? You flip coins?

caw.

SeanDSchaffer
10-28-2006, 08:13 AM
Which means exactly what? You flip coins?

caw.


It means I vote for the issues, not for the party.

dclary
10-28-2006, 08:16 AM
It does. It damsure does. And my educated guess is that MJF is way over on the winning side of those repercussions.

Deal with it.

caw.

I don't really have anything to deal with here. I'm indifferent to stem cells, and while MJF's career helped form me into the man I am today, I'm smart enough to let Rush and MJF debate their own points for them.

blacbird
10-28-2006, 08:24 AM
It means I vote for the issues, not for the party.

As do I. Which is why, in this particular election, I can see zero reason to vote for any Republican. I've voted for several in the past, for a variety of reasons. Right now that party has been hijacked by ideologues drunk on their electoral success over the past decade, and now running up against the results of their policies and having great trouble reconciling things. They badly need a time-out to clear their heads, and run off a bunch of dead wood, much as the Democrats had to do after 1994. Given the subject of this thread, if you can see reason to vote for Republicans on the basis of their stand on embryonic stem-cell research, by all means do so. Me? I can't.


caw.

SeanDSchaffer
10-28-2006, 08:30 AM
As do I. Which is why, in this particular election, I can see zero reason to vote for any Republican. I've voted for several in the past, for a variety of reasons. Right now that party has been hijacked by ideologues drunk on their electoral success over the past decade, and now running up against the results of their policies and having great trouble reconciling things. They badly need a time-out to clear their heads, and run off a bunch of dead wood, much as the Democrats had to do after 1994. Given the subject of this thread, if you can see reason to vote for Republicans on the basis of their stand on embryonic stem-cell research, by all means do so. Me? I can't.


caw.


I can. If they save a human life without destroying a human embryo, which I believe to be a living human soul, then more power to them. I've heard several times on this thread as well as elsewhere about something called 'Adult stem-cell research', which does not destroy a life to research a possibility, but rather takes the stem-cells from an adult human being to research the same possibilities.

I personally do not want to kill an embryo to save a person's life. Taking the adult stem-cell route, IMO, is a much more viable alternative that I think can garner just as decent results as embryonic stem-cell research can.

I'm sure that, if I am mistaken in this conclusion, some qualified individual will point that out to me.

Southern_girl29
10-28-2006, 10:13 AM
I can. If they save a human life without destroying a human embryo, which I believe to be a living human soul, then more power to them. I've heard several times on this thread as well as elsewhere about something called 'Adult stem-cell research', which does not destroy a life to research a possibility, but rather takes the stem-cells from an adult human being to research the same possibilities.

I personally do not want to kill an embryo to save a person's life. Taking the adult stem-cell route, IMO, is a much more viable alternative that I think can garner just as decent results as embryonic stem-cell research can.

I'm sure that, if I am mistaken in this conclusion, some qualified individual will point that out to me.

Most of the embryos were going to be destroyed anyway. As someone said earlier, donating them for research is a noble thing to do. If I had frozen embryos, I'd rather donate them to research than let them thaw and be destroyed.

Also, I just don't see it happening where people will create embryos simply for research. I also don't see someone having an abortion just to aid research.

I did a story over the summer about a woman who donated stem cells to her brother who had cancer. Stem cells from adults are "partially differentiated," which means they have the potential to turn into many different kind of cells, but not all. Embryonic stem cells are completely undifferentiated, which means they can turn into any kind of cell. This is why they have more potential uses.

I don't know a whole lot about adult stem cells, except for the little research I did about it for this story, but for me, if the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not donate them for research? Something good could come out of a bad situation.

Gary
10-28-2006, 03:40 PM
How in hell is it misleading, Gary? I've seen the ad; have you? I didn't see one thing in it that was in any way inaccurate, including the point about the two candidates' stands on the issue.

Or is the kitchen just getting too hot for you guys over there on the right? A funny aspect of this election cycle is that, for the first time in about fifteen years, Democrats aren't just rolling over and playing dead. Republicans seem to be having a hell of a time handling that.

caw.

Yes, I have seen the ad. I also said I personally don't have a problem with embryonic stem cell research.

Fox is suggesting that if you vote for his candidate, Parkinson's will be cured. He is also making ads for a candidate that has voted against embryonic stem cell research, so his cause for cure is not pure. He is using his disease to seek a sympathetic vote for Democrat candidates. Using his fame is fine, but using his disease is shameful. Fighting disease should never take on partisan overtones.

My problem is that his disease elevates him above criticism and the posts on this forum prove it. The Democrats knew anyone criticizing Fox would receive a firestorm of protest, so they twisted the ad to give false hope to ill people. Somehow I can't imagine using Charlton Heston to support a controversial cause would receive the same expectations of no criticism from Democrats. The previous quote from George Clooney pretty well proves that. God knows, there was nothing but cheers and celebration from the left during Ronald Reagan's illness and death.

While I'm very conservative, I'm an independent voter, and I'll handle the election just fine. I vote and then I accept the will of the people. Conservatives do that. If there is any difficulty handling the results of an election, it will come from the left, just as it always does.

eldragon
10-28-2006, 03:48 PM
I wish I had time to read this thread, but I don't.

Having said that I must say that I often think of Michael J Fox and his disease, even before the ad, and yes, I have read his book. Parts of it were so funny I still think of it and laugh.

Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter should be locked up together, someplace far, far away from other humans.

Which one is worse?

The fact that Rush is a drug addict, caught numerous times with prescriptions he had no prescriptions for - I can't believe he can show his face in public, nevermind mention anyone who is taking meds prescribed by a doctor, for a horrible disease.

MJF has Parkinson's disease and he either shakes or doesn't shake when he's on meds or not. Luckily for him, he can afford the medication he needs, whether it helps or not. What about the people who cannot afford it?

Between Limbaugh bashing MJF and Coulter bashing the Jersey widows, they have truly earned their place in hell. (Unfortunately, there is no hell, but since those hypocrits believe in it - I'll damn them to it.)

Let me just add that karma is going to have alot of fun with these two - in their next several lives.

Rush will be a short, black, poverty stricken child who is raised by crack addicted parents. He will learn first hand how fun it is to have dopeheads for role models. Then he will grow up and have terrible diseases for which he will not be able to get any help for.

Ann Coulter will be ugly and hopefully mute. She'll be born with the knowledge that organized religion is a crock, but won't be able to say anything about it because, since she's ugly - nobody will listen.

Christine N.
10-28-2006, 03:58 PM
Fox is suggesting that if you vote for his candidate, Parkinson's will be cured. He is also making ads for a candidate that has voted against embryonic stem cell research, so his cause for cure is not pure. He is using his disease to seek a sympathetic vote for Democrat candidates. Using his fame is fine, but using his disease is shameful. Fighting disease should never take on partisan overtones.


It's all connected. He wants you to vote for a candidate who will vote for embryonic research, which will in turn help his (and thousands of other people; my great-uncle died of Parkinson's) quality of life.

If another party's candidate was for his issues, he'd back that one. Simple. I don't see how it's shameful. Unfortunately it's come to this - this candidate is for this issue, so we're playing on it.

BottomlessCup
10-28-2006, 04:47 PM
God knows, there was nothing but cheers and celebration from the left during Ronald Reagan's illness and death.

This is probably the biggest load of sh!t I've ever seen posted in TIO.

SeanDSchaffer
10-28-2006, 05:30 PM
I did a story over the summer about a woman who donated stem cells to her brother who had cancer. Stem cells from adults are "partially differentiated," which means they have the potential to turn into many different kind of cells, but not all. Embryonic stem cells are completely undifferentiated, which means they can turn into any kind of cell. This is why they have more potential uses.



So let me see if I understand you correctly. Adult stem cells act differently than do embryonic stem cells. This would therefore be an advantage to embryonic stem cell research over adult stem cell research, in that there are more possibilities to consider.

Interesting point; I don't think I've ever heard it presented, possibly due to the fact that those who reported this stuff on the news I listened to at the time, didn't know this tidbit....or were afraid to present it.

Still, I find it problematic to kill embryos, if only because we're taking a human life. Regardless of whether or not those lives are going down the toilet anyway, it is my personal belief that they should be respected. As they cannot decide for themselves whether or not to be destroyed, I find it disrespectful to them as human beings to kill them for research.

Even so, I did not know that little tidbit about embryonic stem cell research, that you posted. I appreciate your willingness to post this information.

Southern_girl29
10-28-2006, 06:59 PM
So let me see if I understand you correctly. Adult stem cells act differently than do embryonic stem cells. This would therefore be an advantage to embryonic stem cell research over adult stem cell research, in that there are more possibilities to consider.

Interesting point; I don't think I've ever heard it presented, possibly due to the fact that those who reported this stuff on the news I listened to at the time, didn't know this tidbit....or were afraid to present it.

Still, I find it problematic to kill embryos, if only because we're taking a human life. Regardless of whether or not those lives are going down the toilet anyway, it is my personal belief that they should be respected. As they cannot decide for themselves whether or not to be destroyed, I find it disrespectful to them as human beings to kill them for research.

Even so, I did not know that little tidbit about embryonic stem cell research, that you posted. I appreciate your willingness to post this information.

Sean, I didn't know any of this either until I did the story. I wanted to find out what all the controversy was about if stem cells could be taken from live adult donors. With embryonic stem cells, there is more potential to find cures for diseases. Even cord blood stem cells are partially differentiated and can't become any kind of cell.

I know someone who has six or eight frozen embryos left over from when they were going through in vitro fertilization. They had twins their first pregnancy and now have a singleton infant. They are finished having children. They are now paying to keep their embryos frozen. They aren't sure what to do with them. The costs to keep the embryos frozen are adding up. There is the possibility of donating them to other people who are going through infertility, too, the but the thought of them having children they know nothing about bothers them. It also bothers them to think of them thawing out and being thrown away. So, they have thought about donating them to research, but haven't found out if they even can.

Gary
10-28-2006, 07:18 PM
This is probably the biggest load of sh!t I've ever seen posted in TIO.

Sometimes you have to be on the receiving end of hurtful words to hear them.

You can still go on liberal blogs today and read some of the hateful things said about Reagan. I looked at a few this morning and even posts from this month can't let go of their hatred for him.

"Now at least Hitler will have someone to talk to."

"Ding-dong, the wicked witch is dead!"

"I cheered when Reagan died, and I'll do the same when either Bush dies!"

There were more, but I think you get the idea.

You might also recall the memorial for Democrat Senator Paul Wellstone, when he died in a plane crash while campaigning for re-election. When his senate colleages from the Republican party walked into the service, they were boo'd by the crowd.

Good manners and respect are not exactly a glut on the left side of the aisle.

blacbird
10-28-2006, 09:21 PM
I can. If they save a human life without destroying a human embryo, which I believe to be a living human soul, then more power to them. I've heard several times on this thread as well as elsewhere about something called 'Adult stem-cell research', which does not destroy a life to research a possibility, but rather takes the stem-cells from an adult human being to research the same possibilities.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, and which someone else has repeated, adult stem-cell research is going on and has been for a long time, but adult stem cells do not function in the same way that embryonic stem cells do, and the much wider possibilities inherent in the way embryonic stem cells work is exactly why they are of such interest to the medical research community. The idea that you can do the same stuff with adult stem cells as you can with embryonic ones is both a common misconception and a commonly employed bit of propaganda.

As I also pointed out, there exist vast numbers of frozen embryos in fertility clinics which will never be used for reproductive purposes and which ultimately will simply be disposed of. Those are the embryos scientists wish to use for research purposes.

No one is pushing the idea that we should destroy embryos for the fun of it, or something similar. Even sillier is the charge that this research is aiming at the possibility of human cloning, which is another bit of anti-stem cell research propaganda I've heard, most recently in the anti-MJFox ad that has been run by opponents in the Senate race in Missouri.

caw

blacbird
10-28-2006, 09:29 PM
Sometimes you have to be on the receiving end of hurtful words to hear them.

You can still go on liberal blogs today and read some of the hateful things said about Reagan. I looked at a few this morning and even posts from this month can't let go of their hatred for him.

"Now at least Hitler will have someone to talk to."

"Ding-dong, the wicked witch is dead!"

"I cheered when Reagan died, and I'll do the same when either Bush dies!"

There were more, but I think you get the idea.

You might also recall the memorial for Democrat Senator Paul Wellstone, when he died in a plane crash while campaigning for re-election. When his senate colleages from the Republican party walked into the service, they were boo'd by the crowd.

Good manners and respect are not exactly a glut on the left side of the aisle.

Yeah, and in some places school children in Dallas cheered when they heard John F. Kennedy had been assassinated. I won't be held responsible for such reprehensible idiocy any more than I expect you to be. But when you say something like "God knows there was nothing but cheers and celebration from the left during Ronald Reagan's illness and death" that deserves to be called what it is, which is crap and propaganda.

caw

TheGaffer
10-28-2006, 10:22 PM
When he puts it in a campaign ad that is misleading and has been approved by the person who is seeking the office.

But then if that's your position, say the ad is misleading.

Don't attack him for not being sufficiently sick enough from a debilitating disease and mock him by jerking yourself around in a chair like an a**hole.

TheGaffer
10-28-2006, 10:31 PM
Fox is suggesting that if you vote for his candidate, Parkinson's will be cured.

Bullcrap, and you know it. He's saying Talent voted against embryonic stem-cell research which has been called "promising."


He is also making ads for a candidate that has voted against embryonic stem cell research, so his cause for cure is not pure. He is using his disease to seek a sympathetic vote for Democrat candidates. Using his fame is fine, but using his disease is shameful. Fighting disease should never take on partisan overtones.
Why? If one candidate doesn't want to do something about it, why can't he say something about it? He has to just shut up and take it? Why can't someone speak out about something that has personally affected them? Were the Jersey widows allowed to speak out, or should they just shut up too? Obviously anytime someone gets involved in politics, they're open to criticism, but lately the GOP has made a sport of attacking a person's character, essentially casting doubt on whether they exist, more or less. G-d forbid someone have a different view than they, and in addition, seem to have a somewhat unimpeachable character, like those women or MJF. To Rush, Ann and obviously you, a person's experience should really just be invalidated and doesn't ever matter. No, the people who are smart and SHOULD be listened to are blowhards on talk radio.



My problem is that his disease elevates him above criticism and the posts on this forum prove it. The Democrats knew anyone criticizing Fox would receive a firestorm of protest, so they twisted the ad to give false hope to ill people.
Bullcrap again, Gary. You're completely out of line here. If you don't like the ad, or his position, then ATTACK HIS POSITION. Say he's being used. Or say he's lying about stem cell research, or say why there's a moral problem with using embryos, like Sean D believes. But Rush Limbaugh mocked the disease. MJF isn't above criticism -- but the GOP didn't attack his position, they attacked his chararcter.


God knows, there was nothing but cheers and celebration from the left during Ronald Reagan's illness and death.
Also bullcrap. Give up your fantasies in your head, pal. You have a hard time accepting that many on the left liked or at least respected Reagan, just like you can't believe how popular Bill Clinton was and still is, because that would reduce the infallability of George W.


Conservatives do that. If there is any difficulty handling the results of an election, it will come from the left, just as it always does.
And again, more bullcrap. And as to the Paul Wellstone thing, the booing was a bit of mock booing of Trent Lott, who recognized it for what it was and smiled and laughed and waved at the crowd. This hijacking of Paul Wellstone's funeral -- a celebration of his life, and who cares what you think -- is obnoxious.

SeanDSchaffer
10-29-2006, 08:23 PM
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, and which someone else has repeated, adult stem-cell research is going on and has been for a long time, but adult stem cells do not function in the same way that embryonic stem cells do, and the much wider possibilities inherent in the way embryonic stem cells work is exactly why they are of such interest to the medical research community. The idea that you can do the same stuff with adult stem cells as you can with embryonic ones is both a common misconception and a commonly employed bit of propaganda.

As I also pointed out, there exist vast numbers of frozen embryos in fertility clinics which will never be used for reproductive purposes and which ultimately will simply be disposed of. Those are the embryos scientists wish to use for research purposes.

No one is pushing the idea that we should destroy embryos for the fun of it, or something similar. Even sillier is the charge that this research is aiming at the possibility of human cloning, which is another bit of anti-stem cell research propaganda I've heard, most recently in the anti-MJFox ad that has been run by opponents in the Senate race in Missouri.

caw



And as I pointed out earlier in this thread, I did not know any of that stuff about adult stem-cells versus embryonic stem-cells, until another poster kindly pointed it out to me. I still think killing human embryos is wrong, but for you to act as though what you pointed out is common knowledge, is ludicrous. Many people do not know anything about the differences between the two kinds of stem-cells. This is due in part to the Christian media, which tells its listeners as fact that there is no difference between the two.

ETA:
When speaking of Christian Media, I am specifically referring to groups like CBN News, which have stated that there is no difference between embryonic stem-cells and adult stem-cells. Given the fact that a news organization stated as fact that there was no difference, I can only conclude that they either deliberately kept that information from their viewers, or that it is not common knowledge to the point that their news organization did not know that there was such a difference.

eldragon
10-29-2006, 08:55 PM
It just dawned on me how unfortunate it is that Michael J Fox has the same last name as Fox news.

It makes the story harder to follow.

MacAllister
10-29-2006, 09:08 PM
Sean, the problem is that it IS common knowledge if you read any actual science publications--and those can very much be publications for the layman, not necessarily studies and scholarly journals.

I think the difference is in what you called "Christian media" which isn't at all representative of what the average joe is exposed to.

blacbird
10-29-2006, 11:01 PM
Sean, the problem is that it IS common knowledge if you read any actual science publications--and those can very much be publications for the layman, not necessarily studies and scholarly journals.

I'll echo this. It's hardly a minor detail, and it has been discussed and re-discussed on news and science programs for years now. You just weren't paying attention, for whatever reason.

And it's perfectly respectable for you to disagree with embryonic stem-cell research on a basis of your personal moral judgment, providing you really know what the facts of the issue are. If you don't, your judgment isn't respectable. And it's been my observation that most of the people most vociferously against embryonic stem-cell research don't understand those facts, and that the leaders of the voices against it want to keep things that way.

caw.

TheGaffer
10-30-2006, 02:48 AM
And it's been my observation that most of the people most vociferously against embryonic stem-cell research don't understand those facts, and that the leaders of the voices against it want to keep things that way.

Heh. You could eliminate the words "embryonic stem-cell research" from that sentence and substitute almost anything, and you'd have the state of the national discourse down pretty well.

robeiae
10-30-2006, 03:39 AM
Sean, the problem is that it IS common knowledge if you read...So, you're saying it's not common knowledge at all...

blacbird
10-30-2006, 05:04 AM
So, you're saying it's not common knowledge at all...

Ah . . . I've been wondering where the Grand Ayatollah of semantic quibbling has been during this discussion. Hey, Rob.

caw.

MacAllister
10-30-2006, 05:15 AM
He was off in New Zealand or some such. I have a memo here, somewhere...

Bravo
10-30-2006, 05:19 AM
dont tell me that he's posting while on vacation. :eek:

robeiae
10-30-2006, 05:47 AM
Peasants.

Christine N.
10-30-2006, 05:58 AM
Personally I don't know how much adult stem-cells can do in the area of such things as Parkinson's - since it's brain related, and brain cells are able to regenerate.

What I DO know is that embryonic stem cells may be the ONLY hope of people with spinal cord injuries and severe nerve damage.

For these officials to tell these people that, although a process may exist to help them, we're not going to explore it, and instead going to make you suffer for the rest of your lives, is pretty much unconsionable. I know I spelled that wrong. We pour money into breast cancer research, diabetes research, etc... and yet we refuse to explore this?? When the material necessary for such experiments is available?

Again, my personal opinion is that embryos, at a very early stage of development, are just a clump of cells. Those are the ones you want anyway, since they're not differentiated yet. I don't view them as people yet.

Once you start getting older embryos, they're not useful to research. Those I might consider humans.

And I'd still rather see them used to help people than flushed away. If they don't have a choice to be used for research, they don't have a choice to be flushed either.

blacbird
10-30-2006, 07:05 AM
brain cells are able to regenerate.

Not.

caw.

blacbird
10-30-2006, 07:07 AM
Peasants.

Please, may I have some more gruel, master?

caw.

Bartholomew
10-30-2006, 07:35 AM
Why do people listen to Rush Limbaugh?

The man is basically a 300 pound living booger.

blacbird
10-30-2006, 08:35 AM
I'm offended. You just insulted boogers, Bart.

caw.

Bartholomew
10-30-2006, 09:03 AM
I'm offended. You just insulted boogers, Bart.

caw.

Sorry! :( Now I feel bad.

Opty
10-30-2006, 09:07 AM
and brain cells are able to regenerate.


No, they're not (at least, not in the way I think you mean). If they did, then MJF's substantia nigra could grow back on its own and he wouldn't have Parkinson's anymore.

I also agree, though, that the existing frozen embryos set aside for research should be used. If not, they're just gonna get flushed.

So, the argument that it's somehow "immoral" because it's "killing potential babies" is silly, because they're not potential babies.

They're potential garbage.

Because that's where they're going if they don't get used. They're human caviar.

Stem cell research is already decently funded. Its funding is only publicly called into question during election season (a stupid scare tactic of misinformation and blame). The entire issue seems to now only be a political weapon.

California, for example, has set aside $3B in its budget to fund it. There's also much embryonic stem cell research being done at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes_Medical_Institute), not to mention drug company research (driven, of course, by profit).

I'm not sure how much substantial progress would be made if the federal ban were lifted (states don't have to abide by this, as they can set aside state money to fund embryonic stem cell research if they wish; like California) and fed money made available.

However, I doubt more money (even if it's not much more, relatively) would hurt the research and, when it comes to stuff like this, the more the merrier.

NicoleJLeBoeuf
10-30-2006, 11:45 AM
And I'd still rather see them used to help people than flushed away. If they don't have a choice to be used for research, they don't have a choice to be flushed either.This is a very important point, and one on which even hard-line abortion opponents ought to see the truth of:

Disposing of a frozen embryo into the bio-hazard waste bucket is not more "respectful-to-life" than using the frozen embryo for life-saving stem-cell therapy.

I can't see how anyone can disagree with that, unless there's more to their argument than I'm hearing. For instance, are they also opposing fertilization clinics which create all these frozen and soon to be disposed of embryos? Are they backing support for research that keeps the human female body from naturally discarding a high percentage of naturally fertilized embryos?

Saving a life is respectful to life. If the frozen embryo cannot be implanted, and your choice is to either throw it away or save a life with it, how is refusing to save a life somehow respect for life? What good is a "respect life" principle that, when stood on, in fact saves no lives at all?

Bartholomew
10-30-2006, 11:56 AM
I think the pro-life people see this horrible future of scientists harvesting embryos in order to create some kind of Stephen King-Esque Super-Flu.

The typical oppositional reaction to stem cell research is purely emotional; do not expect logic to enter into their equations.

What blows my mind are those rare people who oppose stem cell research, but are behind abortion 100%. O.o <BOGGLE>


This is a very important point, and one on which even hard-line abortion opponents ought to see the truth of:

Disposing of a frozen embryo into the bio-hazard waste bucket is not more "respectful-to-life" than using the frozen embryo for life-saving stem-cell therapy.

I can't see how anyone can disagree with that, unless there's more to their argument than I'm hearing. For instance, are they also opposing fertilization clinics which create all these frozen and soon to be disposed of embryos? Are they backing support for research that keeps the human female body from naturally discarding a high percentage of naturally fertilized embryos?

Saving a life is respectful to life. If the frozen embryo cannot be implanted, and your choice is to either throw it away or save a life with it, how is refusing to save a life somehow respect for life? What good is a "respect life" principle that, when stood on, in fact saves no lives at all?

billythrilly7th
10-30-2006, 12:56 PM
I think the pro-life people see this horrible future of scientists harvesting embryos in order to create some kind of Stephen King-Esque Super-Flu.


Many issues from gay marriage to gun control to partial birth abortion are taken by the side that opposes them to the lunatic worst case scenario "oh my god" end of the spectrum.

"I can't support a ban on the absolutely brutal partial birth abortion because that will mean a women will one day lose the right to choose."

"I can't support a background check for someone buying a gun because that will mean that one day we won't be able to buy a gun and the second amendment will be destroyed."

"I can't support gay marriage because that will mean one day that someone will marry an ostrige."

"I can't support an increase in military funding because that will mean Reagan will nuke the planet."

"We shouldn't close down the border because we won't have busboys!! Oh my god!"

etc......

I'm sick of people who fight an issue because of their insane worry that one day it will lead............>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>here..


even though the clear minded position is most likely

>>>>>here...

Nicely in the middle.

Jeez.

Thank you.

William H. Thrilly 7th
47th President of the United States
And Emperor of the New Order

SC Harrison
10-30-2006, 05:44 PM
Many issues from gay marriage to gun control to partial birth abortion are taken by the side that opposes them to the lunatic worst case scenario "oh my god" end of the spectrum.



I've said it before and I'll say it againóthe leaders of both parties want to keep these issues in play because that's how they keep people worried. Worried people donate more money than complacent ones.

TheGaffer
10-30-2006, 05:58 PM
Many issues from gay marriage to gun control to partial birth abortion are taken by the side that opposes them to the lunatic worst case scenario "oh my god" end of the spectrum.

Yeah. Pretty much correct, Billy. I'm not sure if our political discourse was ever really all that enlightened, but it does seem that the "endumbening," as Lisa Simpson would put it in that great Simpsons episode, has worsened in the last several years or so.

eldragon
10-30-2006, 06:13 PM
Many issues from gay marriage to gun control to partial birth abortion are taken by the side that opposes them to the lunatic worst case scenario "oh my god" end of the spectrum

Just the term "partial birth abortion" is misleading.

It brings to mind an image of a woman who is about to deliver, who decides to abort because of an inconvenience or something.

I'm pro choice, but I think the cut-off should be absolute, and early - like before 12 weeks. That gives a window of about 6 weeks, because you can't even have an abortion before 6 weeks. Still - if the mother waits, for whatever reason, I think she should carry to term.


Just my two cents.

Southern_girl29
10-30-2006, 07:15 PM
Many issues from gay marriage to gun control to partial birth abortion are taken by the side that opposes them to the lunatic worst case scenario "oh my god" end of the spectrum.

"I can't support a ban on the absolutely brutal partial birth abortion because that will mean a women will one day lose the right to choose."

"I can't support a background check for someone buying a gun because that will mean that one day we won't be able to buy a gun and the second amendment will be destroyed."

"I can't support gay marriage because that will mean one day that someone will marry an ostrige."

"I can't support an increase in military funding because that will mean Reagan will nuke the planet."

"We shouldn't close down the border because we won't have busboys!! Oh my god!"

etc......

I'm sick of people who fight an issue because of their insane worry that one day it will lead............>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>here..


even though the clear minded position is most likely

>>>>>here...

Nicely in the middle.

Jeez.

Thank you.

William H. Thrilly 7th
47th President of the United States
And Emperor of the New Order

Billy, I don't normally agree with your take on things, but you are right about this. I am pro-choice, but I believe partial birth abortions should be banned. I believe in background checks for those who wish to buy a gun, knowing that it will never lead to guns being banned completely (although I really wouldn't mind that either).

We had someone in the newsroom where I work say that if we allowed homosexuals to marry, why couldn't we allow a man to marry a sheep? It's just not a valid argument.

blacbird
10-30-2006, 10:10 PM
Blacbird, it's unfair of you to inject facts into this thread.

Yeah, I know. Sorry. It's a horrible weakness of mine. I'll try to do better in future.

caw

TheGaffer
10-30-2006, 10:32 PM
We had someone in the newsroom where I work say that if we allowed homosexuals to marry, why couldn't we allow a man to marry a sheep? It's just not a valid argument.
It's just not even close to a valid argument.

SeanDSchaffer
10-30-2006, 10:34 PM
I'll echo this. It's hardly a minor detail, and it has been discussed and re-discussed on news and science programs for years now. You just weren't paying attention, for whatever reason.



In fact, yes I did pay attention, Blacbird. You just aren't willing to admit that not everyone reports things the way they should be reported.

I agree with most everything you're saying, now that I understand it. However, I disagree with your attitude that because I was misinformed by certain media which claim to be telling the truth on every issue, therefore I am not listening.

I personally think you are overreacting to something that is very minute in importance here. I have already admitted I was mistaken in my belief about the difference between adult stem-cells and embryonic stem-cells. Why you continue to harass me about my one-time belief, I cannot figure. I personally think you just want to argue, not make any legitimate points for your side of the argument. Whether your arguments make good points or no, making me look like an idiot because I did not know something that a news organization I used to listen to, decided not to tell me, is just plain disrespectful.


ETA:
I forgot to add this:

Blacbird, if you decide to talk to me as one adult to another, I might start to listen to you. Until then, *Plonk*.

English Dave
10-30-2006, 10:55 PM
Limbaugh's comments were reported on UK TV. Guess who came of worse between him and MJF? And most people here think MJF is a lucky rich midget.

eldragon
10-30-2006, 11:37 PM
This morning in the car I was listening to a syndicated radio show I often find amusing, even though they are conservatives and I am liberal.

But then they bashed Michael J Fox for "weaving around on television,"

I don't understand what happened to basic compassion.

Why is it acceptable to make fun of someone suffering from a disease?

English Dave
10-30-2006, 11:41 PM
I don't understand what happened to basic compassion.

Why is it acceptable to make fun of someone suffering from a disease?

If Muhhamad Ali ran for office, no doubt some would say he was faking it. There is a helluva' an amount of POWER and MONEY at stake, to answer your rhetorical question.

Christine N.
10-30-2006, 11:49 PM
Whoops, sorry.
Why did I think the brain cells could divide? Well, they continue to grow and synapse after birth until the brain is fully developed, unlike nerve cells, which are completed 2 months before birth and we never get any more.

I don't mean that damaged ones can come back, but can brain cells divide and make new ones? All the other cells of the body (except nerve, hence the problem) do.

Maybe that's what I was thinking of? Oh well, no one ever accused me of being a science nerd.

eldragon
10-30-2006, 11:53 PM
If Muhhamad Ali ran for office, no doubt some would say he was faking it. There is a helluva' an amount of POWER and MONEY at stake, to answer your rhetorical question.

I really liked MJF's response to Rush, which was basically, "sorry he feels that way but I'm not going to fight a bully."

As he said, he's not a newbie to this cause. He started a foundation 6 years ago and has raised more money than any other foundation, besides the government, for Parkinson's disease.


He's very well spoken and calm. He pointed out that if he hadn't taken his medication, he would have had "mask face," and would not have been able to talk.

I wish Rush would get this disease for at least one day.

English Dave
10-31-2006, 12:06 AM
I really liked MJF's response to Rush, which was basically, "sorry he feels that way but I'm not going to fight a bully."

As he said, he's not a newbie to this cause. He started a foundation 6 years ago and has raised more money than any other foundation, besides the government, for Parkinson's disease.


He's very well spoken and calm. He pointed out that if he hadn't taken his medication, he would have had "mask face," and would not have been able to talk.

I wish Rush would get this disease for at least one day.
And I forgot to add it is not acceptable and hopefully another nail in that bigoted gasbag's coffin.

Joe Unidos
10-31-2006, 12:09 AM
Rush knows all about how hard it is to stop taking one's "medicine." You know, because he's a habitual drug offender and all.

Southern_girl29
10-31-2006, 01:05 AM
An AP wire story says that MJF was able to laugh off the criticisms, but his mother was mad at about it. He also said he was neither acting nor off his medications.

English Dave
10-31-2006, 01:16 AM
An AP wire story says that MJF was able to laugh off the criticisms, but his mother was mad at about it. He also said he was neither acting nor off his medications.

Why is this even an issue? The guy retired from a highly lucrative career at the top of his game because of his illness.

A few years later, some opinionated windbag who has done nothing other that have opinions that resonate with an audience looking for those opinions says he is 'acting'

And MJF would do that because.....what?

I can't believe he has pretentions to the Presidency given he's a spasmo. So maybe.....he's genuine?

billythrilly7th
10-31-2006, 01:20 AM
And MJF would do that because.....what?


He said it himself about testifying before Congress that he won't take his medicines so it has more of an impact.

It's in MJF's book.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Rush obviously disagrees.

Thank you.

And may god bless Michael J. Fox and Alex P. Keaton.

eldragon
10-31-2006, 01:52 AM
Yes, Billy, but MJF's book was written several years back, when the effects of Parkinson's disease were less often or obvious.

Now, he has to take medicine ever few hours and never knows how bad it's going to be. But as others have said, it's been bad enough to end his very lucrative acting career.

I read Fox's book several years ago when it came out. His story was very different then. Sorry to say that his disease has progressed significantly since.

English Dave
10-31-2006, 02:05 AM
He said it himself about testifying before Congress that he won't take his medicines so it has more of an impact.

It's in MJF's book.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.



I haven't seen his testimony to Congress or read his book. But if someone wants to show the true effects of a degenerative disease without the masking effects of short term drugs then I say good luck to them.

The genome has been discovered. Billions of dollars could be diverted to research in that area rather than petty minded jingoistic policies, not to mention global warming which as any right thinking person knows is not a political football, it is a reality.

I don't care what the cause is, I just know it has to be fixed, so screw the politics. Listen to science.

billythrilly7th
10-31-2006, 03:28 AM
Does anyone with a brain really care what a loudmouth dirtbag like rush says to his sycophants?

Apparently yes, based on the play this story has gotten across the country, in seven pages here, and throughout the world.

Thank you.

eldragon
10-31-2006, 03:48 AM
Apparently yes, based on the play this story has gotten across the country, in seven pages here, and throughout the world.

Thank you.

And I truly hope that everyone votes yes for stem cell research - next Tuesday!

English Dave
10-31-2006, 04:02 AM
Apparently yes, based on the play this story has gotten across the country, in seven pages here, and throughout the world.

Thank you.

I agree with Billy. Rush is a talented networked presenter. You are all a bunch of internet losers.

As we all know, that means nothing.

billythrilly7th
10-31-2006, 04:06 AM
And I truly hope that everyone votes yes for stem cell research - next Tuesday!

If anything, this story will cause more conservatives to go to the polls.

This story is not what they needed as they near the finish line of quenching their unprecented thirst for power.

English Dave
10-31-2006, 04:08 AM
If anything, this story will cause more conservatives to go to the polls.

This story is not what they needed as they near the finish line of quenching their unprecented thirst for power.

mmmmmm hhhhhh. mmmmmmmmmm

Too many arguments, too much why the hell should I?

billythrilly7th
10-31-2006, 04:26 AM
mmmmmm hhhhhh. mmmmmmmmmm

Too many arguments, too much why the hell should I?

Watch Oxford Blues again.

All one needs to know about power and revenge can be learned in the Rob Lowe classic, Oxford Blues.

Thank you.

robeiae
10-31-2006, 04:29 AM
...the Rob Lowe classic, Oxford Blues.
That's almost as good as About Last Night, which means it's only two steps worse than having a root canal while watching Ishtar...

eldragon
10-31-2006, 05:22 AM
If anything, this story will cause more conservatives to go to the polls.

This story is not what they needed as they near the finish line of quenching their unprecented thirst for power.

Gosh! And I had been hoping they wouldn't go!

And anyway, I disagree.


(BTW - My favorite MJF movie is Bright Lights, Big City.)

billythrilly7th
10-31-2006, 05:23 AM
(BTW - My favorite MJF movie is Bright Lights, Big City.)

Excellent film.

blacbird
10-31-2006, 08:41 AM
If anything, this story will cause more conservatives to go to the polls.

This story is not what they needed as they near the finish line of quenching their unprecented thirst for power.

Keep on wishin', Thrillsy. That's not what the response polls suggest.

caw.

blacbird
10-31-2006, 08:46 AM
In fact, yes I did pay attention, Blacbird. You just aren't willing to admit that not everyone reports things the way they should be reported.

I agree with most everything you're saying, now that I understand it. However, I disagree with your attitude that because I was misinformed by certain media which claim to be telling the truth on every issue, therefore I am not listening.

And these "certain media" were, exactly, whom?.

I rest my case.

caw.

dclary
10-31-2006, 09:03 AM
Keep on wishin', Thrillsy. That's not what the response polls suggest.

caw.

And we know how right those are. You probably believe in evolution, too.

blacbird
10-31-2006, 09:19 AM
You probably believe in evolution, too.

Revolution.

caw.

billythrilly7th
10-31-2006, 09:51 AM
That's not what the response polls suggest.

caw.

Please show me the poll that says LESS conservatives will go to the polls now,( or no change) due to the MJFox controversey, and I will stand corrected.

Thank you.

blacbird
10-31-2006, 09:55 AM
It's an unsupported interpretation, Thrills. Surely you, of all people, can understand that.

Meantime, Rush is now claiming that mainstream media have "speeded up" the video of his mocking the movements of MJF. Keith Olbermann (yeah, I know, Satan incarnate) ran the video tonight, WITH SOUND, at standard speed. It was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen someone do on camera. Yeah, that'll get them conservs to the polls in droves, fer sher.

caw.

billythrilly7th
10-31-2006, 09:57 AM
It's an unsupported interpretation, Thrills. Surely you, of all people, can understand that.


Okay, so you have no poll to counter my interpretation that more conservatives will head over to their polling place next Tuesday because of this issue.

That's what I thought.

Thank you.

blacbird
10-31-2006, 10:23 AM
Okay, so you have no poll to counter my interpretation that more conservatives will head over to their polling place next Tuesday because of this issue.

That's what I thought.

Thank you.

We'll know in a week. I'm okay with whatever result happens.

Meantime, the only really interesting candidate contest where I live is the governor's race, which pits a former two-term Democratic governor, who is a fiscal conservative and can come across as kind of a wimp, against an inexperienced ex-small town mayor, female, who is personable, Hollywood telegenic and a little spacey at times. Neither are dummies, however, and they basically agree on most major issues. It's a heavily Republican state, but the standard Chamber of Commerce business types tend to favor him (he's a small businessman by background, who personally has served me a hamburger at the restaurant he owns}. Social conservs like her {she's dropped hints about supporting the teaching of creationism in public schools), for all the standard reasons. The current polls are right at 50-50. We just had another legislative primary race end in a dead flat tie, and get settled by a coin flip. Should be fun.

If the Repub gets elected (her name is Sarah Palin), expect her to become something of a flashy new face in the national Republican scene, just by her looks.

But I'm even happy with either of those outcomes. Palin unseated the incumbent Republican governor, who is an unmitigated disaster, in the primary. Anything would be a step forward from that guy. Kind of like what I'm looking forward to in the Presidential campaign for 2008.

caw.

billythrilly7th
10-31-2006, 10:33 AM
The only thing I really care about next Tuesday is that the morons who live here in the People's Republic of Boulder who want flouride taken out of the drinking water lose their ballot initiative.

If they win I will have no choice but to move. I like having teeth.

"Vote no on 2B!!"
Keep Boulderians Smiling!

blacbird
10-31-2006, 10:41 AM
If they win I will have no choice but to move.

We got a house for sale right up the street. Mountains, snow, at a much lower altitude. Bears, moose, right in the yard, whenever you need 'em. Big salmons catchable in creeks right here in town. Earthquakes, too. Plus you'd never have a worry about not being in the political majority. Give it a shot. I'll buy you a six-pack of good beer.

caw.

TheGaffer
10-31-2006, 06:03 PM
Okay, so you have no poll to counter my interpretation that more conservatives will head over to their polling place next Tuesday because of this issue.

Wait, he has to come up with a poll, but you get to rest on your "interpretation"? Show us a poll that supports what you're saying.

eldragon
10-31-2006, 06:27 PM
The only thing I really care about next Tuesday is that the morons who live here in the People's Republic of Boulder who want flouride taken out of the drinking water lose their ballot initiative.

If they win I will have no choice but to move. I like having teeth.

"Vote no on 2B!!"
Keep Boulderians Smiling!

Unbelievable.


Who would think that tap water is a beverage?

dclary
10-31-2006, 09:39 PM
People who don't live in big cities where tap water is sh*t.

TheGaffer
10-31-2006, 10:00 PM
New York has great tap water.

billythrilly7th
10-31-2006, 10:17 PM
Wait, he has to come up with a poll, but you get to rest on your "interpretation"? Show us a poll that supports what you're saying.

LOL!!!

Why?

Do you have a poll to support every one of your posts?

Of course not.

Duh.

"he HAS to come up with a poll??"

blac specifically said "the response polls say..."

yeah, then he HAS to come with a poll...

Big swing and a miss, or caught looking like Beltrain for you on that post, Gaffer. Sorry.

'Nuff said.

Regardless, it's only human common sense of the highest scale based on all historical election data that the more press an issue gets, the more people come out for that issue.

Of course more conservatives will come out the polls next week because of this issue.

And more liberals as well.

Duh. With sugar on top.

TheGaffer
10-31-2006, 10:36 PM
Big swing and a miss, or caught looking like Beltrain for you on that post, Gaffer. Sorry.

'Nuff said.
Argh, low blow.


Regardless, it's only human common sense of the highest scale based on all historical election data that the more press an issue gets, the more people come out for that issue.
But that's a generalized statement, man. you're not presenting any other evidence than "I said." Which makes it an opinion. So no, you don't need a poll on it, but it's no more valid a statement than what blacbird said.


Of course more conservatives will come out the polls next week because of this issue.

And more liberals as well.

Duh. With sugar on top.
Which makes the entire post moot, no? I mean, now we're into the semantic quibbling game.

dclary
10-31-2006, 10:41 PM
Boys, stop bickering or I'll call your father.

billythrilly7th
10-31-2006, 10:45 PM
Argh, low blow.


But that's a generalized statement, man. you're not presenting any other evidence than "I said." Which makes it an opinion. So no, you don't need a poll on it, but it's no more valid a statement than what blacbird said.


Which makes the entire post moot, no? I mean, now we're into the semantic quibbling game.

A. Yes. Sorry.
B. Blacbird said "the polls say." I did not. If you say "the polls say" you better have a poll to present.
Yes, it's an opinion based on common sense. Similiar to the galvanizing gay marriage issue of 2004, I simply said "if anything, more conservatives...." Do we really need to have a poll to back up an opinion for every post and/or say "this is my opinion?" OF COURSE it's my opinion. Almost every post we make is our opinion. For the love of god....
C. No, it isn't moot. My contention is that...refer to line "B. gay marriage."

I stand by my contention based on Dr. Phil's "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior."

TheGaffer
10-31-2006, 10:52 PM
Yes, it's an opinion based on common sense. Similiar to the galvanizing gay marriage issue of 2004, I simply said "if anything, more conservatives...." Do we really need to have a poll to back up an opinion for every post and/or say "this is my opinion?" OF COURSE it's my opinion. Almost every post we make is our opinion. For the love of god....

No, you don't need to, clearly. But the gay marriage issue was a pretty common-sense one. This is more of a leap of logic that you're making. "People are talking about Michael J. Fox so people will vote for this to defend Rush Limbaugh's honor," or something like that. It's too many hoops, thrills, which is why there's nothing wrong with anyone trying to pin you down on this. "I'm voting against gay marriage" is an easy equation. This is not.

Past behavior may be accurate in some cases, but what's the comparison here? "People talk about something so more people think about it." But that's about as rudimentary and as generalized a statement a person could make, no?

billythrilly7th
10-31-2006, 10:58 PM
An election is nothing more than a sales pitch.

The more advertising, the more press....the more votes.

More people aren't going to vote to defend Rush Limbaugh's honor.

:eye roll emoticon with a disappointed gaze at Gaffer similar to a parent's disappointed gaze emoticon:

They are going to vote because they've been awoken out of their slumber. And people are going "wait, this will allow cloning? What? Huh? I better vote."

Now, I don't know if that's true or not. But that's the sales pitch and simply on election day, IMOOOOOO ....if there were going to be 1000 conservatives voting, there will be at least 1001.

All polls do show that democrats are much more enthusiastic for this election and more likely to vote and although it doesn't compare to the huge anti-gay marriage turnout that seemed to come out in 2004, ......

"The best predictor of future behevior is past behavior."

The democrats may have awoken a sleeping giant in Missouri.

Maybe not.

Thank you.

Gotta go.


Good day.

TheGaffer
10-31-2006, 11:26 PM
I'll summarize your position.


Things could happen. If people talk about something they want to do things about it. One is more than zero.


Ok, good. Gotta go.

Thank you.

blacbird
10-31-2006, 11:39 PM
The democrats may have awoken a sleeping giant in Missouri.


You gotta show me.

caw.

billythrilly7th
11-01-2006, 01:28 AM
I'll summarize your position.


Things could happen. If people talk about something they want to do things about it. One is more than zero.


Ok, good. Gotta go.

Thank you.

It's amazing how rabidly power hungry blood thirsty democrats can take a throwaway common sense line such as "if anything, more conservatives will end up going to the polls" and turn it into a federal case.

Sleep well.

All you did today was ruin a thread.

Thank you.
:)

TheGaffer
11-01-2006, 01:32 AM
It's not a federal case, billy. It's a thread. You posted. I responded. As did others. Excuse us for wanting to try to get more clarity on an assertion you're making. It's what we do around here, no?

billythrilly7th
11-01-2006, 01:37 AM
You gotta show me.

caw.

You want me to show you something that I said "may" have happened?

Like what? Like Bush now coming to rally the conservative troops because of this issue?

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/elections/15893522.htm


President Bush will travel to Missouri on Friday to campaign for Republican Sen. Jim Talent, the first time the two will appear together at a public campaign event in the state this year.

The White House confirmed the trip Tuesday, though details about where Bush would visit were not immediately available. Talent told reporters in Joplin, Mo., that tickets for an event in Springfield were already being distributed.

"Sen. Talent has a strong record of fighting for lower taxes, and the president wants to do everything he can to help him win re-election this fall," Conant said.

Bush's trip is part of a weeklong tour geared to help Republicans motivate conservative voters just four days before the Nov. 7 election.

or Frist coming to help out as well...

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/elections/15888398.htm


Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist joined the re-election campaign for Republican Sen. Jim Talent on Tuesday as Talent toured southwest Missouri a week before the general election.Talent, meanwhile, hammered in the same point he has made to other GOP rallies around the state, that party volunteers must work hard to get out the vote in the final stretch.

"If we go out and execute the plan, if we get our friends and neighbors to vote, we are going to win," Talent said.

The Republican election machine is in full swing now in Missouri.

"The Monster is loose."
Meatloaf
10/31/06
Bat out of Hell III


Is that what you meant, blac?

billythrilly7th
11-01-2006, 01:40 AM
It's not a federal case, billy. It's a thread. You posted. I responded. As did others. Excuse us for wanting to try to get more clarity on an assertion you're making. It's what we do around here, no?

Did you also lose your sense of humor and sarcasm the way the Mets lost Game 7?

Thank you.

eldragon
11-01-2006, 01:43 AM
People who don't live in big cities where tap water is sh*t.

I live in the country - on five acres - in Mississippi.

We drink bottled water. To us, tap water isn't a beverage.

But the reason we feel this way is that we are from Vegas, where the tap water has visible products floating in it.

And now we can't get used to opening the tap and drinking it.

TheGaffer
11-01-2006, 01:47 AM
Did you also lose your sense of humor and sarcasm the way the Mets lost Game 7?
Sorry, I didn't realize there was a limit to the number of posts we could have on a subject, Colonel.

Meanwhile, your article doesn't prove your case at all -- it mentions nothing about stem-cells at all in that piece, just that Bush is coming to Missouri. (And Bill Frist, who I'm sure will really get the faithful out to be put into a stupor by his droning inanities.)

eldragon
11-01-2006, 01:47 AM
Bringing this thread back to the subject of stem cell research :



If it was advertised that stem cell research might find a cure for cancer, I think it would pass in an instant. Why? Because everyone knows someone who has had or has cancer.


Not everyone knows someone with Parkinson's disease, or Alzheimers, and many people think that alzheimers only affects the elderly, but it does affect younger people, just not as often.

For heaven's sake, Nancy Reagan wanted to keep Ronald alive for another century, and told W to allow stem cell research.

If the cause hits home, everyone goes for it.

billythrilly7th
11-01-2006, 02:00 AM
Meanwhile, your article doesn't prove your case at all -- it mentions nothing about stem-cells at all in that piece, just that Bush is coming to Missouri.

It's amazing how won't even stipulate the most common sense of opinions.

But that's you.

It's a shame. Oh well. Stick to the nonsensical position. It makes your attempts at sensical positions less powerful, which helps my Republican agenda in the long run.

If it helps you sleep at night to believe that this issue and all it's press won't bring out more conservatives next Tuesday, be my guest.

At the end of the day, you're just helping me get to 1600.

So, I thank you.
:)

blacbird
11-01-2006, 02:02 AM
A point to be made, which seems lost in the thread, or perhaps never mentioned: What's at issue here is Federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Private entities can do all the embryonic stem-cell research they want, and I understand some of that is going on. Also, California has a proposal to fund such research with state money.

But no other nation on the planet has such trouble with this issue as we do. One of the leading countries doing embryonic stem-cell research is Israel. Even very conservative Rabbis, who are utterly opposed to abortion, have signed off on the idea with no philosophical or moral difficulties. And the way the U.S. Federal restrictions read, in many circumstances they mandate cutting off of huge amounts of funding for other research if any embryonic stem-cell research is done. This is a killer for most University researchers.

caw

billythrilly7th
11-01-2006, 02:06 AM
If it was advertised that stem cell research might find a cure for cancer, I think it would pass in an instant. Why? Because everyone knows someone who has had or has cancer.


I think after 30 years of the Jerry Lewis telethons, colds and flus, 25 years of AIDS and a multitude of other nover solved medical conditions, people have no confidence.

I have virtually zero.

Chris Rock does a funny, but sad bit about the whole thing.

And of course, they come up with stuff now and again and etc....

But they just haven't cured anything BIG since Polio.

I have very little confidence in our medical scientists. They can't cure the COLD for gods sakes. Hmmmmf.

That doesn't mean that I don't believe that ONE DAY all of this will be cured, but when? 20 years? 2000?

I been giving money to Jerry's Kids for what seems like forever.

And still nothing.

I'm sorry if my confidence is low.

But, I still support stem cell research.

I just am not enthusiastic about it. And I suspect that's a problem with voters as well.

Thank you.

dclary
11-01-2006, 02:44 AM
I live in the country - on five acres - in Mississippi.

We drink bottled water. To us, tap water isn't a beverage.

But the reason we feel this way is that we are from Vegas, where the tap water has visible products floating in it.

And now we can't get used to opening the tap and drinking it.


I drink straight from a garden hose.

Think on that and be dismayed.

robeiae
11-01-2006, 03:53 AM
I drink straight from a garden hose.

Think on that and be dismayed.Is that before or after you use it for your bath? :D

TheGaffer
11-01-2006, 03:57 AM
It's amazing how won't even stipulate the most common sense of opinions.

Argh!!! You're crackers, man. Your article does not prove your point. That's all I'm asserting. Good grief, Billy. This issue may indeed bring out more conservatives. It also may bring out more liberals. As you said. Which makes what you said a net push, a negative, nothing, because it generalizes all the way down to, as I said, "People talk about things, and things happen." That's profound! Profound, Billy! Buy a pack of gum I'll show you how to chew it, man. It's not in the nature of simply disagreeing here; you said something. Others asked for clarification. You responded that clarification is moot because of your divine Thrilliness. I should have known not to question it. But I did. And now I pay a price for questioning it because I am a weak, humble man, who only knows about facts, or only wants them, as Lt. Friday would have requested. So I give this to you, my dear sir, lord of all the fishes, the last king of Scotland, for your brilliance.

So yes. Things happen. And people will vote. Because voting happens when there are voters.

Thank you.

dclary
11-01-2006, 04:01 AM
Is that before or after you use it for your bath? :D

Generally speaking, I don't drink from the bathtub, but only because my bubble-bath is human powered, if you know what I mean.