Michael J Fox - Human Shield

[red states rule]

There are other meds to suppress the shaking. Fox stops taking those meds when he talks about his condition because it draws attention to the condition. He takes them regularly the rest of the time and they have been effective enough to allow him to carry on a minor career in acting, as he was recently a guest on Boston Legal and had no problem with his shaking. Now, I don't have a problem with him doing this. When you're on all those meds, it only makes you look normal, not feel normal, and could detract from the impact of his speech. Limbaugh has said as much, as well, and when he strayed so far as to say Fox may have been acting, he apologized before his show even ended, saying it was probably out of bounds.

My issue is that the information he gave in his commercial is factually incorrect and intended as a way to attack a Republican candidate so close to the election as to prevent a retort. I think he's being used by the Democrats in this fashion. He's being used as just another human tool, just like Cindy Sheehan, in their jihad against the Republicans. Maybe he's ok with that, but then shame on him. I'm also objecting to the idea that what he says cannot be challanged because he's sick. Yeah, he makes a sympathetic spokesman, but my sympathy will not spare him from my criticism of his remarks.

Much like the Jersey Girls, libs will trot these "victims" out before the camera, and they will sprew the DNC talking points; and conservatives are expected to shut up and take it

If you listen to Fox, Republicans want people to suffer and die.

Remember how Pretty Boy Edwards bellowed how if Kerry was President, Christopher Reeves would be walking?

Libs use these people, then they will toss them aside when they have served their purpose.

Much like Cindy Crackpot, she is now ignored and deserted by the left

 

[Dr Grump]

Handed me my arse? You're delusional! First off, I have the link right there where he admits that the Altzheimer's story he's been selling to people for years is complete bullcrap, just a 'fairy tale.' I also asked why, if stem cell research is so promising, why it needs federal funding instead of just taking in billions from pharmaceutical companies who would give up their left testes to have a cure for even one of the diseases people claim embryonic stem cells cure. You then point out that the scientist never said 'lie,' never even mention why embryonic stem cell research can't run off private funding, and then declare victory. In a football game, if team A scores 63 points and then team B scores a field goal, does team B "hand team A its arse" just because they got three lousy points against a team that's been killing them?.

Not delusional at all. For a start, he never says, in MY link, which is the original link from which YOUR link got its info that he was "selling" anything. In it, he states that the chances of alzheimers being cured by stem cells is remote, but NOT impossible. He does go on to say that stem cells stand a good chance with Parkinson's and diabetes, and since this the subject of this thread is somebody with Parkinson's I think it totally relevent. I have not declared victory in anything. You just haven't proved a damn thing, and you have cherrypicked quotes. As for saying he never said lie, he didn't. Point to me where he did. Point to me where he said stem cell research is not worth doing at all. Funding is a different issue altogether. You are trying to make out that stem cells is quackery when your own link says otherwise. I'd call that a victory in anyones' language.

 

[onedomino]

Why is California supporting something that is only a pie-in-the-sky hope? Just so they can waste billions? Just to waste valuable time? Just to satisfy the Hollyweird crowd? Just so they can experiment with human life? Guess that's crazy California for ya….land of fruits and NUTS. Or...what I would say… a communist experiment.

People are ALREADY being helped through adult stem cell research. That's where the effort and money should go. You don't need an embryo cell to help a liver cell. Scientific leaders are also speaking about the many PROBLEMS with embryonic research. Not that you're going to hear much of anything about those things in our media....

Pie-in-the-sky? Please read my previous post from the University of Wisconsin (I mean really read it, and think about it) and check out their website, or some other objective, non-religious source for information about embryonic stem cells. Just once, try to put your religious zeal on hold for a moment, and at least attempt to look at facts objectively. Do not just parrot the words of some guy in a pulpit. Your citation above is from "The Institute on Religion and Public Life." Come on, what credibility does such a group have on the topic of embryonic stem cell research? I wonder what their agenda might be. Adult stem cell treatments have been around for 40 years and are mostly relabeled bone marrow transplants. Fine, but hardly news. Embryonic stem cell research is almost brand new; the leading edge did not appear until 8 years ago. The first embryonic stem cell line was not reported until 1998. Again with the Hollywood stereotyping of Californians? Outside of a tiny area in north Los Angeles do you really think that nearly 40 million Californians care what Hollywood thinks? Most Californians have the politics of someone like Gary Sinise or Denzel Washington, not like Sean Penn. So drop the insults based on stereotyping, they just make you sound uneducated.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Just curious, but how could he look sicker than he is by not taking meds?

RSR actually has no concept of what effect the meds have on the disease. If he would do a little research, he would know how asinine he is being.

 

[Kagom]

Pie-in-the-sky? Please read my previous post from the University of Wisconsin (I mean really read it, and think about it) and check out their website, or some other objective, non-religious source for information about embryonic stem cells. Just once, try to put your religious zeal on hold for a moment, and at least attempt to look at facts objectively. Do not just parrot the words of some guy in a pulpit. Your citation above is from "The Institute on Religion and Public Life." Come on, what credibility does such a group have on the topic of embryonic stem cell research? I wonder what their agenda might be. Adult stem cell treatments have been around for 40 years and are mostly relabeled bone marrow transplants. Fine, but hardly news. Embryonic stem cell research is almost brand new; the leading edge did not appear until 8 years ago. The first embryonic stem cell line was not reported until 1998. Again with the Hollywood stereotyping of Californians? Outside of a tiny area in north Los Angeles do you really think that nearly 40 million Californians care what Hollywood thinks? Most Californians have the politics of someone like Gary Sinise or Denzel Washington, not like Sean Penn. So drop the insults based on stereotyping, they just make you sound uneducated.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to onedomino again.

 

[jillian]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to onedomino again.

I just got the same message. :tng:

 

[Dr Grump]

Outside of a tiny area in north Los Angeles do you really think that nearly 40 million Californians care what Hollywood thinks? Most Californians have the politics of someone like Gary Sinise or Denzel Washington, not like Sean Penn. So drop the insults based on stereotyping, they just make you sound uneducated.

And what party does the current govr belong to? And what was his former occupation. SE makes it way too easy don't he...:teeth:

 

[theHawk]

What? Can you be more disingenuous? How many states other than California have embryonic stem cell research? The answer is zero. Thanks to Bush, California had to invent an unprecedented way to fund scientific research. We were forced to spend a large amount of money to bring the issue of scientic research funding before the voters. Have you ever voted on the funding of scientific research? That’s a real normal process don’t you think? Due to court actions from people with your attitude, the measure which passed by an overwhelming majority in 2004, will not dispense funds until the end of 2006. But the religious extremists were defeated.

When did I ever say it was a bad thing for the voters to exercise their rights and fund it if they want? If Californians want to do that, by all means go ahead. How on fuck is it Bush's fault that California had to "invent" a way to fund the research? How is California's way any different than how the Feds would do it? All they do is TAX, wow....what an un-fucking-precedented way of raising money! What the fuck does court actions from people with "my attitude" have to do with anything? You sir, are the one being disingenuous. I already stated I am 100% for Adult stem cell research. My point is medical research funds shouldn't be forcably taxed by the Federal government. You feel so passionatly about this stem cell research, but what about AIDS research, Cancer research, ect ect ect. When does it end?

Don't you dare fucking lecture me about the importance of medical research, I had to watch my own mother live with and die by cancer. But unlike you, I'm not willing to force everyone else in this country to fund such research, I put my money where my mouth is by donating my OWN money to the medical research charities that I choose. Now kindly go fuck yourself you asshole.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Folks, I believe RedState ed by mod. might have found the most biased media outlet short of North Korean papers.
...

Your very un-clever take on RedState's name is tasteless and offensive, and if I were a mod, I'd at a minimum, give you a warning for it.

 

[onedomino]

When did I ever say it was a bad thing for the voters to exercise their rights and fund it if they want? If Californians want to do that, by all means go ahead. How on fuck is it Bush's fault that California had to "invent" a way to fund the research? How is California's way any different than how the Feds would do it? All they do is TAX, wow....what an un-fucking-precedented way of raising money! What the fuck does court actions from people with "my attitude" have to do with anything? You sir, are the one being disingenuous. I already stated I am 100% for Adult stem cell research. My point is medical research funds shouldn't be forcably taxed by the Federal government. You feel so passionatly about this stem cell research, but what about AIDS research, Cancer research, ect ect ect. When does it end?

Don't you dare fucking lecture me about the importance of medical research, I had to watch my own mother live with and die by cancer. But unlike you, I'm not willing to force everyone else in this country to fund such research, I put my money where my mouth is by donating my OWN money to the medical research charities that I choose. Now kindly go fuck yourself you asshole.

Nice language. It is thoughtful of you to put on such a fine display of what a classy guy you are. Do you eat with that mouth? It was Bush who vetoed Congressional funding for embryonic stem cell research, and that's what this debate is about.

 

[Bullypulpit]

There are other meds to suppress the shaking. Fox stops taking those meds when he talks about his condition because it draws attention to the condition. He takes them regularly the rest of the time and they have been effective enough to allow him to carry on a minor career in acting, as he was recently a guest on Boston Legal and had no problem with his shaking. Now, I don't have a problem with him doing this. When you're on all those meds, it only makes you look normal, not feel normal, and could detract from the impact of his speech. Limbaugh has said as much, as well, and when he strayed so far as to say Fox may have been acting, he apologized before his show even ended, saying it was probably out of bounds.

My issue is that the information he gave in his commercial is factually incorrect and intended as a way to attack a Republican candidate so close to the election as to prevent a retort. I think he's being used by the Democrats in this fashion. He's being used as just another human tool, just like Cindy Sheehan, in their jihad against the Republicans. Maybe he's ok with that, but then shame on him. I'm also objecting to the idea that what he says cannot be challanged because he's sick. Yeah, he makes a sympathetic spokesman, but my sympathy will not spare him from my criticism of his remarks.

I saw the ad. He only stated that the Republican candidate opposed expanding stem-cell reasearch. BTW, was Nancy Reagan a tool of liberals when she voiced her support for stem-cell reasearch?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Much like the Jersey Girls, libs will trot these "victims" out before the camera, and they will sprew the DNC talking points; and conservatives are expected to shut up and take it

If you listen to Fox, Republicans want people to suffer and die.

Remember how Pretty Boy Edwards bellowed how if Kerry was President, Christopher Reeves would be walking?

Libs use these people, then they will toss them aside when they have served their purpose.

Much like Cindy Crackpot, she is now ignored and deserted by the left

Rush Limbaugh's talking points, almost word for word. Do you ever think for yourself? Or do you just flip your scalp back and shovel that crap into your skull each day?

 

[red states rule]

Rush Limbaugh's talking points, almost word for word. Do you ever think for yourself? Or do you just flip your scalp back and shovel that crap into your skull each day?

Truth hurts BP? I notice you did not try to dispute the valid points, only attack the messenger

Typical of libs

Whre was the liberal outrage over attacking a sick person when George Looney made his comment "Charleston Heston announced again today he is suffering from Alzheimers disease."

Looney justified his comments by saying Heston supports the NRA

Talk about liberal compassion!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Pie-in-the-sky? Please read my previous post from the University of Wisconsin (I mean really read it, and think about it) and check out their website, or some other objective, non-religious source for information about embryonic stem cells. Just once, try to put your religious zeal on hold for a moment, and at least attempt to look at facts objectively.

Yes, Pie-in-the-sky. So far it's just all "wait and see". Have you given us ANY PROOF that embryonic stem cell research is more successful than work with adult stem cells? I don't think so. Your article sure doesn't, it just spouts possibilities. In fact, the reverse is true: adult stem cell research is NOW producing good results while embryonic is full of major problems. (see my article.) So why is it you want to push the embryonic -- REALLY? Could it be the Left Wing forces wish to cross the ethical bridge earlier than later?

Do not just parrot the words of some guy in a pulpit. Your citation above is from "The Institute on Religion and Public Life." Come on, what credibility does such a group have on the topic of embryonic stem cell research? I wonder what their agenda might be.

Don't be naïve. You know that the major concern about ESC research is an ethical one. In fact ESC research is prohibited in several states. Writing off my article because it was written by a "religious" person is ridiculous. Are you saying that religious people in this country should have no voice in the matter? Anyways, the bulk of the article centers around what a SCIENTIST (not the religious writer) has to say about the matter -- a scientist with scientific credentials in the field. You might want to reread it.

Adult stem cell treatments have been around for 40 years and are mostly relabeled bone marrow transplants. Fine, but hardly news. Embryonic stem cell research is almost brand new; the leading edge did not appear until 8 years ago. The first embryonic stem cell line was not reported until 1998.

Yes, much progress has been made with adult stem cells. Why start all over with embryonic ones? True, the embryonic cells are more "maleable" but they are also having success with "re-differentiating" the adult cells to do the same thing. And then there's the whole umbilical cord thing. Why not try to sidestep the whole ethical issue if possible? Do you really want human beings in petri dishes?

Again with the Hollywood stereotyping of Californians? Outside of a tiny area in north Los Angeles do you really think that nearly 40 million Californians care what Hollywood thinks? Most Californians have the politics of someone like Gary Sinise or Denzel Washington, not like Sean Penn. So drop the insults based on stereotyping, they just make you sound uneducated.

Sorry if I offended your sensibilities. I realize that there are many "moderate" Californians. However, you can't deny your beautiful state has been taken over by radical liberalism. I see much the same thing up here in Washington.

 

[no1tovote4]

Rush Limbaugh's talking points, almost word for word. Do you ever think for yourself? Or do you just flip your scalp back and shovel that crap into your skull each day?

How would you know?

:shocked1:

Bully, closet Limbaugh Listener!

 

[jillian]

How would you know?

:shocked1:

Bully, closet Limbaugh Listener!

Ummmmmmmmm....actually, they played Limbaugh's idiotic statements on normal news shows so we were all able to see how braindead he is. :halo:

 

[no1tovote4]

Ummmmmmmmm....actually, they played Limbaugh's idiotic statements on normal news shows so we were all able to see how braindead he is. :halo:

30 seconds of a three hour show and now you know everything he said and what context it was in? Come on... You can do better than that.

People attempting to explain, "I voted for it before I voted against it!" by 'out of context' shouldn't be casting stones inside their nice glass house...

 

[jillian]

30 seconds of a three hour show and now you know everything he said and what context it was in? Come on... You can do better than that.

Thirty seconds is about all that junkie nutcase deserves. And even that is probably 30 seconds too much, IMO. I already know what Rush is. But thanks. I let the dittoheads listen for me.

People attempting to explain, "I voted for it before I voted against it!" by 'out of context' shouldn't be casting stones inside their nice glass house...

And that has what to do with anything? That all you got? Well, given that Rush is indefensible, I guess I understand.

 

[no1tovote4]

Thirty seconds is about all that junkie nutcase deserves. And even that is probably 30 seconds too much, IMO. I already know what Rush is. But thanks. I let the dittoheads listen for me.



And that has what to do with anything? That all you got? Well, given that Rush is indefensible, I guess I understand.

LOL. What has it to do with anything? It is an emblem of hypocrisy proudly worn by the partisan. It's okay to pretend that taking one thing out of context is wrong, while taking another out of context is okay because it supposedly makes another "look bad"...

Now, I don't listen to Rush... But I do know that 30 seconds of 3 hours isn't going to give anybody an idea of what he was saying and that often what he says can be taken out of context.

Ask Patsy Schroeder and her, "Rush wants his mother to eat dog food!"

 

[red states rule]

LOL. What has it to do with anything? It is an emblem of hypocrisy proudly worn by the partisan. It's okay to pretend that taking one thing out of context is wrong, while taking another out of context is okay because it supposedly makes another "look bad"...

Now, I don't listen to Rush... But I do know that 30 seconds of 3 hours isn't going to give anybody an idea of what he was saying and that often what he says can be taken out of context.

Ask Patsy Schroeder and her, "Rush wants his mother to eat dog food!"

Libs like Jilly are sooooo jealous of Rush. They are still looking for someone on the left to at least try and compete with him