Michael J. Fox has cut two campaign ads, one for Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and the other for Ben Cardin of Maryland. In those ads he claims that the Republican candidates running against those Dems wish to outlaw stem cell research in Missouri and Maryland by opposing the ballot initiative that bears the name "early stem cell research."

The deception is that this ballot initiative has absolutely nothing to do with stem cell research. This ballot initiative is a disguised bill that is all about making implanting cloned embryos in the womb of a woman a constitutional amendment. Yes, you heard it: This bill is about cloning, which has failed numerous times to be passed, until now they have resorted to deception to try to get it passed.

Stem cell research has not been shown to do anything to counter Alzheimer's, from which Fox suffers. In fact, there is a new breakthrough involving gene therapy, which is a totally different science. Yet Fox falsely implies that stem cell research is the only hope for Alzheimer's sufferers.

Fox' ad also is deceitful in claiming that Talent is against stem cell research. Stem cell research is actually legal in Missouri, and Talent has made no indication of any attempt to change that.

It makes one wonder: If the facts are so clearly the opposite of what is being asserted by Michael J. Fox, what is his motivation for cutting the ad? Is he nothing more than a Democratic Party hack, or has he been fooled by the McCaskill and Cardin campaigns, both of which are obviously exploiting his tragic illness for sheer political gain?

Either way, it's reprehensible, not just to falsely misrepresent the facts, but to take advantage of suffering human beings in a desperate move to win an election. Furthermore, now that Fox has entered the political arena, he has foregone any protection he would have had from criticism. He's in the game now, and as such is subject to closer scrutiny than a butterfly under a microscope.


Followup:

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT:

http://www.steeleformaryland.com/SETTINGTHERECORDSTRAIGHTCardinVotedAgainstStemCell ResearchforPurePoliticalGain.htm

Cardin Voted Against Stem Cell Research for Pure Political Gain



TEMPLE HILLS, MD – Today, Michael Steele released the following statement setting the record straight on stem cell research:

Michael Steele said, “There is only one candidate in this race who voted against stem cell research and it’s Congressman Ben Cardin. Ben Cardin had a chance to support stem cell research that would not destroy human embryos, and he voted against it – not because of his beliefs on the issue, but as a transparent political stunt. Both Senators Barbara Mikulski and Paul Sarbanes voted for this legislation. Ben Cardin wanted to politicize the issue instead of getting something done, so he voted against it. Marylanders deserve better than Congressman Cardin’s continued Washington double-talk, mistruths and sheer political gamesmanship on an issue as important as stem cell research.”

On September 6, 2006, the Frederick News Post reported: “[Cardin] opposes suggestions that stem cell research is acceptable if the embryo isn't destroyed. (Liam Farrell, “Pursuing Change,” Frederick News Post, September 2, 2006)

Michael Steele added, “I am an enthusiastic supporter of cord blood, adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell research that does not destroy the embryo, and I fully support expanding innovations in technology that make it possible to treat and prevent disease without the willful destruction of human embryos.”

Cardin Voted AGAINST Expanded Research On Stem Cells That Do Not Destroy Embryos.

Alternate Stem Cell Research Methods – Passage. “Barton, R-Texas, motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would require the National Institutes of Health to conduct and support research on the isolation, derivation and production of pluripotent stem cells that do not destroy human embryos. It would require the Health and Human Services secretary to issue final guidelines for additional stem cell research, with priority for research with the greatest potential to yield benefits in the near future, within 90 days of the bill's enactment.” (S. 2754, CQ Vote #380: Motion rejected. July 18, 2006, Cardin voted Nay)
The Senate Voted Unanimously To Pass the Same Bill that Cardin voted AGAINST. Both Senators Mikulski and Sarbanes Voted In Favor Of The Bill.

Alternate Stem Cell Research Methods – Passage. Passage of the bill that would require the National Institutes of Health to conduct and support research to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation and production of pluripotent stem cells that do not destroy human embryos. It would require the Health and Human Services secretary to issue final guidelines for additional stem cell research, including a prioritization of research with the greatest potential to yield benefits in the near future, within 90 days of the bill's enactment.” (S. 2754, CQ Vote #205: July 18, 2006, Sarbanes voted Yea; Mikulski voted Yea)

"Stem cell research has not been shown to do anything to counter Alzheimer's, from which Fox suffers."

Micheal suffers from Parkinsons.

"Stem cell research has not been shown to do anything to counter Alzheimer's, from which Fox suffers."

Micheal suffers from Parkinsons.

You are correct. That was a typo.

Come on now Fossten, what's so bad about cloning? We could make hundreds of Dubyas, it would be like "The Boys From Brazil".

Where the hell did you come up with article? How about a link?

Michael J. Fox has cut two campaign ads, one for Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and the other for Ben Cardin of Maryland. In those ads he claims that the Republican candidates running against those Dems wish to outlaw stem cell research in Missouri and Maryland by opposing the ballot initiative that bears the name "early stem cell research."

The deception is that this ballot initiative has absolutely nothing to do with stem cell research. This ballot initiative is a disguised bill that is all about making implanting cloned embryos in the womb of a woman a constitutional amendment. Yes, you heard it: This bill is about cloning, which has failed numerous times to be passed, until now they have resorted to deception to try to get it passed.

This guy has no idea what he's talking about. The proposed amendment (http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp) specifically says that:

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

(2) No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.

Among a long list of the safeguards. With that said, I'm firmly against constitutional amendments, especially concerning something this controversial, so I hope it gets rejected.

Stem cell research has not been shown to do anything to counter Alzheimer's, from which Fox suffers. In fact, there is a new breakthrough involving gene therapy, which is a totally different science. Yet Fox falsely implies that stem cell research is the only hope for Alzheimer's sufferers.

Whoa, Fox does not suffer from Alzheimer's, he suffers from Parkinson's. BIG difference. And while researchers seem to agree that stem cell research offers little hope for Alzheimer's, they do believe it can be used to help Parkinson's patients.


Fox' ad also is deceitful in claiming that Talent is against stem cell research. Stem cell research is actually legal in Missouri, and Talent has made no indication of any attempt to change that.

It makes one wonder: If the facts are so clearly the opposite of what is being asserted by Michael J. Fox, what is his motivation for cutting the ad? Is he nothing more than a Democratic Party hack, or has he been fooled by the McCaskill and Cardin campaigns, both of which are obviously exploiting his tragic illness for sheer political gain?

Either way, it's reprehensible, not just to falsely misrepresent the facts, but to take advantage of suffering human beings in a desperate move to win an election. Furthermore, now that Fox has entered the political arena, he has foregone any protection he would have had from criticism. He's in the game now, and as such is subject to closer scrutiny than a butterfly under a microscope.


Maybe so, and I'm sure they'll try to smear him anyway. But if they do, they ought to at least get the basic facts right.

Where the hell did you come up with article? How about a link?



This guy has no idea what he's talking about. The proposed amendment (http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp) specifically says that:



Among a long list of the safeguards. With that said, I'm firmly against constitutional amendments, especially concerning something this controversial, so I hope it gets rejected.



Whoa, Fox does not suffer from Alzheimer's, he suffers from Parkinson's. BIG difference. And while researchers seem to agree that stem cell research offers little hope for Alzheimer's, they do believe it can be used to help Parkinson's patients.



Maybe so, and I'm sure they'll try to smear him anyway. But if they do, they ought to at least get the basic facts right.

I don't have to link that which I write myself. And if you read the definitions below the 'whereas' parts, you will see that they have cleverly defined cloning in a very narrow way so as to leave 99% of cloning out of it. (whoops on your part for not reading the entire amendment - I did)

(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

Totally leaves out artificial uterus technology. As we know, embryos don't have to be implanted in a human uterus to be cloned. Embryos can be cloned, grown up, and slaughtered under this law. Talk about a Brave New World - they're trying to set up a harvest system of eggs and embryos for spare parts. Sick.

These people will be able to harvest all the embryos they want, and as long as none of them are used to produce a pregnancy, they are within the law.

And thus you and many others are duped by the tricky language of the proposed amendment.

The Alzheimer's error was already addressed. Sorry, you're late. It was a typo.

Lopez: Missouri's ballot initiative on cloning risky for egg donors
KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ

National Review Online

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/opinion/27653

Feminists, beware: Missouri may soon become the Clone-Me State. Rise up and stop it.
In Missouri this November, a misleading ballot initiative called Amendment 2 - the "Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative" - promises to "ban human cloning."
In actuality, the referendum - like earlier deceitful state measures in New Jersey and California - would work to do just the opposite.
The Missouri doublespeak is all too commonplace in the cloning debate.
By separating the concept of cloning for research purposes (a baby still comes out of the process; he or she is just killed before anyone can raise the child) from the "Dolly the Sheep" type of cloning (you let the clone be born), voters are fooled with the help of a willing or hopelessly ignorant news media.
Liberal feminists are not the first people you might think of to lead an anti-cloning fight, but they could be important leaders in this struggle. Cloning requires eggs. And women have to provide them.
There's an estimated $38 million market already in existence geared to make in-vitro fertilization possible.
In an unpleasant process that includes prodding and surgery, egg "donors" are given hormones to ensure they produce more than the routine monthly amount of eggs - more means a better shot at success.
This largely unregulated industry has paid scant attention to the potential long-term harm from such hyperstimulation.
As two bioethicists from Stanford pointed out last year in an article in "Science" magazine, at minimum women should be both made aware that risks include infertility and even death and that their "donations," in the case of embryonic-stem-cell research and cloning, may never contribute to a cure for anything.
Judy Norsigian, executive director of the old-school feminist group Our Bodies, Our Selves, told a U.S. Senate committee in 2002: "Media coverage of human embryo cloning research has largely focused on its therapeutic potential, neglecting the technology's dependence on the thousands, if not millions, of women who must undergo the substantial health risks associated with harvesting their eggs."
Unfortunately, though, few feminists are rushing to join the likes of Norsigian.
In reference to restricting the egg market in California, an official from the American Fertility Association recently told a reporter: "I get concerned when some women's groups say, 'Oh, no, we have to make these decisions for women.' "
But how fair is the choice these women are being offered when they don't know what they're getting into, the benefits are overhyped, and they really need the money?
And as we slip deeper into this brave new world of cloning, unprecedented numbers of eggs - and women - will be needed.
Of course, for those who (like me) oppose human cloning on more than the ground of exploitation, there's more at stake and a long battle ahead.
But for now, when the cloning debate is such a mess that few people even know what they're talking about - or voting on - a creative coalition between pro-lifers and feminists is a golden egg to embrace.

Response ad to Michael J. Fox

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nguJQ_dRPXw

It'd be like the movie "The Island." All the rich and famous could have a clone as an insurance policy in case they ever need body parts.

Federal Stem Cell Research: What Taxpayers Should Know
by Robert Moffit, Ph.D., Kelly Hollowell, Ph.D., Phil Coelho, and the Honorable Dave Weldon
May 24, 2005
WebMemo #749

Introduction
We are in the midst of a major national debate on stem cell research. There are a variety of ethical and religious views on this issue, and these perspectives are important. But there are also practical and scientific issues. The Heritage Foundation recently hosted a panel discussion to raise and discuss these issues. This paper presents excerpts from the remarks of three speakers at that event. All three have expertise in the subject and regularly address the public policy questions involved in stem cell research. Kelly Hollowell, Ph.D., is a molecular and cellular pharmacologist and a patent attorney. Phil Coelho is CEO and Chairman of the Board of Thermogenesis Corp., which provides cord blood stem cell processing and cryopreservation systems used by major cord blood stem cell banks. And Representative Dave Weldon is a physician and represents the 15th Congressional District of Florida.

--Robert Moffit, Ph.D.

Kelly Hollowell, Ph.D.: Embryonic stem cells are the unspecialized cells that form the basic building blocks for all of the specialized cell types in the body. Researchers hope to treat human diseases by using stem cells taken from embryos. The primary sources for embryonic stem cells are aborted fetuses and the donated and unused embryos housed in in vitro fertilization (IVF) facilities. To obtain embryonic stem cells, an embryo is formed and allowed to mature for five to seven days. The inner mass of the stem cells is then removed, plated, and treated with chemicals to become specialized cell types. In theory, these specialized cells will be used to treat dead, diseased, or dying tissue.

Ethical Issues
In the process of harvesting embryonic stem cells, the embryo is destroyed. The primary ethical question raised is whether embryos are people or property. A second ethical issue lies in the extreme inefficiency of harvesting embryonic stem cells. Specifically, the process requires women’s eggs. To treat, for example, the 17 million diabetes patients in the United States will require a minimum of 850 million to 1.7 billion human eggs. Collecting 10 eggs per donor will require a minimum of 85 to 170 million women. The total cost would be astronomical, at $100,000 to $200,000 for 50 to 100 human eggs per each patient.

Even more important than the dollars and the difficulty is that the process of harvesting a woman’s eggs for stem cells places that woman at risk. Superovulation regimens for fertility treatments would be used to obtain women’s eggs. The risks associated with superovulation regimens or high-dose hormone therapies are debated. But there is a growing body of evidence showing that these practices, when used for standard IVF, can cause a wide spectrum of problems including memory loss, seizure, stroke, infertility, cancer, and even death. This points to yet another ethical issue: the future commercial exploitation of women, and particularly poor women, to collect their eggs.

Practical Results
No currently approved treatments have been obtained using embryonic stem cells. There are no human trials—despite all the hype and all the media. After 20 years of research, embryonic stem cells haven't been used to treat people because the cells are unproven and unsafe. They tend to produce tumors, cause transplant rejection, and form the wrong kinds of cells.

Private investors aren’t funding embryonic stem cell research. They are funding adult stem cell research, which is an ethical alternative. Some of the most startling advancements using adult stem cells have come in treating Parkinson’s disease, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.

The scientific data on embryonic stem cell research simply does not support continued investment in research. Even if the research were successful, it is morally bankrupt and endangers women. Federal funding should not be used to pay for research that many Americans know is morally wrong and scientifically unsound. That makes embryonic stem cell research a bad investment for our tax dollars.

Philip H. Coelho: Let’s take a look at three sources of stem cells: embryonic stem cells, adult bone marrow stem cells, and neo-natal cord blood stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have theoretical advantages: they can become all the different tissues of the body and they have a whole life's worth of cell divisions available to them. But they have also triggered malignant carcinomas in animals, and so researchers are cautious about expecting any clinical trials using embryonic stem cells in the near term.

Adult stem cells are typically drawn from the bone marrow of patients. They also have advantages and have been used clinically about 30,000 times. They do have some disadvantages, however: there are risks to the donor during extraction; there is significant risk of transmission of infectious disease from donor to recipient; and the cells have the potential for fewer divisions.

The Use of Cord Blood
My company has focused on neo-natal cord blood stem cells because they have some dramatic advantages: they can become several—and perhaps all—the different tissue types; they involve no donor risks; they have the capacity for many cell divisions; and they cause less graft versus host disease, in which the donor cells attack the tissue of the patient’s body, than adult bone marrow stem cells.

The first patient to be treated with cord blood stem cells in 1988 today shows no evidence of the Fanconi Anemia that he suffered from as a child. On the basis of that success, Dr. Pablo Rubinstein, Director of the National Cord Blood Program at the New York Blood Center, and Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg, Director of the Pediatric Bone Marrow and Stem Cell Transplant Program at Duke University Medical Center, launched cord blood transplant medicine.

Good Results
So far, more than 6,000 patients and 66 diseases have been successfully treated with stem cells from cord blood.The clinical advantages of cord blood are promising. A recent study found a survival rate of around 70 percent among high-risk adults treated with cord blood. Results are even more promising with children, with clinical trials showing an 80 percent survival rate for children with immunodeficiency diseases. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine last year showed a 90 percent success rate in treating a disease called Hurler syndrome that affects the brain. And for the first time, not only was cord blood arresting the disease, Dr. Kurtzberg noted, but it was beginning to reverse the symptoms.

Congressman Weldon: Adult stem cells and, in particular, cord blood stem cells are going to be the sources for the regenerative, miraculous medicine in the future. Embryonic stem cell research is just not getting good research results.

Now, from a policy perspective: Congress spoke to this issue several years ago when Congressman Roger Wicker (R-MS) and then-Congressman Jay Dickey (R-AR) authored language that said that no NIH funds can be used for any research involving the destruction of a human embryo. President Bill Clinton signed that bill and then, shortly after that, came up with a way to get around the so-called Dickey/Wicker language simply by allowing outside researchers to destroy embryos and then move the stem cells over to NIH.

The Bush Policy
That was what George Bush inherited. His solution, I thought, was rather eloquent: he allowed ongoing funding for research on the stem cell lines that had been accumulated because the embryos were destroyed, but no more additional funding would be provided for the destruction of embryos.

That is basically the debate we have this year. Rep. Castle (R-DE) and Rep. DeGette (D-CO) have introduced a bill in the House to partially override the President's position and allow NIH dollars to be used on the so-called “excess embryos” from fertility clinics. A Rand study found that the vast majority of those 400,000 embryos are wanted. The parents are holding on to them because they want to do another cycle and possibly have another baby. Many of the parents are not comfortable with donating their embryos for destructive research. The other thing that's very interesting is, when you thaw these embryos, there's a very high mortality rate. They've been in the freezer for a long time, and a lot of them die. It's estimated that you would only get about 250 to 300 cell lines if the Castle bill were to become law.

Taxpayer Burdens
There are millions of Americans who do not want to fund destructive embryonic research for the same reason they don't want to fund abortions. I think our prohibition on federal funding is the proper way for us to go, since we have a divergence of opinion in the population. There is no prohibition on private funding. The state of California has moved forward on its own. I think its taxpayers, in time, will regret that decision when they see no good cures coming out of it. But the President's policy is the right policy. The Dickey/Wicker Language is the right thing for us to have in law.

I want to read to you a fascinating quote from William Haseltine, CEO of Human Genome Sciences, Inc., of Rockville, Maryland. He is a leading advocate for embryonic stem cells, but here's the interesting thing he said: “The routine utilization of human embryonic stem cells for medicine is 20 to 30 years hence. The timeline to commercialization is so long that I simply would not invest. You may notice that our company has not made such investments.” And what's going on in California with the taxpayers funding embryonic stem cell research is that the taxpayers are funding what the venture capitalists will not fund. And that's exactly what's going on in this city: People are trying to get the federal taxpayers to fund what the venture capitalists will not fund.

Robert Moffit, Ph.D.,is Director of Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Kelly Hollowell, Ph.D., is a molecular and cellular pharmacologist and a patent attorney. Phil Coelho is CEO and Chairman of the Board of Thermogenesis Corp. The Honorable Dave Weldon is a United States Representative from Florida. Their remarks were made at The Heritage Foundation event “Stem Cell Research: What Taxpayers Must Know,” held on May 10, 2005, in Washington, D.C.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm749.cfm?renderforprint=1
_________________

Response Ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nguJQ_dRPXw

The Civil War II has started. Thank God!

The Civil War II has started. Thank God!

Here's an idea: Why don't you all move to Texas and secede? Build a hundred foot wall around it and save us all a lot of trouble. Hell, hire some Mexicans to build it, then kick them out.

But seriously dude, you need to see a shrink.

But seriously dude, you need to see a shrink.

Boy, it doesn't take you liberals long to start with the personal attacks, does it? You haven't been here two weeks, and already you're bashing.

Response ad to Michael J. Fox

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nguJQ_dRPXw

LOL... Jim Caveizel is a freaking clown, speaking the lines from "The Passion of The Christ" in Aramaic no less. What a joke.

Rush Limbaugh has made himself out to be an ass yet again, and Keith Olbermann covers it no less, I love it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWnPa_ijhms

Rush Limbaugh has made himself out to be an ass yet again, and Keith Olbermann covers it no less, I love it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWnPa_ijhms

Rush is the Repugs Oxy(contin) moron!!!:) :)

Rush Limbaugh has made himself out to be an ass yet again, and Keith Olbermann covers it no less, I love it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWnPa_ijhms

Actually, not only has Odorman misused the podcast by playing it faster than usual to emphasize the hyperbole (which may be a libel suit), but he has also taken the words out of context.

Transcript available at rushlimbaugh.com, but since you're watching Der Fuhrer Ubermann, and since you obviously didn't listen to Rush's show, I doubt you'll bother to go after the truth.

LOL... Jim Caveizel is a freaking clown, speaking the lines from "The Passion of The Christ" in Aramaic no less. What a joke.

Oh, but Michael J. Fox is unassailable because he's sick, right? I bet you had lots of laughs over Limbaugh's hearing illness, didn't you? The FACT that Fox is lying through his teeth in the ad is ignored by you, but you try to discredit Caviezel because...why, exactly? What did he say that was dishonest? Oh, you're just making fun of his appearance? Gee, isn't that what you're accusing Rush of doing?

What a joke of a hypocrite you are.

Actually, not only has Odorman misused the podcast by playing it faster than usual to emphasize the hyperbole (which may be a libel suit), but he has also taken the words out of context.

Transcript available at rushlimbaugh.com, but since you're watching Der Fuhrer Ubermann, and since you obviously didn't listen to Rush's show, I doubt you'll bother to go after the truth.

You're claiming that Olbermann speed up Rush? Okay, considering that is the truth, how does that exonerate Rush from being an ass for what he did? He still said and did what he did, play it in slow motion and it is still the same.

I will check it out though, I am curious to see the severity of the changes, if any...

Oh, but Michael J. Fox is unassailable because he's sick, right? I bet you had lots of laughs over Limbaugh's hearing illness, didn't you? The FACT that Fox is lying through his teeth in the ad is ignored by you, but you try to discredit Caviezel because...why, exactly? What did he say that was dishonest? Oh, you're just making fun of his appearance? Gee, isn't that what you're accusing Rush of doing?

What a joke of a hypocrite you are.

No, I never said Fox was untouchable, but Rush went about it the wrong way, he should have stuck to nit-picking what Fox said as truth/untruth, not act like some clown making fun of the physical limitations of a diseased stricken man.

I did not laugh about Rush's hearing loss back then, it was rumored that it was caused by his abusive-overuse of painkillers; I found that funny since he is the supposed anti-drug guy.

I am not discrediting Caviezel, I did not say what he said was true or untrue, I think that using his acting role as 'Jesus' as a political tool to be asinine.

You crack me up Fossten, by the way you personally attack me each and every time I say something negative about Rush I would think you're his personal butt-boy.

LOL... Jim Caveizel is a freaking clown, speaking the lines from "The Passion of The Christ" in Aramaic no less. What a joke.

Gee, I didn't know that the words, "You know now, don't do it" were lines from "The Passion of The Christ". What part of the movie were those lines from? Was it right before they pounded the nails in Christ's hands???

LOL.

Gee, I didn't know that the words, "You know now, don't do it" were lines from "The Passion of The Christ". What part of the movie were those lines from? Was it right before they pounded the nails in Christ's hands???

LOL.

In the opening of the add he is speaking in Aramaic, I do not understand Aramaic and I did watch "The Passion..." about two years ago, but if memory serves right, those same lines were spoken in the movie by Caviezel. Regardless, he is clearly using his "Jesus" fame to fuel the add and that was my point.

I just watched the Olberman hit piece.

It takes the Limbaugh statement out of it's complete context, and it fails to include his correction.

And why discuss anything with someone from AirAmerica, there are fat girls sitting in their underwear with webcams right now with a broader listener base.

But I appreciate the clip, I now remember exactly why I don't watch this piece of crap show with Olberman.

By the way, did I miss the moment where Olberman tried to get some balance? Say what you will about anyone on Fox, they will have a representative with another point of view on the show as well. Not just one asshate from Air America who is being interviewed as an expert but only provided opinionated, half-ass observation, with liberal amounts of personal attacks...

In the opening of the add he is speaking in Aramaic,The words he spoke in Aramaic were: "You know now, don't do it!"

I just watched the Olberman hit piece.
Keith Doberman is a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. He will never have anyone even remotely centrist on his show. His strategy is to cater to the farthest of the far left. The guy is a complete joke.

Did anyone see his Bush rant the other night? He went on and on for 15 minutes, bashing Bush every second he could.

I actually watch the guy to get reinvigorated. He is such an asshat that it is enjoyable watching him squint his eyes as he trying to be a serious journalist. :Bang

Regardless, he is clearly using his "Jesus" fame to fuel the add and that was my point.
And Mr. Fox is clearly using his name to shill for the Democrats.

As far as Rush Limbaugh goes, I thought the exact same thing. The guy stopped taking his meds (or as it turned out, overdosed on them) to make is affliction more attention getting. Makes me sick that a guy like that would do such a thing.

He argues what he did was OK because after all, he made an ad for Arlene Specter (an evil rethuglican). You know the difference. In the Specter ad, Michael was not twitching all over the place, on purpose. Now he chooses to twitch on purpose. Don't think so. Shame, shame. Shame on you Michael.

I saw this and thought alot about you guys.....

And Mr. Fox is clearly using his name to shill for the Democrats.

As far as Rush Limbaugh goes, I thought the exact same thing. The guy stopped taking his meds (or as it turned out, overdosed on them) to make is affliction more attention getting. Makes me sick that a guy like that would do such a thing.

He argues what he did was OK because after all, he made an ad for Arlene Specter (an evil rethuglican). You know the difference. In the Specter ad, Michael was not twitching all over the place, on purpose. Now he chooses to twitch on purpose. Don't think so. Shame, shame. Shame on you Michael.


First, Fox doesn't take his meds so he can shake more and add melodrama to the add... When the facts come out the meds he takes actally causes the shaking, it gets switched to Fox overdosing for further effect... What a joke and Rush is as always a blowhard clown.

There is no proof that he twitched on purpose more or less for either add. The Specter add was in 2004, could it be possible that his condition has degenerated over the last two years since Parkinsons is a degenerative disease? Even just a little bit possible? Could it be that in the 2004 Spector add he was having a 'good day' with his condition?

There is no proof that he twitched on purpose more or less for either add. The Specter add was in 2004, could it be possible that his condition has degenerated over the last two years since Parkinsons is a degenerative disease? Even just a little bit possible? Could it be that in the 2004 Spector add he was having a 'good day' with his condition?

There IS proof. Did you watch Boston Legal recently? He had a multi-episode stint there and he didn't twitch nearly as much as he did on the ad. Not only that, but he didn't twitch very much on Oprah or with Katie Couric. Not only that, but he's since made more ads for other Senators in other states and he twitches just as much in those.

*owned*

Could it be that in the 2004 Spector add he was having a 'good day' with his condition?No. I have seen Fox on TV multiple times. He was not in the condition he PURPOSELY represented for effect on that shill ad for Democrats. He can control his condition and I have personally seen it.

Keep drinking the koolaid my friend. I hear it is very tasty.;)

There IS proof. Did you watch Boston Legal recently? He had a multi-episode stint there and he didn't twitch nearly as much as he did on the ad.

It is soo easy to own these guys. I can't believe they haven't figured out yet why we do (own lefties) Could it be because we always have the truth on our side? Tell the truth instead of inventing fabrications. The truth is much more powerful.

Here, watch an episode. See for yourself.
http://www.boston-legal.org/
BTW. There are many more VERY recent examples of Michael J. Fox 'ACTING' normal. Gee, he must be one hell of an actor to be able to completely hide his illness when HE SO chooses.

Rush was right which is why everyone on the left acted so offended. Rush had exposed another drive-by-media propaganda campaign.

There IS proof. Did you watch Boston Legal recently? He had a multi-episode stint there and he didn't twitch nearly as much as he did on the ad. Not only that, but he didn't twitch very much on Oprah or with Katie Couric. Not only that, but he's since made more ads for other Senators in other states and he twitches just as much in those.

*owned*

And as I said, could it be possible he was having an especially bad day that day? The benefits of a sitcom would be retakes and editing BTW.

No. I have seen Fox on TV multiple times. He was not in the condition he PURPOSELY represented for effect on that shill ad for Democrats. He can control his condition and I have personally seen it.

Keep drinking the koolaid my friend. I hear it is very tasty.;)

You must know everything about Parkinsons disease just like Rush. Super... Oh, did you finally settle on if he purposely didn't takes his meds to shake more or if he purposely overdosed to shake more or if the meds aggravate or sooth the shaking?

Rush was right which is why everyone on the left acted so offended. Rush had exposed another drive-by-media propaganda campaign.


Did you miss the FACT that Rush didn't have his facts straight?

The fact of the matter is that people who have Parkinsons DO have good and bad days, even when they're taking their drugs.

http://www.pdf.org/AboutPD/med_treatment.cfm

For example...

Levodopa combined with carbidopa (or Sinemet®) represented a significant improvement in the treatment of Parkinson's disease. The addition of carbidopa prevents levodopa from being converted into dopamine in the bloodstream, allowing more of it to get to the brain. Therefore, a smaller dose of levodopa is needed to treat symptoms. In addition, the nausea and vomiting often associated with levodopa treatment is greatly reduced by the presence of carbidopa. Unfortunately, with increased dosing and prolonged use of levodopa, patients experience other side-effects including dyskinesias (spontaneous, involuntary movements) and "on-off" periods when the medication will suddenly and unpredictably start or stop working.

The symptoms Fox was exhibiting in the ad have been described as dyskinesias, which is characterized by more "wavy" movements rather than the tremors that they would have without any medication at all. This condition is caused by TOO MUCH medication rather than not enough.

Whether he took too little or too much medication for the ad is irrelevant though. The fact of the matter is that drugs only mask the problem. Parkinsons is a terrible disease and it cannot be controlled indefinitely with drugs. It progressively gets worse. So while he may be able to function okay on occasion, it won't always be that way. So why the hell shouldn't he want us all to see the effects the disease and the drugs have on him?

And as I said, could it be possible he was having an especially bad day that day? The benefits of a sitcom would be retakes and editing BTW.

My, my, how naive you are. You don't think there are takes and retakes when making a political ad? You think Michael J. Fox just called McCaskill up one day and said, "Hey, Claire baby, I think I'd like to make an ad for you about stem cell research amendments." Yeah, that's it! She didn't call him first and pay him for his help, yeah! And then he just showed up, and there just happened to be a camera crew there, and he did just one take, yeah, that's the ticket! And he got it right the first time, yeah! They don't allow retakes or rehearsals for political ads because that wouldn't be genuine, yeah, that's it! He just HAPPENS to be twitching worse than usual only in the ads, and not the interviews, yeah! He doesn't have a good mastery of how many meds to take in a day yet, because he's only had the disease for fifteen years, that's the ticket!

The FACT remains, Fox happens to be twitching just as badly in all the ads, and he didn't shoot all those even on the same DAY. The fact remains that all films shot for TV or big screen involve lots of rehearsal, and political ads are no different. The FACT remains that Michael J. Fox has now admitted that he didn't really read the amendment before doing his false ad. "I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly." (From an interview with Stephanopoulos)

The FACT remains that he is doing a horrible disservice to people who have his disease by giving them a false hope that embryonic stem cells cure Parkinson's, because they don't. The FACT remains that the ad is false because it hides the real reason behind the amendment: legalization of human cloning.

This is hilarious, all you RuSh supporters spinning about whether a sick man was acting up due to his intake (or lack thereof) of his meds. Man, how DESPERATE 'yall must be to make some trivial point this election season.

I don't think most people are being critical of Michael J. Fox.

I've always had the impression that Fox was a genuinely good person, and I have a great deal of compassion for him. I understand why he would be so motivated to find a cure and to cling to anything that gives him hope.

I think it's a pity that opportunistic politicians are taking advantage of him though and politicizing a medical issue. The "stem cell research" debate is now polarizing and dishonest, in part, because the necessary distinctions aren't made. The left has effectively blurred the lines.

Stem Cell research does show potential. Adult stem cell, embryonic has been less successful.

Stem Cell research can be federally funded.

And despite not being federally funded, embryonic stem cell research is legal, just not subsidized.

But again, the well intentioned, not particularly well educated or informed, Fox is being taken advantage of by the Democrats. He's even being used to campaign for Democrats who've voted against stem cell research in the past.

Rush Limbaugh shouldn't even be part of the story. That's just more gotcha crap from the mainstream media, who appear to get their talking points from George Sorros and MEDIA MATTERS

This is hilarious, all you RuSh supporters spinning about whether a sick man was acting up due to his intake (or lack thereof) of his meds. Man, how DESPERATE 'yall must be to make some trivial point this election season.

Talk about hilarious. Isn't this the same state that voted for a dead man a couple years back? Talk about a joke. Democrats are so inbred that they will vote for a dead man before they would ever vote for anybody else!

And now you are upset because the little Michael J. Fox ploy has been exposed? The guy doesn't even know what he is shilling for. Now that is hilarious if you ask me.

And I'll stick by my comments on Michael's meds. He screwed them up on purpose to make a point. He is now stuck with 'acting' whether he likes it or not. All this good day/bad day crap. What a joke. Fossten covered it pretty well. They could have waited until he was having a good day, couldn't they? He could have called the weenies (liberal media) when he was having a splendid day and said, let's do it now. Lights, camera, action!

But guess what? That wouldn't have produced the same 'feel sorry for you' impact now would it have?

I feel very sorry for Mr. Fox's affliction and I think it terrible. Wouldn't wish it on anyone. His illness has never been my point and I am sorry he suffers from it.

But I have little mercy for a guy using his illness to gain political favor like he has. He could shown excerpts of his illness on the ad if he wanted, and spoke with poise if he wanted. Point is, he has again chosen when and where to use his illness to curry favor for the Democrats, just like he did in front of Congress.

Had he done the commercial for Arlen Specter suffering the same motions he exhibited, I wouldn't have had a problem with him using his illness now. Fact is, he is exploiting his illness, has not truthfully represented himself in the ad, and worse of all, doesn't even know what he is shilling for because he hasn't even read the damn thing. He is 'sure' he would agree with it in principal? WTF is that all about.

It is about him using his illness to affect the outcome of the election in favor of Democrats getting elected. Apparently at all costs. Unfortunately for Fox, I think he will be forced to appear in the future without any or with too much of his meds. Otherwise, people will have to ask themselves; Who is the real Michael J. Fox? The shill or the afflicted one?

Edit: And now that I just read Calabrio's fantastic post, I have to once again point out he hit the nail on the head again. Point by point. Read it again. AND THEN READ IT AGAIN. It will tell you all you need to know about Democrats and the Media and how they operate. GREAT POST CALABRIO!

This is hilarious, all you RuSh supporters spinning about whether a sick man was acting up due to his intake (or lack thereof) of his meds. Man, how DESPERATE 'yall must be to make some trivial point this election season.

Um...JoHnNy, just curious, what does the capital "s" in RuSh stand for? And what does the capital "r" stand for as well?

I think you're trying to use the BuSh thing on Rush, but you got caught with no definition for it.

Rush Limbaugh shouldn't even be part of the story.

With that, I'd agree. RuSh (<force of habit there Percy) is nothing more than a klingon on the ass of the GOP. Nor should Fox be persecuted for endorsing the candidate of his choice. It's STILL a free country, CORRECT?
:rolleyes:

My, my, how naive you are. You don't think there are takes and retakes when making a political ad?
.....
The FACT remains, Fox happens to be twitching just as badly in all the ads, and he didn't shoot all those even on the same DAY. The fact remains that all films shot for TV or big screen involve lots of rehearsal, and political ads are no different.

EXACTLY! Which is why it is not surprising to see him acting somewhat "normal" in the "Boston Legal" episodes. The FACT is that they do indeed have "good days" and bad days". I already posted a link to the Parkinsons Disease Foundation web site that describes the effects of the drugs these people have to take.


The FACT remains that he is doing a horrible disservice to people who have his disease by giving them a false hope that embryonic stem cells cure Parkinson's, because they don't.

What would be a terrible disservice is to pretend that drugs are 100% effective in controlling the disease. THEY ARE NOT. Waiting until he has a "good" moment to film the ad is much more dishonest in my opinion.

As for the "FACT" that stem cell research offers false hope, there are plenty of people who disagree with that assessment, who are much more qualified than you.


The FACT remains that the ad is false because it hides the real reason behind the amendment: legalization of human cloning.

I've read the amendment and heard the arguments of the opponents. This notion that it gives a constitutional right to use "somatic cell nuclear transfer" is malarky. While it doesn't explicitly prohibit it, it doesn't explicitly allow it either. In fact it's not mentioned at all.

With that said, I'll repeat my opposition to it strictly on the grounds that it's a constitutional amendment. I am vehemently opposed to constitutional amendments, state or federal.

With that, I'd agree. RuSh (<force of habit there Percy) is nothing more than a klingon on the ass of the GOP.
As for the klingon part, no. If he weren't such an effective and persuasive voice, liberals wouldn't hate him so much, nor would they invest so much energy in trying to destroy him. Be it the realm of the media, or the area inbetween criminal and poliitcal.

Nor should Fox be persecuted for endorsing the candidate of his choice.
This is a bit more tricky. But putting himself out as a spokesman, making an emotional appeal, he is subject to a degree of scrutiny you or I would not be.

It's STILL a free country, CORRECT?
:rolleyes:
Yes, but apparently less so if you want to criticize a liberal, or worse yet, the decision of a liberal with a handicap.

EXACTLY! Which is why it is not surprising to see him acting somewhat "normal" in the "Boston Legal" episodes. The FACT is that they do indeed have "good days" and bad days". I already posted a link to the Parkinsons Disease Foundation web site that describes the effects of the drugs these people have to take.



What would be a terrible disservice is to pretend that drugs are 100% effective in controlling the disease. THEY ARE NOT. Waiting until he has a "good" moment to film the ad is much more dishonest in my opinion.

As for the "FACT" that stem cell research offers false hope, there are plenty of people who disagree with that assessment, who are much more qualified than you.



I've read the amendment and heard the arguments of the opponents. This notion that it gives a constitutional right to use "somatic cell nuclear transfer" is malarky. While it doesn't explicitly prohibit it, it doesn't explicitly allow it either. In fact it's not mentioned at all.

With that said, I'll repeat my opposition to it strictly on the grounds that it's a constitutional amendment. I am vehemently opposed to constitutional amendments, state or federal.

Let me tell you something, TommyB:

Your statement proves that you are no lawyer. You do not have any training in how to read a legal document, nor would you be able to detect nuances within a document that is designed to obfuscate anything not intended to be reported publicly. In fact, legal authorities have already commented on the subject and confirm my opinion.

I've already clearly spelled out for you, Mr. Amateur Document-Reader, the exact parts of the amendment which you DID NOT READ. As far as I'm concerned, your opinion is worthless on this subject because you are not qualified to comment on the legality or specificity of definitions within a constitutional amendment.

Furthermore, you took my post comments out of context. You have shown that you are ignorant of how to make a campaign ad. You have shown that you are ignorant of how films are shot. And you are evidently dense enough to be oblivious to my clear, obvious sarcasm.

Finally, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that embryonic stem cell research has cured or even is close to curing ONE SINGLE disease. You just made that up out of thin air, and I challenge you to back up your statement. For every "authority" (read celebrity ad) that you cite to back up your assertion, I can cite ACTUAL SCIENTISTS who say it's baloney. Furthermore, if embryonic research were SOOOOOOO promising, why isn't there any private sector money going into it, although it's legal? Even Fox himself hasn't put any money into it. (HELLO!) He's poured almost $2 Million into gene therapy, however, because that DOES show signs of actually working.

So what are we to conclude by the fact that the liberal "Brave New Worlders" want to authorize federal funding for embryonic cloning? Simple. They want money.

While I'm on the subject, for those of you (besides TommyB, who doesn't really want to know the truth) interested in why Amendment 2 allows embryonic cloning, here are the facts:

What is somatic cell nuclear transfer?

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), sometimes known as 'therapeutic cloning', involves transferring a nucleus from a donor cell, such as a skin cell, into an unfertilized egg. The injected egg is then induced to divide, and when it reaches a few hundred cells, the so-called blastocyst stage, it can be used to derive embryonic stem cells that are genetically identical to the original donor. No sperm is involved, and therefore no fertilization occurs, in this procedure. Moreover, because the blastocyst is not implanted in a uterus, no pregnancy is established.

Now contrast that definition with this:

(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

By defining cloning narrowly, the writers attempt to allow somatic cell nuclear transfer to escape the definition and not be considered cloning.

Now read these definitions:

(14) “Stem cell clinical trials” means federally regulated clinical trials involving stem cells and human subjects designed to develop, or assess or test the efficacy or safety of, medical treatments.

(15) “Stem cell research” means any scientific or medical research involving stem cells. For purposes of this section, stem cell research does not include stem cell clinical trials.

(16) “Stem cell therapies and cures” means any medical treatment that involves or otherwise derives from the use of stem cells, and that is used to treat or cure any disease or injury. For purposes of this section, stem cell therapies and cures does include stem cell clinical trials.

7. The provisions of this section and of all state and local laws, regulations, rules, charters, ordinances, and other governmental actions shall be construed in favor of the conduct of stem cell research and the provision of stem cell therapies and cures. No state or local law, regulation, rule, charter, ordinance, or other governmental action shall (i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by this section to be conducted or provided, or (ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies and cures.

So there you have it. Not only will they be able to clone live embryos and then kill them, but there will be no legislative oversight.

Talk about a big money grab.

By the way, I used TommyB's link to get all my definitions.

Let me tell you something, TommyB:

Your statement proves that you are no lawyer. You do not have any training in how to read a legal document, nor would you be able to detect nuances within a document that is designed to obfuscate anything not intended to be reported publicly. In fact, legal authorities have already commented on the subject and confirm my opinion.

I've already clearly spelled out for you, Mr. Amateur Document-Reader, the exact parts of the amendment which you DID NOT READ. As far as I'm concerned, your opinion is worthless on this subject because you are not qualified to comment on the legality or specificity of definitions within a constitutional amendment.

I read the document (http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp) from beginning to end, Professor Fossten, and NOWHERE does it grant the right to clone a human being. I assume you're picking bones with the definition of "clone" here:

(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

...whereas you take that to mean that other methods could be used to make a clone. Yet there is no other passage that explicitly grants any other method. Hence, you cannot claim that the amendment gives a constitutional "right" to cloning, either through a specific method or in general. All it does is spell out what can't be done. If it does, then please share your great legal knowledge and explain why it does.


Furthermore, you took my post comments out of context. You have shown that you are ignorant of how to make a campaign ad. You have shown that you are ignorant of how films are shot. And you are evidently dense enough to be oblivious to my clear, obvious sarcasm.

Being a big dumb liberal, I have no clue what the fcuk you're referring to. And I really don't care.


Finally, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that embryonic stem cell research has cured or even is close to curing ONE SINGLE disease. You just made that up out of thin air, and I challenge you to back up your statement.

How about the National Institute of Health (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics6.asp)?

There are many ways in which human stem cells can be used in basic research and in clinical research. However, there are many technical hurdles between the promise of stem cells and the realization of these uses, which will only be overcome by continued intensive stem cell research.

...

Perhaps the most important potential application of human stem cells is the generation of cells and tissues that could be used for cell-based therapies. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace ailing or destroyed tissue, but the need for transplantable tissues and organs far outweighs the available supply. Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis.

For every "authority" (read celebrity ad) that you cite to back up your assertion, I can cite ACTUAL SCIENTISTS who say it's baloney.

For every right-wing, "pro-life" "authority" you cite, I can cite ACTUAL SCIENTISTS who say yours are playing politics.

Furthermore, if embryonic research were SOOOOOOO promising, why isn't there any private sector money going into it, although it's legal? Even Fox himself hasn't put any money into it. (HELLO!) He's poured almost $2 Million into gene therapy, however, because that DOES show signs of actually working.

Do you EVER do even the most rudimentary research before you make these ludicrous claims?

Fox's foundation gave $4.4 million for the study of Dopaminergic cells derived from stem cells (http://www.michaeljfox.org/research/grants.php?id=1). Embryonic stem cells. I suppose that makes him the antiChrist though.

Furthermore...

Reason Magazine August 24, 2005 Do We Really Need the Feds? (http://www.reason.com/news/show/34993.html)

Setting aside commercial efforts like those of the Geron Corporation, private funding for academic stem-cell research is also rising. For example, the Starr Foundation is providing $50 million over three years for human embryonic stem-cell research at three New York City medical institutions, including the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center. The Harvard University Stem Cell Institute is seeking $100 million in private funding. The University of California, Los Angeles announced the establishment of its Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine with $20 million in funding over the next 5 years. Stanford University announced the creation of $120 million Institute for Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine in 2002. Former Intel CEO Andy Grove gave the University of California in San Francisco a matching grant of $5 million to start its Developmental and Stem Cell Biology Program. In 2001, an anonymous donor gave Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore a $58.5 million gift to launch an Institute for Cell Engineering. The University of Minnesota has set up a Stem Cell Institute with a $15 million capital grant. In 2004, an a grateful patient pledged $25 million over the next ten years to finance stem-cell research at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston.

Obviously some people see the potential in it. And obviously you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Ever.

So what are we to conclude by the fact that the liberal "Brave New Worlders" want to authorize federal funding for embryonic cloning? Simple. They want money.

Another of your infinite straw man arguments that doesn't deserve a response.

Fossten,

I've read your post above mine (it wasn't there when I started mine), and you have convinced me. :eek: The wording can be construed to mean that the legislature cannot prohibit other methods. Whether that was intentional or not is another story.

Regardless, that's exactly why I believe constitutional amendments are bad.

As someone with a spinal cord injury, resulting in Syringomyelia. My thought is - anyone who isn't in the position to benifit from any stem cell research should look at the study and see (hope) some good may come of this. I, myself take many differnt medications, and believe me, some did exacerbate some of my symtoms. I have good days and bad days, so please stop the Michael Fox bashing.

We all are just one accident from being disabled, or heaven forbid, develop some inherited disease. Think of someone other than yourself. What if your child, or grandchild gets hurt in a football game or falls off their bike or a car accident. You have to explain to them "sorry your parents didn't believe in any benefit of stem cell research so you have to stay in that wheelchair.

We live in an egocentic country, where individuals who really don't give a dam, get on a bandwagon to stop something that other may benifit others, in order to make themselves feel important.

I hope I didn't offend anyone, with my "illeriate" thoughts. and for those of you in favor of the amendment, I applaud you. Thanks you!

I hope I didn't offend anyone, with my "illeriate" thoughts. and for those of you in favor of the amendment, I applaud you. Thanks you!
Have you read the ammendment?

And who do you know of who doesn't support stem cell research?
I've only read opinions from people who oppose federal or public funding of EMBRYONIC stem cell research, and people who are opposed to making CLONING a constituitionally protected act in Missouri.

Fossten,

I've read your post above mine (it wasn't there when I started mine), and you have convinced me. :eek: The wording can be construed to mean that the legislature cannot prohibit other methods. Whether that was intentional or not is another story.

Regardless, that's exactly why I believe constitutional amendments are bad.

Fair enough. :Beer

My final word on this is that we (everybody included) need to be specific when using the term "stem cell research." That term alone is not sufficient when describing this. We need to specify either "adult" or "embryonic." Adult stem cell research has the most promise of the two.

At this point, I must depart from my political affiliations. I disagree with MJ Fox and his methods. He was wrong to overexaggerate his condition as he did, and probably set back his cause more than excelerating it.

The use of stem cell research, reguardless of origon, to aid in the repair of damaged human cells of current persons should be legalized. I see this as a future for people such as Ronald Reagan, who died from such a disease. There are several points from which that I deviate from my political affiliation, but this is one of the more notable

There are several points from which that I deviate from my political affiliation, but this is one of the more notable

So we should have women getting laid and then running to the doctors office to go through a painful and dangerous procedure so they can collect a check for 10, 25or even 50 grand?

Heck, let's go further. Let's make a super human race.

We can grab the eggs from a woman and the sperm from a guy. Use a petri dish to make it happen. We won't even need a uterus. Just a tank with some liquid in it. We can grow our own people. We can make sure they are perfect in every way. Who needs minorities. Who needs whites. Let's decide on the perfect color complex and make that person. Let's make them 7 ft tall with 12 inch penises for the guys, and 6 ft tall with huge boobs for the girls. Let's make this new breed of people resistant to every malady ever to hit the human race. Hell, Hitler had it right after all. Ya. Let's go for it. F abortions. Let's play God!

So we should have women getting laid and then running to the doctors office to go through a painful and dangerous procedure so they can collect a check for 10, 25or even 50 grand?

Heck, let's go further. Let's make a super human race.

We can grab the eggs from a woman and the sperm from a guy. Use a petri dish to make it happen. We won't even need a uterus. Just a tank with some liquid in it. We can grow our own people. We can make sure they are perfect in every way. Who needs minorities. Who needs whites. Let's decide on the perfect color complex and make that person. Let's make them 7 ft tall with 12 inch penises for the guys, and 6 ft tall with huge boobs for the girls. Let's make this new breed of people resistant to every malady ever to hit the human race. Hell, Hitler had it right after all. Ya. Let's go for it. F abortions. Let's play God!


I'm being entraped into responding: But I'm boiling mad:

WOW, let's go back to the dark ages and while we're at it, lets create a Frankenstien with transplantable human organs and burn tissue skin. Or hey, create inter-species by putting animal parts into a human and why even vacinate against polio, mumps, measles, or the pox? Let people die who wern't born with strong genes. And if you get into an accident, why even try to save the life, let them die. (this would certainly take care of overpopulation) Ugghhhhhhhh!

It is this type of arragant ranting from individuals that prevents science from accelerating in bringing cures to those who need it. I strongly believe that the human race is ethical, moral and right in doing all possible to eliviate suffering.

Forgive me for saying this: I hope you never need any organ transplant, because that would only be playing GOD. If your overweight, diabetic, and need a triple bi-pass, forget it. Let nature take its course. One less mouth to feed. Your probably the same person who is pro-life, but wants the death penalty.

I'm being entraped into responding: But I'm boiling mad:

.....

Your probably the same person who is pro-life, but wants the death penalty.

Good! I hope you are nice and mad.

And once again you you (insert insult here) people can't figure out what the discussion is about. It is about EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH. THAT'S IT! GOT IT! Or are you simply too stupid to figure that out? Sheesh.

We are all for all the adult stem cell and even umbilical cord stem cell research we can get. And why does the government have to pay for it anyway?

We don't want people playing God and deciding who gets to live and who gets to die. We already have enough abortions as it is. Now we should play God with embryos.

And, cause I am sure you won't figure this out either, we are against cloning humans for any reason.

And I love your last comment.

You are FOR killing an innocent human that hasn't even seen the world yet let the killer OFF the hook for a decision that they freely made as an adult. Go figure.


Remember, you were once an embryo. Your momma could have made $50 the easy way.

Your probably the same person who is pro-life, but wants the death penalty.

ZING! You've pegged Bryan exactly. :Beer

So in summary, the RWWs are all up in arms over this ammendment because the wording leaves a crack open for "cloning". So WHY not recommend changes to the wording of the ammendment to close this crack instead of "throwning the baby out with the bathwater"?? All of the complaints from the right over this seems like a thinly veiled attempt to suppress scientific research. If they are REALLY interested in the stem cell research, they should be refining the wording to their liking. But NOOoooo, we can't have bi-partisan co-operation now, can we??
:rolleyes:

If they are REALLY interested in the stem cell research, they should be refining the wording to their liking. But NOOoooo, we can't have bi-partisan co-operation now, can we??
:rolleyes:

(Insert Insult Here) Johnny. Please edu-mi-cate yourself. Stem cell research is already being done in Missouri. Man, you guys are so misinformed by the MSM, you should be ashamed of yourselves for still looking to them for your info. What a travesty you are when it comes to these discussions.

Quit lying about the issue. Quit lying about stem cell research. Quit defining it as stem cell research. For once in your life, be truthful instead of deceitful.

It is about Embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. Adult stem cell research is going on all over the country RIGHT NOW. Most of it privately funded.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother. :shifty:

At this point, I must depart from my political affiliations. I disagree with MJ Fox and his methods. He was wrong to overexaggerate his condition as he did, and probably set back his cause more than excelerating it.

The use of stem cell research, reguardless of origon, to aid in the repair of damaged human cells of current persons should be legalized. I see this as a future for people such as Ronald Reagan, who died from such a disease. There are several points from which that I deviate from my political affiliation, but this is one of the more notable

Stang,

I'm actually surprised at you; not at your "departure," but at your lack of an informed opinion. Clearly, people simply aren't paying attention to what is being said.

I just said to specify the difference between EMBRYONIC and ADULT stem cell research when we discuss it, and you blew that instruction right off the bat.

Furthermore, I must rehash points that have already been made:

1. Embryonic stem cell research is already legal.
2. Embryonic stem cell research has zero evidence that it works.
3. Adult stem cell research is the only one that actually shows promise.
4. The fight between the ideologies is NOT whether or not to legalize embryonic stem cell research (because it's already legal), but whether to allocate taxpayer dollars (federal funds) to it. The argument is that the validity of embryonic stem cell research will be justified by the amount of private dollars being poured into it, and that there is no need to put tax money into it without any oversight whatsoever, because that would allow fudging of ethical lines and open a floodgate of federal money.

As far as pbslmo's angry, rambling, virtually incoherent sarcastic rant, I will only say that thanks to groups like PETA, we are more careful these days in protecting little rodents while doing laboratory research than we are in protecting human life. I'm sorry for you that you don't value innocent human life. But people like you are the rabid abortionists who want to see as many abortions performed as possible to advance the holy sacrament of liberalism.

Like it or not, we are already in a 'brave new world' where a mother can decide to murder her own baby inside her womb with a pistol and go home later that week.

You abortionists try to conflate the death penalty with the right to life. You ignore the fact that a murderer has forfeited his right to life by committing a capital crime, while an unborn baby has simply committed the crime of being inconvenient to its mother. I guess we should just allow any mother who is tired of raising her children to kill them off, eh? Maybe you would give Andrea Yates a pardon.

You also tried to conflate organ donation to embryonic stem cell research. The two are not even remotely related. First of all, the word donation denotes a clear, voluntary, conscious choice by the donor to give up an organ to a needy recipient.

On the other hand, an embryo has no such choice. Your ilk will simply confiscate whatever parts you need from a living being, thus ending an innocent life, so that you can continue living your lprecious lives. And where does it end? Should we allow organ confiscation from children up to the age of two years? How about ten years?

How about if someone is a Conservative Christian, since they believe they are going to heaven anyway, why don't we just legalize confiscation of their organs at any age? If anyone can't sleep at night or look themselves in the mirror, I'll bet it's your people.

ZING! You've pegged Bryan exactly. :Beer

So in summary, the RWWs are all up in arms over this ammendment because the wording leaves a crack open for "cloning". So WHY not recommend changes to the wording of the ammendment to close this crack instead of "throwning the baby out with the bathwater"?? All of the complaints from the right over this seems like a thinly veiled attempt to suppress scientific research. If they are REALLY interested in the stem cell research, they should be refining the wording to their liking. But NOOoooo, we can't have bi-partisan co-operation now, can we??
:rolleyes:

The answer to your question is so obvious it really doesn't need answering. The left DOESN'T WANT the wording changed because that's the real reason they have proposed this amendment. Newsflash for you, the uninformed glugger among us: THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS BEEN PROPOSED.

Why don't you go ask the lefties that sponsored the bill to change the wording and see what kind of response you get?

Bryan, we need an "ignoramus" smilie along with a "dufus" smilie.

Limbaugh not far off on Fox, neurologist says


National Post


Tuesday, October 31, 2006


Michael J. Fox in an advertisement for a Democratic Senate candidate who supports embryonic stem cell research.

Re: Oct. 28 editorial cartoon, showing Rush Limbaugh shouting into a radio microphone, with a technician saying, "He must be off his meds."

There is no doubt that the U.S. radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh's direct style and his own past medication issues make him an inviting target. And although he was, in all probability, technically inaccurate in accusing Michael J. Fox of "acting" in his recent political TV ad supporting a Democratic senatorial candidate, Mr. Limbaugh may have been very close to the mark.

As a neurologist with a large number of Parkinson's disease patients, my impression of the video is that Mr. Fox displayed the poorly controlled "choreo-athetotic" movements seen when advanced Parkinson's patients take their medication to turn "on" and emerge from their natural state of rigidity and rest tremor. At some point after taking a pill, a patient's voluntary movements are freed up, without much excess involuntary movement.

The issue, then, is one of timing. Indeed, a few days after his political ad came out, Mr. Fox appeared at a Democratic event in Chicago with his movements under control, a situation he called "ironic." Strangely, however, he seemed unable to appear controlled for a pre-taped TV ad a few days earlier, when the appropriate timing should have been easier, given the possibility of multiple "takes." Lest this all sound too cynical, consider that Mr. Fox admitted in his 2002 autobiography to going off his medication to appear more disabled before a 1999 Senate subcommittee appearance.

Democratic party manipulation appears to go much further. In offering Mr. Fox as a spokesman, they have clearly hoped he would cut a sympathetic figure immune from criticism, and the faux outrage at Mr. Limbaugh's comments seems to confirm this. While Mr. Fox deserves sympathy for this medical plight, he must assume full responsibility for his words and actions when he chooses to enter the political arena. By politicizing a medical issue, he is, in effect, saying that anyone who cares about new treatment hope for Parkinson's disease patients must vote for the the Democratic candidate in Missouri -- not coincidentally, a pivotal state in the upcoming election to control the U.S. Senate.

This is not only unfair, but absurd. Everyone, including Republicans, supports the many new treatments emerging for Parkinson's patients that promise far more immediate application than do stem cells. Republicans also support stem cell research when it comes from ethically sound sources, such as adult tissues and umbilical cord blood. Ironically, these forms of stem cells have had greater success to date than the embryonic-source stem cells lionized in the Michael J. Fox TV ad.

Dr. Paul Ranalli, FRCPC, Toronto.


*owned*

Hey... I thought Canadian opinions didn't count.

Hey... I thought Canadian opinions didn't count.

Link to my quote, please. Otherwise you're full of bull.

Link to my quote, please. Otherwise you're full of bull.

I wasn't quoting you and it was a joke. Time to pull the stick out...

I wasn't quoting you and it was a joke. Time to pull the stick out...

Oh, I get it. Like John F'ing Kerry's "botched joke" about the troops? :rolleyes:

You, like Kerry, are not a funny person.

Oh, I get it. Like John F'ing Kerry's "botched joke" about the troops? :rolleyes:

You, like Kerry, are not a funny person.


I must have missed that joke...

Like I said, time to pull the stick out.

Another example of the slippering slope we are sliding gleefully down....

Woman offers to sell her eggs (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=413765&in_page_id=1770).

Reprehensible!

Another example of the slippering slope we are sliding gleefully down....

Woman offers to sell her eggs (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=413765&in_page_id=1770).

Reprehensible!

Every day I feel more and more like Neo in the Matrix.

Another example of the slippering slope we are sliding gleefully down....

Woman offers to sell her eggs (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=413765&in_page_id=1770).

Reprehensible!

Oh my goodness, Why can't a woman donate/sell her eggs? A man can donate/sell his sperm.

Oh my goodness, Why can't a woman donate/sell her eggs? A man can donate/sell his sperm.

First of all, it's a dangerous procedure where many women have died. This is a classic example of someone being taken advantage of because they are poor. You won't find middle class people doing this.

Oh I see, It is world news when a poor person does it, but nothing is said when a middle class person does it. Perhaps the "Middle Class" women, go to a classer place and it is not disclosed. Or perhaps because the woman is "poor" she will not receive the same care and treatment as the middle class woman?

How can you say they are being taken advantage of when the woman decides to have this procedure and is compensated. It is HER decision.

TaTa of now.

Make body parts valuable enough and watch people start 'killing for cash'. Morticians are already doing it, only they don't have to kill the person. They just need to 'harvest' that person soon enough.:(

Every day I feel more and more like Neo in the Matrix.


You mean living in your own made-up fantasy world?

Make body parts valuable enough and watch people start 'killing for cash'. Morticians are already doing it, only they don't have to kill the person. They just need to 'harvest' that person soon enough.:(

That already happens with people killing to harvest hearts, kidneys, livers etc. Supposedly the black market for human organs is huge in SE Asia where poor children run rampant and are easy prey, I read a story awhile back. Sick sh!t.

You mean living in your own made-up fantasy world?

:confused: Obviously you haven't seen the movie. Why am I not surprised. Typical behavior from you: In order to bash a conservative, you have to comment before you know the facts.

:confused: Obviously you haven't seen the movie. Why am I not surprised. Typical behavior from you: In order to bash a conservative, you have to comment before you know the facts.

I must have watched a different "The Matrix" than yourself... The one I watched had Keanu Reeves playing the protagonist in a FICTIONAL sci-fi movie. Pull the stick out...

But since the joke went over your head, Neo was living in a made up fantasy world until he swallowed the "red pill".

I must have watched a different "The Matrix" than yourself... The one I watched had Keanu Reeves playing the protagonist in a FICTIONAL sci-fi movie. Pull the stick out...

But since the joke went over your head, Neo was living in a made up fantasy world until he swallowed the "red pill".

Oh, you "mangled" or "botched" the joke then, because you claim that I made the fantasy world up myself, yet in the Matrix, the world wasn't made up by Neo himself, but by the Architect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS
You mean living in your own made-up fantasy world?

Sorry, I missed the parallelism due to your misuse of facts.

Oh, you "mangled" or "botched" the joke then, because you claim that I made the fantasy world up myself, yet in the Matrix, the world wasn't made up by Neo himself, but by the Architect.



Sorry, I missed the parallelism due to your misuse of facts.

Man, you're a grumpy one aren't you... We both agree that "The Matrix" is a fictional movie or, a made-up fantasy world... Pull the stick out Fossten.

Man, you're a grumpy one aren't you... We both agree that "The Matrix" is a fictional movie or, a made-up fantasy world... Pull the stick out Fossten.

You have zero idea what mood I'm in. You don't know me. I'm simply correcting your mis-statement about me. I will never let you get away with falsely pigeonholing me in any way, and I will do so in a dispassionate manner. Your attempt to do so yet again by attacking what you think is grumpiness shows your lack of judgment.

You have zero idea what mood I'm in. You don't know me. I'm simply correcting your mis-statement about me. I will never let you get away with falsely pigeonholing me in any way, and I will do so in a dispassionate manner. Your attempt to do so yet again by attacking what you think is grumpiness shows your lack of judgment.


Actually, by taking my original comment that was done in jest as a "mis-statement" about yourself or as an attempt to 'pigeonhole' you I can tell you're either a grumpy guy, paranoid or just an ass willing to fight over anything for the sake of fighting.

Actually, by taking my original comment that was done in jest as a "mis-statement" about yourself or as an attempt to 'pigeonhole' you I can tell you're either a grumpy guy, paranoid or just an ass willing to fight over anything for the sake of fighting.

Or "D", All of the above. :p

Actually, by taking my original comment that was done in jest as a "mis-statement" about yourself or as an attempt to 'pigeonhole' you I can tell you're either a grumpy guy, paranoid or just an ass willing to fight over anything for the sake of fighting.

I see. So here's the chronology of events:

I make a statement.
You make an incorrect statement about me.
I correct the statement.
You accuse me of being grumpy.
I point out that you don't know me and I was just correcting your false statement.
You call me grumpy, paranoid, or an ass.

Sounds like typical liberal tactics to me.

I see. So here's the chronology of events:

I make a statement.
You make an incorrect statement about me.
I correct the statement.
You accuse me of being grumpy.
I point out that you don't know me and I was just correcting your false statement.
You call me grumpy, paranoid, or an ass.

Sounds like typical liberal tactics to me.

You did get the first and last part right...

You made a statement
I made a light joke concerning the statement
You claim I bashed you in "typical" behavior"
I explain to you that it was a joke and how so
You state that I messed the joke up due to ignorance of "The Matrix"
I say "you're grumpy" and explain the joke again
You go on a tangent about not knowing who you are and claim all manners of attacks on your person.
I then called you "grumpy, paranoid, or an ass" based on your imagined attacks.

You keep going on about "typical liberal tactics" with myself and others, but like a hypocrite, you fail to realize that you yourself attack people more than anyone else or at least as much. Not sure if these would be classified as typical conservative attacks/tactics or if you're just an isolated case.

You did get the first and last part right...

You made a statement
I made a light joke concerning the statement
You claim I bashed you in "typical" behavior"
I explain to you that it was a joke and how so
You state that I messed the joke up due to ignorance of "The Matrix"
I say "you're grumpy" and explain the joke again
You go on a tangent about not knowing who you are and claim all manners of attacks on your person.
I then called you "grumpy, paranoid, or an ass" based on your imagined attacks.

You keep going on about "typical liberal tactics" with myself and others, but like a hypocrite, you fail to realize that you yourself attack people more than anyone else or at least as much. Not sure if these would be classified as typical conservative attacks/tactics or if you're just an isolated case.

Ok, Senator Kerry, you made a botched joke. Big whoop. Too bad you're not a funny guy.

This is getting boring.

Ok, Senator Kerry, you made a botched joke. Big whoop. Too bad you're not a funny guy.

This is getting boring.


Actually, it wasn't botched and as far as being funny, that is subjective.

Agreed.