# Michael J Fox - Commercial & Foundation



## michaeledward (Oct 27, 2006)

Michael J Fox appeared in a television advertisment for Claire McCaskill and against Senator Talent.

On its own, it probably was a minor footnote in a political campaign. 

Then, Rush Limbaugh, accused Mr. Fox of either a) being off his medication intentionally, or b) acting in the commercial by exaggerating the symptoms of his Parkinson's disease.

This turned the commercial into a National issue. I am sitting an airport in Fargo, ND - and FoxNews channel is being broadcast into the gate area has posted clips of the Fox commercial on the air at least once every ten minutes. 

I watched a rather softball interview between Michael J Fox and Katie Couric this morning on the web. She asked the questions for the other side, but did not follow up as aggressively as she could have.

After seeing the interview, I wandered over to the Michael J Fox Foundation web page. I think this Foundation will be added to my charitable giving as we move forward. 

Have you seen the ad? 
Have you heard Mr. Limbaugh's accusations? 
Have you seen Fox's broadcast of the snippets? 
Have you seen the comments by their commentators? 
Why does this story have National legs? 
What is your opinion of all this? 

And please visit, and consider, the foundation - www.michaeljfox.org


----------



## HKphooey (Oct 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Michael J Fox appeared in a television advertisment for Claire McCaskill and against Senator Talent.
> 
> On its own, it probably was a minor footnote in a political campaign.
> 
> ...


 
:asian:...


----------



## Ping898 (Oct 27, 2006)

I've seen all of it, the original, and Rush's comments and the rebuttal and my two cents is while I don't think for one second he (Michael J Fox) was acting or exagerating his movements, even if he was "acting" who cares...it wasn't like he was making up symptoms and if he was making his seem worse then they really are, it isn't like they won't get that bad eventually, if they aren't already and it isn't like the ad was any better or worse than all the other political ads out there coming from both sides.  I think he's a good actor and from all I have seen a good person who choose to take the curve ball life threw him and make the most of it to try and help other people like him.  I think Rush is an *** most days of the week anyways, so today is no different from yesterday or probably tomorrow.....

Wish luck this uproar will spark debate and hopefully someting good will come of it for the fight against Parkinson's


----------



## HKphooey (Oct 27, 2006)

And I forgot to add...  If he had skipped his medication to exagerate the symptoms, I would still back the commercial.  Seeing him off medication shows how great medicine can be and why we need to make it available to all that need it!


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 27, 2006)

Some may not know this, but Fox opted for an experimental brain surgery to reduce his symptoms years ago which was apparently very successful.  When he quit his most recent sitcom years ago, he was beginning to have some symptoms reoccur.  This is a progressive disease.


----------



## Ping898 (Oct 27, 2006)

This link is an article that has links to some video clips being referred to

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/27/fox.couric.ap/index.html


----------



## rutherford (Oct 27, 2006)

At best, Rush is a comedian and entertainer, and knows well what it's like to be heavily medicated.  He jumped on this issue because it's controversial, and the story has national appeal because Michael J Fox is a beloved icon.

It's also not without some truth, because Fox has admitted he stopped taking his medication before testifying in front of a Senate committee, and typically overmedicates himself for interviews.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Fox

The man is dying.  As far as I'm concerned, he should be in charge of his medication, and take however much he wants whenever he wants.  I also strongly support funding for Stem Cell Research.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 27, 2006)

This is more about Fox trying to get people to vote against Republicans than it is about the disease. There is no proven research that stem cells have or ever will cure his disease.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> This is more about Fox trying to get people to vote against Republicans than it is about the disease. There is no proven research that stem cells have or ever will cure his disease.


 
You are aware that Michael J Fox is a strong supporter of Arlen Spector? Last I heard, he was a Republican?


----------



## crushing (Oct 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Have you seen the ad?


 No


michaeledward said:


> Have you heard Mr. Limbaugh's accusations?


 Paraphrases through other sources, such as on CNN and Headline News.


michaeledward said:


> Have you seen Fox's broadcast of the snippets?


 No, I don't watch Fox.


michaeledward said:


> Have you seen the comments by their commentators?


 No.


michaeledward said:


> Why does this story have National legs?


 Because it paints Mr. Limbaugh as a nasty windbag jerk he is.  Not only does the story reflect negatively on Limbaugh, as it probably should, but there is a guilt by association factor in regards to other people.


michaeledward said:


> What is your opinion of all this?


 Hopefully an apology is forthcoming from Limbaugh, but I doubt it will happen.  It does all seem overblown, but it may bring some giving to the Mr. Fox's foundation, which isn't a bad thing.  I doubt very much that was Limbaugh's scheme all along.


michaeledward said:


> And please visit, and consider, the foundation - www.michaeljfox.org


 Will do.


----------



## HKphooey (Oct 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> This is more about Fox trying to get people to vote against Republicans than it is about the disease. There is no proven research that stem cells have or ever will cure his disease.


 
Tough to prove anything when they are not allowing the research.


----------



## Ping898 (Oct 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> This is more about Fox trying to get people to vote against Republicans than it is about the disease. There is no proven research that stem cells have or ever will cure his disease.


Well Fox himself says he's supported republicans who support stem cell research.  Arlen Specter for one.
While there is no proven research that stem cells will cure his disease, there is no research that suggests it won't and the current research available suggests that the best hope for a cure is found within stem cell research...


----------



## rutherford (Oct 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> This is more about Fox trying to get people to vote against Republicans than it is about the disease. There is no proven research that stem cells have or ever will cure his disease.


 
How can you prove that something will happen in the future until it does?  However, many would say it's a very strong possibility and worthy of *research.*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3853791.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2139
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6783024/


Edit: Whoa, fast thread.


----------



## crushing (Oct 27, 2006)

HKphooey said:


> Tough to prove anything when they are not allowing the research.


 
Who is not allowing the research?  Some states have considered outlawing it, but I don't know if any have or not yet.  The states that do allow it will attract the research facilities and corresponding jobs.


----------



## Ping898 (Oct 27, 2006)

crushing said:


> Who is not allowing the research? Some states have considered outlawing it, but I don't know if any have or not yet. The states that do allow it will attract the research facilities and corresponding jobs.


Problem is even when they are "allowed" to do the research the research is cost prohibitive for many companies because of current laws, those that recieve federal funding for other research must duplicate resources to do this research and many can't afford to do that, especially the smaller companies...


----------



## HKphooey (Oct 27, 2006)

crushing said:


> Who is not allowing the research? Some states have considered outlawing it, but I don't know if any have or not yet. The states that do allow it will attract the research facilities and corresponding jobs.


 
Bad choice of words on my part.  I should have said made it difficult with the restricitions and lack of funding and are lookin to make it even harder.

More info on Stem Cell Research...

http://stemcells.nih.gov/


----------



## Carol (Oct 27, 2006)

*Have you seen the ad?* 

Yes I have. Matt Drudge broke the story on his Druge Report radio show on Sunday night and spent quite a bit of time discussing it before Mr. Limbaugh made his comments. Mr. Drudge was clearly moved by the ad, noted that the video was on his website, and said that Mr. Fox was not in good shape.

A listener to the show said they were a big fan of the TV show Boston Legal, and they wondered why Mr. Fox looked so much different in the commercial than he did on the show. Mr. Drudge thought about it for a moment and said he didn't have an answer. As the show went on, a few people called in with differing observations...that Mr. Fox had also looked the way he did in the commercial when he had given talks before congress.

Later in the show there were several listeners that stated, albeit in an unsubstantiated way, that Mr. Fox goes off his Parkinsons meds before going before Congress, and the caller suggested that he likely went off his meds to make the commercial, and that he does this to show the ravages of the disease. 

Between Matt Drudge and his listernership, several other points of discussion were brought up relating to the ad...was it exploitative, was it political genius, etc.

*Have you heard Mr. Limbaugh's accusations? *

Yes I have, I caught part of Mr. Limbaugh's show over the last few days of days. He made the comments that he did and then when the points were brought up about how Mr. Fox goes off his meds, Mr. Limbaugh seemed to step slightly away from discussing Mr. Fox and went headlong in to bashing stem cell research.


*Have you seen Fox's broadcast of the snippets? *

No, my television does not work. 


*Have you seen the comments by their commentators? *

No.


*Why does this story have National legs? *

If any TV personality appeared in an advertisement with deeply unexpected appearance, the story would have national legs.

Combine the star power with some deeply controversial issues and the story not only has national legs, but is strong enough to last through a more than one news cycle.


*What is your opinion of all this? *

The topic of discussion seems to be Limbaugh vs. Fox and not Talent vs. McCaskill. For all the press that the ad is getting, I'm left with a bit of an academic wonder as to how this will actually work for her campaign.

Outside the senate rate, I've been hearing some very interesting debates about stem-cell research and I've been seeing the Michael J. Fox foundation get all kinds of press. I'm also glad things transpired the way they did.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 27, 2006)

crushing said:


> Who is not allowing the research? Some states have considered outlawing it, but I don't know if any have or not yet. The states that do allow it will attract the research facilities and corresponding jobs.


 
*President George W. Bush* 

The President vetoed a bill that passed in both houses of congress that would allowed facilities receiving federal funds to work on this area of study. It was the first veto of his six years in office. With that veto, the President is not allowing science to take place.

Several states have passed measures that appropriate State money to fund the research. There is a ballot measure in Missouri allowing state funds for this research, which is one reason for Mr. Fox's commercial. 

But, any facility that receives any money from the federal government, can not perform any new stem cell research in any area where they apply those federal funds. Research facilities must create sterile - federal fund free - zones in order to move forward with this research. This is a damned near impossible task.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 27, 2006)

More proof that Rush Limbaugh is an idiot.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.  I hadn't heard of it till now.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 27, 2006)

hmmm..just chance that this all came up so close to November? I think not.


----------



## HKphooey (Oct 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> hmmm..just chance that this all came up so close to November? I think not.


 

It is a politcal commercial, so I think the timing is quite obvious.  The best time to find out where your candidate stands.


----------



## Ping898 (Oct 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> hmmm..just chance that this all came up so close to November? I think not.


 
funny thing about political ads, they tend to come out around election time...  ...but I got to wonder if Rush would have created such a big uproar if the ad had been for a canidate he supports....


----------



## arnisador (Oct 27, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> More proof that Rush Limbaugh is an



...attention-seeking...



> idiot.



Yeah, I find this pretty offensive.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 27, 2006)

I find the idea that just because you have a disease, you can make a political statement and be insulated from criticism offensive. If your son was killed in Iraq you are now an unassailable expert on foriegn policy and warmaking. Iv drug user and high risk taker? If you get AIDS you are now some sort of "hero". For some reason the "victim" is always above question in our society. Its troubling.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I find the idea that just because you have a disease, you can make a political statement and be insulated from criticism offensive. If your son was killed in Iraq you are now an unassailable expert on foriegn policy and warmaking. Iv drug user and high risk taker? If you get AIDS you are now some sort of "hero". For some reason the "victim" is always above question in our society. Its troubling.


 
Criticize the political statement then. 

I'm listening.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 27, 2006)

This story made the news on all the main television channels over here too. It was a bit shocking to see Fox that way, we haven't seen him on our screens for a long time. Most of us here don't even pretend to understand how you run the political campaigns so that part of it went over our heads I'm afraid!


----------



## HKphooey (Oct 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I find the idea that just because you have a disease, you can make a political statement and be insulated from criticism offensive. If your son was killed in Iraq you are now an unassailable expert on foriegn policy and warmaking. Iv drug user and high risk taker? If you get AIDS you are now some sort of "hero". For some reason the "victim" is always above question in our society. Its troubling.


 

Not sure if I see your point.  The fact he has the disease gives his the right to plea to the public and politicians.  The same way families of fallen soldiers can.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 27, 2006)

I'm in the Kansas City area, so yeah - I've seen the ads.

I don't have a problem with Fox appearing in the ads.  He obviously has a stake in the outcome, assuming that stem-cell research ever actually leads to a cure.  Nor do I have a problem with the possibility that he went off his meds or otherwise showed the worst-case symptoms of Parkinson's.  It's effective, and anybody with a vested interest in finding a cure is going to use the most effective way to generate sympathy.

On the other hand, I hope he can understand that most people are going to have about the same level of concern about Parkinson's that he himself had pre-diagnosis.  Yes, it's a terrible disease, but it was a terrible disease _before_ you contracted it, so don't expect we non-sufferers to make it a higher priority just because you now have it.

And I don't have a problem with Limbaugh's comments, either.  If Fox wants to enter the political forum, he needs to be able to accept that people will disagree with him.  I disagree with Limbaugh (what else is new), but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to say it.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 27, 2006)

HKphooey said:


> Not sure if I see your point. The fact he has the disease gives his the right to plea to the public and politicians. The same way families of fallen soldiers can.


 
My only point is we as a society seem to have a tendency to think somebody has authority or special knowledge because of their disease, plight, race etc. And anybody who disagrees with a platform they espouse is denounced as a homophobe, racist, "insensitive to the poor victim". Its a convienent way to avoid questioning. 

Nice strategy, get a "victim" to espouse your political ideology and whoever has the stones to argue with them is "insensitive". If you are going to use your disease to garner votes you are putting yourself out there for a response and you shouldnt hide behind your victimhood as a defense. If Michael Fox goes out there politically and puts himself into the fray, he has to expect to be taken to account.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 27, 2006)

Unproven claims of Michael J Fox.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5977

This is all about politics and nothing about science.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 27, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Nice strategy, get a "victim" to espouse your political ideology and whoever has the stones to argue with them is "insensitive". .


 
Would that be Claire McCaskell's Political Ideology? Or Arlen Specter's Political Ideology? 

And people are not arguing with the points he raises. They - and you - are making ad hominem attacks, rather than discussing the merits and possibilities of stem cell research, you are attacking him as a political ideolog.

Also, the transcript in the story you link to, is not the transcript of the advertisement in question. If you are just going to make quotes up, you can prove any point you want. 

Go watch the ad ... http://claireonline.com/multimedia/ads/MichaelJFox.jsp ... and come back and make your arguments.


----------



## TonyMac (Oct 31, 2006)

Rush needs his meds adjusted.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 31, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> My only point is we as a society seem to have a tendency to think somebody has authority or special knowledge because of their disease, plight, race etc. And anybody who disagrees with a platform they espouse is denounced as a homophobe, racist, "insensitive to the poor victim". Its a convienent way to avoid questioning.
> 
> Nice strategy, get a "victim" to espouse your political ideology and whoever has the stones to argue with them is "insensitive". If you are going to use your disease to garner votes you are putting yourself out there for a response and you shouldnt hide behind your victimhood as a defense. If Michael Fox goes out there politically and puts himself into the fray, he has to expect to be taken to account.



Let me say this about that:

When some people are diagnosed with a disease or disorder that is poorly understood, even by specialists, which cause is unknown and treatment extremely limited, and these people being motivated to continue living with the best quality and trying to be that family that makes the difference for other families dealing with the disease/disorder, some lay persons find things in intensive research and study that many doctors and "experts" ever knew. 

Cases in point: 

> The Odones and ALD (Lorenzo's Oil was pinpointed and found to be the answer in this degenerative and fatal disease - poo-pooed by the medical establishment, now prescribed as the "cure" for ALD)

> Barnard Rimland, Temple Grandin and Autism Spectrum Disorder (while a cure for this disorder has not been found nor its cause pinpointed, because of these two, mainly, more is understood about Autism within the last decade and more and more children are getting early intervention and are learning how to live with this disorder)

> Juvenile BiPolar Disorder (the Gold Standard was that no one under the age of 12 (around there) could be diagnosed effectively with this brain disorder/mental illness because it was believed basic behavioral problems with children interfered with the diagnosis ... now, because Demitri and Janice Papolos interviewed hundreds of families all over North America and in other parts of the world, hallmark symptoms of this illness as it manifests in childhood are well-documented and agreed upon as the new standard for diagnosis of BPD in juveniles)

There are doubtless many, many, more instances.  We find out about illnesses and how they affect lives, families, how effective treaments are, etcetera, by listening to those who have the illness and their families.  When research is denied, it is incumbent upon these families to make the future brighter for others to come with the illness/disorder.

Let us all remember ... there but for the grace of the Almighty go we.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 1, 2006)

Thats all well and good, but nobody should get any more political clout because they have a disease. Or should be unquestionable in their actions or words because of it. I think the conservatives need to start trotting out sick people with conservative opinions and see what transpires.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 1, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Thats all well and good, but nobody should get any more political clout because they have a disease. Or should be unquestionable in their actions or words because of it.



I'm curious why it is you feel that a person with a disease which may or may not be helped through stem cell research pleading the case of him and others like him carries political clout?  Will I have this clout if I go in front of congress asking for this research to help find a cure for Alzheimers and cancer (both run in my family)?  Wow!  I'll have clout!  



> I think the conservatives need to start trotting out sick people with conservative opinions and see what transpires.



So do I.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 1, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Thats all well and good, but nobody should get any more political clout because they have a disease. Or should be unquestionable in their actions or words because of it. I think the conservatives need to start trotting out sick people with conservative opinions and see what transpires.


 
Michael J. Fox doesn't have "more" clout, he has the same as anyone else:
_one vote._

Of course, his money and his foundation have clout, an agenda, and the wherewithal to pursue that agenda. In this, they are no different than any other foundation, or corporation for that matter-like, I dunno, Haliburton?

Lastly, of course, the conservatives are completely free to "start trotting out sick people with conservative opinions." Dissent is the essence of the democratic portion of our republic, after all.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Thats all well and good, but nobody should get any more political clout because they have a disease. Or should be unquestionable in their actions or words because of it. I think the conservatives need to start trotting out sick people with conservative opinions and see what transpires.


 
You have not questioned Michael J Fox's words or actions. You keep saying that "you can't question him' ... but you haven't question him. You've attacked him, with language like "_Its troubling._" ... apparently that Mr. Fox used his 1st Amendment rights. 

And how about this quote .... "_more about Fox trying to get people to vote against Republicans than it is about the disease._" ... of course, there is no evidence that these two items are mutually exclusive. And no response about the advertisement for Republican Arlen Spector in the 2004 campaign - which seems to prove your assertion false. 

Here is a transcript of the ad.



			
				Michael J Fox said:
			
		

> As you might know, I care deeply about stem cell research.
> 
> In Missouri, you can elect for Claire McCaskell, who shares my hope for cures.
> 
> ...


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 1, 2006)

Let's back the bus up a bit, and clear up some misconceptions.  

The administration is not opposed to stem cell research.  If anything, there are people getting decent sized grants from the bigger agencies, for adult stem cell research.  

The politician in question, Senator Jim Talent, is very supportive for this type of research.  He has also endorsed CBE stem cell research.  For some reason, certain individuals choose to completely ignore these facts.  Michael J. Fox is especially ignorant.  

Furthermore, it was the Clinton Administration (and not the Bush Administration) that signed into law, the Dickey Amendment, which essentially made the Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research illegal.  

Embryonic stem cell research has several drawbacks.  First, and most importantly, is that human embryonic stem cells are very, very fragile, and nobody has been able to grow them reliably, without having them attached to mouse cells.  In this state, they're pretty much unusable.  

Second, the so-called messiah of the stem cell research world, has been proven to be nothing but a bald-faced liar and a fraud, even leading the South Korean government to press criminal charges against him for falsifying his garbage research data.  It's no surprise that everyone who has been listed as a co-author on the various publications (especially "the big three") have been scrambling to get their names withdrawn.  He has basically become the laughingstock of the research world.  

Does stem cell research have promise?  Of course.  However, it is NOT the magic bullet that many of the populace believe it to be.  We need to view this matter with *informed* minds, and not blindly support such things (as certain endorsers do).  Let's not "fall for the hype" of what such cells can, and cannot, do.    

This is the same kind of hype that came with the cold fusion fiasco from the previous decades.  Imagine how crushed many people felt once those folks in Utah were proven to be incorrect...


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2006)

Grenadier said:


> Let's back the bus up a bit, and clear up some misconceptions.
> 
> The administration is not opposed to stem cell research. If anything, there are people getting decent sized grants from the bigger agencies, for adult stem cell research.
> 
> ...


 
You misunderstand the scope of the Dickey Amendment.

You misunderstand the way science is performed in the United States. 

You muddy the waters by attempting to link stem cell research with cold fusion. 

And you make an ad hominem about Michael J Fox. 

I hope you have adopted your share of 'snowflake' babies.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 1, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> You misunderstand the scope of the Dickey Amendment.


 
My friend, I strongly suggest you read up on the matter, especially regarding page 7 of this document:

http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/crs/RL31015.pdf




> You misunderstand the way science is performed in the United States.


 

And what are your qualifications, my friend?  If you can please point out how things work differently, I would be most appreciative, especially given the difficulties in receiving RO1 grants these days.  




> You muddy the waters by attempting to link stem cell research with cold fusion.


 

On the contrary, my friend, it is perfectly valid.  You apparently ignored the section where I warn people not to fall for the hype of what such research can, and cannot do, lest they get crushed by what when the full story comes out.  Instead, we should walk forward with open eyes, instead of taking blind leaps of faith.  I would hope that someone with your personality would appreciate this.  




> And you make an ad hominem about Michael J Fox.
> 
> I hope you have adopted your share of 'snowflake' babies.


 
You were the one who brought in Michael J. Fox's quote, and opened up this can of worms.  Shall I repost your quote of his statement?  



> Originally Posted by *Michael J Fox*
> _As you might know, I care deeply about stem cell research.
> 
> In Missouri, you can elect for Claire McCaskell, who shares my hope for cures.
> ...




_Nowhere in that quote does it give credit to Senator Talent for his strong support for stem cell research...  Instead, his record is distorted for partisan reasons.  _



_I am finished with this thread, as I have fulfilled my purpose of simply pointing out some very important matters that people have overlooked. _

_Anyways, if you're ever in my neck of the woods, Michael, and wish to have a tour of the research facilities, I'd be more than happy to arrange one.  While you're here, I'd also be more than happy to treat you to several rounds of microbrewery beer, if you have the time.  _


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2006)

I understand the Dickey Amendment says that embryos can not be created for research purposes. It is my understanding that the Dickey Amendment does not apply to the hundreds of thousands of embryos created, and stored, and eventually to be discard in the fertility labs across the country. 

I have no qualifications in science. But, I do know that a vast amount of scientific research in this country takes place in college universities. Because those colleges receive federal funding, coupled with Bush's executive order, they can not perform the types of research that would be possible in absence of that executive order. Currently, they have to build a financially clean lab - completely free of any federal monies - to perform this research. Such requirements and inefficiencies make the research close enough to impossible as to prohibit it completely, in my uneducated opinion. 

As for Mr. Fox's statement, I see clauses such as "chance for hope" and "opposes expanding" and they seem clear to me. Maybe those words mean something different in Missouri. 

But, where I come from, '*expanding*' means making bigger, doing more. It does not mean nothing, never. I don't see that as a distortion of any kind.

Also, '*chance*' indicates clearly there are no guarantees. It tells me we aren't sure where this will lead, but we believe that it may lead somewhere. I think that is part of the nature of science; sometimes we aren't even aware of the breakthroughs when we hit them. Certainly, we shouldn't be restricting science based on our fear of how that science might be used. That way leads us right back to the 13th century.


P.S. - I'ld love a tour of your facility. But, I'd pass on the microbrews, I'm alcoholic.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 1, 2006)

> Unproven claims of Michael J Fox.
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=5977
> 
> This is all about politics and nothing about science.


 
The writer of this article is a consultant to the California Association for Natural Family Planning.  Forget about stem cells...they don't even believe in condoms.  They're a major proponent of the "just say no" approach to teen sexuality.  In other words...she's a flak.

I don't think Fox claimed that embryonic stem cells are a panacaea.  He just favors it as another promising area of research.  If you're opposed to it on religious or personal grounds, that's fine.  But you don't have to convolute the science to express that view.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2006)

Am I missing something?

Did President Bush, today, give Rush Limbaugh an exclusive interview? 

Wasn't Rush Limbaugh the guy who insulted a person with Parkenson's disease?

Wow.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 4, 2006)

http://www.etherzone.com/2006/sarg102706.shtml



> You have to hand it to Ann Coulter...when she depanties disingenuous liberal hypocrisy; nothing is left to the imagination.
> 
> In chapter five of her bestseller, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Coulter lays out the liberal &#8220;Doctrine of Infallibility&#8221;.  As Coulter explains it, *&#8220;Finally, the Democrats hit on an ingenious strategy: They would choose only messengers whom we&#8217;re (Conservatives) not allowed to reply to&#8221;.  Coulter continues that, &#8220;All the most prominent liberal spokesmen are people with &#8216;absolute moral authority&#8217;&#8212;Democrats with a dead husband, a dead child...a terminal illness....&#8221; *
> And so, after the death of famed liberal stem cell research expert Christopher Reeve, Spin City&#8217;s Michael J. Fox became the infallible Hollywood twit-turned-academician propagandist to lead the liberals&#8217; embryonic stem cell disinformation campaign.  Like Reeve, Fox can lie but Conservatives can&#8217;t tell the truth because the liar is an infallible &#8220;victim".


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2006)

_In a very poor imitation of Ronald Reagan_

Well, there you go again ... proving my point.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> You have not questioned Michael J Fox's words or actions. You keep saying that "you can't question him' ... but you haven't question him. You've attacked him, with language like "_Its troubling._"


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 4, 2006)

Democrats unfairly hide their faulty arguments behind people whose authentic pain is so deep that you can't really debate policy with them.


----------



## OUMoose (Nov 5, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Democrats unfairly hide their faulty arguments behind people whose authentic pain is so deep that you can't really debate policy with them.


Republicans unfairly hide their faulty arugments behind a president who's authentic ineptitude is so deep that you can't really debate.... well, anything.

/sarcasm off

Mudslinging sucks.  :asian:


----------

