View Full Version : Michael J. Fox ad controversy
2Sheds_Jackson
10-25-2006, 04:10 PM
Just one of the plethora of stories coming out today about the Limbaugh/Fox controversy.
Progress or Not
Michael J. Fox's political ads supporting stem-cell research are not only in good taste, they're vital to the public discourse.
That will be the line of Republicans under assault from what could become one of the most powerful political advertisements ever made. The new ad features an ailing Michael J. Fox talking about politicians who oppose embryonic stem-cell research. This is not just another celebrity ad, like those cut by the late Christopher Reeve. It’s a celebrity shot to the solar plexus of the GOP. Whatever happens in the campaign, the ad is already a classic and will be mentioned in the same breath as LBJ's famous 1964 "Daisy" ad and other unforgettable political moments on television.
Rush Limbaugh helped cement the ad's place in history with his astonishingly insensitive remark that Fox "was either off his medication or was acting." Limbaugh quickly apologized but the damage to his own reputation was already done.
Fox, star of megahit TV shows and movies like “Family Ties” and “Back to the Future,” was for years one of the most popular actors in the United States. He still works, but is clearly debilitated by Parkinson’s. Throughout the ad, he sways back and forth, showing signs of advanced disease.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15413680/site/newsweek/
Personally, I think that both Fox and Limbaugh acted in poor taste. Fox is making an emotional appeal to what is at it's base an ethical issue. No matter how pitiful or upsetting the images are from the sufferers of Parkinson's, it does not change the moral imperative involved that supposes that one should not make others pay with their lives for your cure. Limbaugh as usual took the pragmatic view, and stated the obvious - and is therefore guilty of the worst crime one can commit in our femalized, post-PC age; that of insensitivity.
I think both Fox and Limbaugh are perfectly entitled to do what they did - but I don't think either of them gained much from the process.
Of course I'm an insensitive jerk too, so maybe I'm biased.
Discuss.
OprahAteMyBaby
10-25-2006, 04:12 PM
I dont get how one is giving their life for the cause of finding a cure.
These embryos are going to be destroyed anyway.
Why not put them to good use?
2Sheds_Jackson
10-25-2006, 04:24 PM
I dont get how one is giving their life for the cause of finding a cure.
These embryos are going to be destroyed anyway.
Why not put them to good use?
Well as I understand it (and I may not have a full grasp on the subject, I grant you that) - the concern is, that were stem cell research to be fully OK'd in the US, that there would be the natural kind of supply-and-demand phenomena that exists for every other commodity. Demand would quickly outstrip the supplies of "extras" - and we'd begin cloning existing human embryos, or farming them from juicy young women, just bursting with profitable fertilized eggs.
Zoomie
10-25-2006, 04:25 PM
I dont get how one is giving their life for the cause of finding a cure.
These embryos are going to be destroyed anyway.
Why not put them to good use?
It's not really about that. It's about who'll pay for it. The taxpayer or corporate/scientific entities. Also, you gotta love how clueless Michael J. Fox is, because the canidate he's supporting voted against further research.
dedgod
10-25-2006, 04:42 PM
It's not really about that. It's about who'll pay for it. The taxpayer or corporate/scientific entities. Also, you gotta love how clueless Michael J. Fox is, because the canidate he's supporting voted against further research.
Why? I don't think MJF is stupid...if his candidate did indeed vote against further research, it could be because he ddn't think it went far enough..
do you have more details? Just curious..
Michael J. Fox lost his protection from criticism when he decided to become a spokesperson for a political party rather than just an advocate for research.
He also admitted before that he purposefully did not take his medications prior to other public appearances in order to portray discomfort and play on the audience's sympathies.
annihilation
10-25-2006, 05:00 PM
Well as I understand it (and I may not have a full grasp on the subject, I grant you that) - the concern is, that were stem cell research to be fully OK'd in the US, that there would be the natural kind of supply-and-demand phenomena that exists for every other commodity. Demand would quickly outstrip the supplies of "extras" - and we'd begin cloning existing human embryos, or farming them from juicy young women, just bursting with profitable fertilized eggs.
While I understand your point that will never become an issue I think aslong as IVF is booming in california. They are the world exporting leader in IVF.
About your other comment:
"it does not change the moral imperative involved that supposes that one should not make others pay with their lives for your cure"
Well we need to define what is life and when it starts. Also we can say that one (president) should not make others (soldiers) pay with their lives for ours freedom (Iraq) too. Not picking on you about it, but I've heard that line one to many times.
When unborn babies decide to volunteer for this service, you'll have a good analogy.
2Sheds_Jackson
10-25-2006, 05:08 PM
Well we need to define what is life and when it starts.
That's true - but good luck. We've been working on that one since the invention of the wire coathanger. p-)
Also we can say that one (president) should not make others (soldiers) pay with their lives for ours freedom (Iraq) too. Not picking on you about it, but I've heard that line one to many times.
But the US abolished the draft long ago. Soldiers are made fully aware of the risks, and their obligations, prior to donning the uniform. If we could miniaturize the forms and get the embryos to sign a waiver, I think we'd be golden.
Freedom06
10-25-2006, 05:18 PM
Well as I understand it (and I may not have a full grasp on the subject, I grant you that) - the concern is, that were stem cell research to be fully OK'd in the US, that there would be the natural kind of supply-and-demand phenomena that exists for every other commodity. Demand would quickly outstrip the supplies of "extras" - and we'd begin cloning existing human embryos, or farming them from juicy young women, just bursting with profitable fertilized eggs.
Just on this point I found this info :
from: stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
III. What are embryonic stem cells?
A. What stages of early embryonic development are important for generating embryonic stem cells?
Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body. The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst. The blastocyst includes three structures: the trophoblast, which is the layer of cells that surrounds the blastocyst; the blastocoel, which is the hollow cavity inside the blastocyst; and the inner cell mass, which is a group of approximately 30 cells at one end of the blastocoel.
Not saying I agree 100% with the research-is it different to experimenting on animals would you say-ethically speaking?
annihilation
10-25-2006, 05:31 PM
That's true - but good luck. We've been working on that one since the invention of the wire coathanger. p-)
Funny guy lol.
Well we could always have a vote in the country about it and part money via the vote. So lets say we will spend 10 billion on stem cell research and the US vote goes 60 for and 40 against. Then only 6 billion will get allocated to stem cell research. The other 40% go to god knows what. If anything is found from the research (well my sister thinks this is how it should be done), then those that voted in the 40% and their children are excluded from it and any cures it can come about. I imagine it get more people to vote for it and suck up the ethical question. haha
Personally its just one field I don't want to get behind on compared to the rest of the world. Especially when we destory so many eggs with no regard. If we toss them in the trash or we use them in the lab, there isn't much of a difference to me, atleast in the lab they are recycled from some use.
2shed one more thing......"you will no longer be butterflies, you will be murderflies" I think thats how he said it. I was to busy cracking up.
2Sheds_Jackson
10-25-2006, 05:43 PM
Just on this point I found this info :
from: stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
Not saying I agree 100% with the research-is it different to experimenting on animals would you say-ethically speaking?
Hmm thanks for the info. OK so if it has to be 4 to 5 days old, they'd have to be IV...so I guess the only concern would be...cloning...or deliberately creating life [yet to be defined] only to destroy it. Either that's nothing, or it equals farming humans?
Ethically speaking...well I dunno, I think most people believe that humans are inherently superior to animals because 1)God says so and/or 2)we are aware of our own existence and mortality. So experimenting on humans, no matter how old or young, brings ethical problems. If it's ok to snuff out a 5 day old embryo without a care, is it ok to euthanize the sick and old who no longer match our concept of full awareness? I am not knowing.
But 5 days old is pretty darn young. I mean, it's not like partial birth abortions, where they take a fully formed baby who can breathe and eat on it's own, and suck it's brain out. IMHO that's morally indefensible if you consider the same act murder outside of the uterus. But 5 days...I doubt it's even got a social security card by then.
Freedom06
10-25-2006, 06:28 PM
hmmmm ethics it's the kind of thing you want someone else to think about for you : "come back when you're done and tell me what I should do o ethics man!"
Besides, given what I heard about Limbaugh-isn't it kind of ironic for him to be telling someone else to take their medication? Or am I going to get sued now...
MrScruff
10-25-2006, 06:37 PM
Because obviously if he takes his meds he no longer has the disease. Chris Reeve was faking it to you know!
budgie
10-25-2006, 10:05 PM
As usual the republicans aim for the messenger. It`s silly too because at least on stem cell research they can claim some morality and argue the case on it`s merits. But no, they choose to act like apes and hurl turds at people instead. Thank you Rush and thank you Rove for lowering the bar on political discussion in perpetuity.
This is a new low for Rush too although I`m hardly surprised. He`s been heading in that direction for a long time and he`ll say worse things in the future, of that I am sure.
annihilation
10-25-2006, 10:15 PM
Because obviously if he takes his meds he no longer has the disease. Chris Reeve was faking it to you know!
You never saw the videos of him secretly walking!?!
nullterm
10-25-2006, 10:24 PM
He's pushing for an issue that's important to him. Do they expect him to not show signs of Parkinson's?
Kaplanr
10-25-2006, 10:28 PM
So did Rush (no longer entertaining anyway) argue the merits or just the delivery and messenger? Rush has always been a coward.
Nice... in a country where its legal to kill a person in vengeance without the need to save any lives people are critiziced for showing pitty when trying to make it legal to use some cells that cant feel anything, nor think, nor nothing to actually save lives and make some better...
Actually, Im waiting for this discussion to start in spain and have foreign journalist "informing" bout the dificulties to archieve the new law in such a traditional and religious country as spain... even the day before its actually approved...
If you cant accept stemcell research because of some basic multicell organisms being destroyed, I guess you dont accept masturbation or any *** that is meant to produce children.
vryhpyammoadded
10-26-2006, 10:40 AM
I see no problem here with either person. They both chose to support a particular party using there own notoriety and have every right to complain about the other to make there points to the voting public.
I’ve seen people on and off Parkinson’s med’s and noticed immediately he was going for the exaggerated sympathy play. No big deal. A little sleazy though IMO. TV is all about illusion and marketing and even sometimes, rarely, the truth.
I perfectly understand Rush’s reaction. He’s trying to defend those people, no matter how few, who can’t see the differences of televisions manipulation of realities. How close was the 2000 presidential election? How many people are gullible enough to fall for slick marketing? It’s kill or be killed out there people especially when the parties are so polar opposed in there favored philosophy.
As for stem cells and cloning, I say do it but goddam*t keep this unimportant crap out of the election and focus on a real issues like tax reform, education reform, more money for me and some accountability on the Hill too!
Viva banana republic, long shall she reign!
annihilation
10-26-2006, 12:08 PM
As for stem cells and cloning, I say do it but goddam*t keep this unimportant crap out of the election and focus on a real issues like tax reform, education reform, more money for me and some accountability on the Hill too!
Viva banana republic, long shall she reign!
Amen!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111
As for stem cells and cloning, I say do it
You are for human cloning?!?
2Sheds_Jackson
10-26-2006, 12:40 PM
Speaking of issues and the election...has anybody noticed how the monumental NJ Supreme Court decision mandating gay marriage has all but disappeared from the media? The cynic in me wonders if that's because they don't want people to see such a blatant example of leftist judiciary fiat vacating 230 years of American social order so close to the election...and prefer to keep the sheep occupied with nonsense like Foley and Fox...
dangerclose
10-26-2006, 06:16 PM
It's really very simple, vote the democrats in and there will be a cure for Parkinson's Disease and paralysis.
If only Kerry were elected in 2004, not only would Christopher Reeve be alive today - he'd be walking.
Durandal
10-26-2006, 08:40 PM
Speaking of issues and the election...has anybody noticed how the monumental NJ Supreme Court decision mandating gay marriage has all but disappeared from the media? The cynic in me wonders if that's because they don't want people to see such a blatant example of leftist judiciary fiat vacating 230 years of American social order so close to the election...and prefer to keep the sheep occupied with nonsense like Foley and Fox...
Actually, if you read the decision, which was a close decision, it mandated nothing and left it completely in the hands of the legislature. The decision simply said, under the Constitution, you can gay or straight you can marry OR if you do not want to redefine marriages the State can simply not acknowledge marriages and simply grant civil unions.
Like the Mass Supreme Court, under the State's Constitution the New Jersey courts COULD make civil laws if they so wished OR simply let the legislature know what they consider unConstitutional and let the State legislature determine which path to follow to make it Constitutional.
Unlike, say, Texas or Ohio, recent polls show that New Jersey is a state where people are more pro-gay marriage rather than less so. Which pretty much sets the course I think on where this will head.
I just got married. I was granted a license to marry by the State with a seal of the State of Ohio stamp right on it. In my opinion, because of that State seal, things change.
I approve of the decision...
As to the thread topic:
Nor do I think Stem cell research is a fundamentally "ethical" issue. I think it goes beyond that. I think it is going to be one of the corner stones to the advancement of our population to the next step, what ever that may be...
Kaplanr
10-26-2006, 09:25 PM
Speaking of issues and the election...has anybody noticed how the monumental NJ Supreme Court decision mandating gay marriage has all but disappeared from the media? The cynic in me wonders if that's because they don't want people to see such a blatant example of leftist judiciary fiat vacating 230 years of American social order so close to the election...and prefer to keep the sheep occupied with nonsense like Foley and Fox...
That's because everyone's cultural lens of NJ has shifted from "Garden State - Permanent Home of Jimmy Hoffa" to the Soparanos. Two wise-guys at the alter isn't Barney Frank, no one want to imagine it.
Don't forget that the 230 years of social order includes slavery, Chinese exclusion, No Jews Irish or dogs, McCarthy, and other nasty bumps. THe social order like history is dynamic.
Durandal
10-27-2006, 08:26 AM
We all have the right to fight for what we we believe in.
Science should move forward in this country. Science is a big part of the American story. And we need to writing a new chapter.
Absolute truth.
This was in Michael J. Fox's response on CBS.
Which can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvLsm5vmVXA&watch_response
He does a god job defending his actions and is spot on. Fox has campaigned for Democrats and Republicans alike.
Bottom line, Rush Limbaugh was a jackass in the extreme and simply proves that his opinion represents a certain lack of reality.
Freedom06
10-27-2006, 08:41 AM
Absolute truth.
This was in Michael J. Fox's response on CBS.
Which can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvLsm5vmVXA&watch_response
He does a god job defending his actions and is spot on. Fox has campaigned for Democrats and Republicans alike.
Bottom line, Rush Limbaugh was a jackass in the extreme and simply proves that his opinion represents a certain lack of reality.
Very impressive interview! What a dignified way to respond...
budgie
10-27-2006, 11:36 AM
Absolute truth.
This was in Michael J. Fox's response on CBS.
Which can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvLsm5vmVXA&watch_response
He does a god job defending his actions and is spot on. Fox has campaigned for Democrats and Republicans alike.
Bottom line, Rush Limbaugh was a jackass in the extreme and simply proves that his opinion represents a certain lack of reality.
I am not particarly interested in the minutae of the stem cell debate although I have my own opinion. My problem, and the point of this thread is Rush's pigheaded bullying. As usual the extreme right aims for the messenger and tries to discredit/defame/insult individuals in lieu of any form of intellectual debate.
In actuality Rush was probably right no matter how insensitive it sounded.
Fox has admitted to not taking his medication before his testimony to Congress for theatricality. If people see him shaking, he gets their sympathy. Why should we not assume he did the same thing for this political endorsement?
Geezah
10-27-2006, 01:44 PM
I am not particarly interested in the minutae of the stem cell debate although I have my own opinion. My problem, and the point of this thread is Rush's pigheaded bullying. As usual the extreme right aims for the messenger and tries to discredit/defame/insult individuals in lieu of any form of intellectual debate.
Amazing how this so-called Bullying is only one sided!!!!!!
Satellite Weapon
10-27-2006, 02:56 PM
The GOP could be in trouble here
http://www.youtube.com/v/Kd2VxA_EZfQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd2VxA_EZfQ
.
http://www.youtube.com/v/USiKpgVI4CA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USiKpgVI4CA
http://www.youtube.com/v/o8lsjfjgAA8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8lsjfjgAA8
Riot5
10-27-2006, 05:06 PM
Recently me and one of my friends were actually talking about stem-cell research and abortion. He told me of a good argument against both.
I'll try and remember what he said: Ok, you know when a sperm cell and an egg cell join together they make a cell right? Now, most people probably don't think of a cell as being "alive" but, what does a cell do that other living things do? It reproduces, and makes another cell.
And being able to reproduce is one of the classifications of life.
Therefore, if this train of thought is followed, this means that a cell is a living being, and is really just a very, very tiny human.
Killing that cell therefore constitues murder, 'cuz I doubt that that cell wants to die.
Ok, that's as much as I can remember.
Plz don't flame me. p-)
Durandal
10-27-2006, 07:32 PM
Amazing how this so-called Bullying is only one sided!!!!!!
Come on brother it is. Don't look at this as a right or left argument. Look at it as a topical argument. Fox didn't put his political capital a democrat because she was a liberal or a democrat or both. He did it because SHE supports stem cell research and her opponent does not. That's it.
He has supported a fair number of Republicans who also believe in putting force behind ANY and ALL stem cell research short of cloning humans. There are many Republicans who do.
Political party is irrelevant to him.
Then Rush does bully him, in a way, not face to face obviously but the message. Rush acts like this is some Democratic ploy and belittles dude's problems as if he we some sort of drug addicted hypocrite...errr...I mean...*chuckle*
Rush comes out looking REALLY bad and simply proves he is slipping and losing audience. As a result, stem cell research has received HUGE air time, with Fox looking like a well educated, well meaning adult headed down a sad path that life handed him and Rush looks like a complete jackass.
Its wonderful and the only thing one sided about this is the idiocy.
Now, that said, let's go shooting on Sunday and run a boat load of 9mm through our ARs. :)
Baloney. This is the same argument people made about Cindy Sheehan.
"You can't criticize her because she lost her son and elicits sympathy!"
only now it's
"You can't criticize him because he has a condition and elicits sympathy!"
Sympathy can be found in the dictionary right between **** and syphilis.
Satellite Weapon
10-27-2006, 09:25 PM
Sympathy can be found in the dictionary right between **** and syphilis. Hey, this former First Lady is no radical lefist or Liberal-commie
http://www.oldfields.org/images/friendships/reagan_1_frmd.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40263000/jpg/_40263541_nancycasketbbc_203.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3700015.stm
Actor Michael J. Fox praised Mrs Reagan for "taking the issue out of politics"
Durandal
10-27-2006, 10:14 PM
Baloney..."You can't criticize him because he has a condition and elicits sympathy!"
You can criticize him all you want.
I mean, clean cut, successful actor, played mainly good roles, well thought of in the the public mind, faithful to his wife, has children, and unlike a lot of Hollywood scumbags has been a good parent and husband. Got dealt a bad hand by life.
Supports ANY politician who wants to further research and science dealing with stem cells.
Rationalizing your criticism on the other hand, well...
*chuckle*
Nothing to criticize really.
Unless you want to criticize Nancy Reagan.
That demon whore supporter of the left. :roll:
You guys kill me.
nerdman
10-27-2006, 10:19 PM
Fox didn't take his meds. So what.
Rush wants to criticize him. So what.
Is Rush being more disrespectful, or is Fox being more underhanded. It's all relative. Tang vs Orange Juice This is politics in a country with free speech.
-----------------
As far as Stem cell research on "test tube" babies goes. These embryos are far from sentient. Research away.
Human life is taken for granted everyday. A starving child in Africa deserves more attention than a few cells in a tube. How about these people who bitch about stem cell research put their money into helping the billion celled organisms who have a better chance at life.
Durandal
10-28-2006, 07:05 AM
As far as Stem cell research on "test tube" babies goes. These embryos are far from sentient. Research away.
Human life is taken for granted everyday. A starving child in Africa deserves more attention than a few cells in a tube. How about these people who bitch about stem cell research put their money into helping the billion celled organisms who have a better chance at life.
Because we have been dumping money into Africa for decades with no real return. I am not asking for MONEY back, but at least an upswing in the positive to show that it actually works.
More lives can be saved finding a cure for malaria (scientific/medical research) than giving a kid in the town somewhere a year's supply of food.
Its sort of like comparing buying a TV or taking that money, investing it, and using the money you invested to buy a TV.
nerdman
10-28-2006, 09:14 AM
Because we have been dumping money into Africa for decades with no real return. I am not asking for MONEY back, but at least an upswing in the positive to show that it actually works.
More lives can be saved finding a cure for malaria (scientific/medical research) than giving a kid in the town somewhere a year's supply of food.
Its sort of like comparing buying a TV or taking that money, investing it, and using the money you invested to buy a TV.
You are looking at my statement too narrowly. I'm not saying strictly "feed the African children." My argument isn't restricted to the hungry people of said continent. It was just an example.
"The money" could be used in many different facets to enrich the lives of those less fortunate around the world, including peoples in our own countries.
Now could the money be put into research, to help cure diseases? Yes. Stem cell research anyone? There are thousands of other things it could be used for too.
Satellite Weapon
10-28-2006, 02:05 PM
Rush
http://clips.mediamatters.org/static/audio/limbaugh-20061019-dems.mp3
terrorists vote democrat ?
11 Bravo
10-29-2006, 02:05 AM
sattylite...you are obviously way left of center regarding politics.
Anyhow Mr Fox if he had really done his math so to speak would find that the 'elusive' results of stem cell research so far have proven NEGATIVE to the tenth power.
Research using stem sells from umbilical cords has proven more positive and would you know not destructive to life at all.
That some humans among us wage the propaganda war to make us believe that abortion is perfectly sane and a reasonable early end to life , oh and somehow is a divine right too is sickening. I look at my son or any other small child and it is horrifying to think that human debris among us for their selfish convenience would destroy such beautiful life .
And then because such life is still legally destroyed there then is the undercurrent of those that would then demand to utilize that 'flesh' for their own selfish means.... truly pathetic.
2Sheds_Jackson
10-29-2006, 03:39 AM
Actually, if you read the decision, which was a close decision, it mandated nothing and left it completely in the hands of the legislature. The decision simply said, under the Constitution, you can gay or straight you can marry OR if you do not want to redefine marriages the State can simply not acknowledge marriages and simply grant civil unions.
Like the Mass Supreme Court, under the State's Constitution the New Jersey courts COULD make civil laws if they so wished OR simply let the legislature know what they consider unConstitutional and let the State legislature determine which path to follow to make it Constitutional.
First of all, you've gone insane. :) Or, maybe you were speed reading that gawdaful 90 pages. The 3 dissented in a symbolic gesture, because they felt it did not go far enough. They demanded full marriage rights, including the use of the name "marriage" and dissented to make a point.
An excerpt from the "dissenting" opinion;
I would extend the Court’s mandate to require that same-*** couples have access to the “status” of marriage and all that the status of marriage entails.
So yeah it was close all right, but close to going completely off the cliff.
The text from the ruling (my bold);
Denying committed same-*** couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married hetero****** counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-*** couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.
So, the people of New Jersey may;
1. Allow them to marry exactly like straight folk
2. Give them exactly the same benefits and call it something different
So, it certainly is a mandate. . . unless somebody votes to change the NJ constitution.
On this day, the majority parses plaintiffs’ rights to hold
that plaintiffs must have access to the tangible benefits of
state-sanctioned hetero****** marriage
Just like that, the court, with no consulting of the community, upended 230 years of precedent. Instead of looking at those untold hundreds of millions of people, and 230 years of precedent, they chose to cite, over and over again, the last 5 years of precident...set by who? Not the people of Massachusetts or VT or CT, but....(gasp) more judges who ruled just like this. Doesn't that work out nicely for them?
Thankfully, I greatly admire the efficiencies at work here. When 4 people can change such a fundamental building block of society as this, without bothering the other 8.7 million affected souls - you know, asking them to vote on it or something - well it just shows why we're so efficient here in the US. But as a libertarian, I'd think that would curl your hair.
Personally, I think they should be able to have some kind of civil union thingie - who cares what they want to name it. But this ain't the way the system is supposed to work. Is it legal? Yes, but IMHO it's nothing but well established backdoor legislating of law that they know would not win with the people. This is not a minor issue. And I apologize for hijacking my own thread. :)
budgie
10-29-2006, 03:37 PM
Then Rush does bully him, in a way, not face to face obviously but the message. Rush acts like this is some Democratic ploy and belittles dude's problems as if he we some sort of drug addicted hypocrite...errr...I mean...*chuckle*
Rush comes out looking REALLY bad and simply proves he is slipping and losing audience. As a result, stem cell research has received HUGE air time, with Fox looking like a well educated, well meaning adult headed down a sad path that life handed him and Rush looks like a complete jackass.
Its wonderful and the only thing one sided about this is the idiocy.
To be fair I watched Letterman rip into O`Reilly who was a guest on his show the other nite. Basically Letterman`s argument was that O`Reilly`s continued support for Bush`s Iraq policy is foolish and doesn`t stand up after the justifications for the war were largely disproved.
Bill took it well, but I must say I felt sorry for him: although I agreed with Letterman, he seemed angry, red-faced, dismissive of his guest and altogether a bit of a bully. Not a very polite host and I was surprised because I never expected him to lose it like that.
It`s not as bad as Rush overall track record, and certainly not as bad as Bill`s (`Why do you hate America?`) but it does go to show the lefties can go overboard too.
budgie
10-29-2006, 03:42 PM
Baloney. This is the same argument people made about Cindy Sheehan.
"You can't criticize her because she lost her son and elicits sympathy!"
only now it's
"You can't criticize him because he has a condition and elicits sympathy!"
Sympathy can be found in the dictionary right between **** and syphilis.
So what? Has Sheehan been faking the loss of her son or its consequences? The `argument` about Sheehan is what exactly? That she`s not entitled to speak on an issue that deeply and personally affects her? Michael Fox is ill and he and many medical experts believe his ailment could be treated with techniques coming from stem cell research. He was neither faking the severity of his condition nor the depth of his passion for finding a cure.
Rush basically called him a liar to discredit him personally - a classic bullying technique. He didn`t criticize Fox, he attacked his integrity not to mention the condition itself. Hey its a free world but it shows either a weak case or a weak mind - a very poor understanding of the issues at best, when all one side can do is attck the character of someone who disagrees with their politics.
Many people said similar things about Sheehan. They said she faked her grievance or exploited her loss for political gain. Yeah people said the same about her: They were full of $hit as well.
11 Bravo
10-29-2006, 07:02 PM
A)The `argument` about Sheehan is what exactly?
B) Michael Fox is ill and he and many medical experts believe
C) Many people said similar things about Sheehan. They said she faked her grievance or exploited her loss for political gain. Yeah people said the same about her:
D)They were full of $hit as well.
Budgee ; Point A - Sheehan is a selfifh knob , as well as having some form of mental incapacitation. Note her 'lifestyle' , you know the second divorce where she again gives up rights to her child ( like she did with son Casey ).
Her taking of thousands of government dollars resluting from her sons death and has spent NOT A PENNY to respectfully honor her sons grave.
Point B - M.Fox is just so grasping in his desperation as his affliction tightens it's sad grip on him. Whom are these many "Medical Experts" that agree with him , and whom are any that disagree ?. Leaves me to wonder of the motivation behind such vagueness of detail(s).
Point C - back to point A with addition that cindy is nothing more than a puppet for SOROS and the DNC. Quite proven by how she has allowed herself to be such a self important puppet while of course being funded by Soros's PAC's and the DNC directly ( and yes both have blatantly admitted to their monetary support of this demented femme ).
Point D - You sir are full of "elpoopo" , as are all socialista leftnutzers.
Secret Squirrel
10-29-2006, 07:23 PM
Budgee ; Point A - Sheehan is a selfifh knob , as well as having some form of mental incapacitation. Note her 'lifestyle' , you know the second divorce where she again gives up rights to her child ( like she did with son Casey ).
Claim: Cindy Sheehan's son, Casey, was raised by her ex-husband after the couple divorced and both remarried.
Status: False. link (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sheehan.asp)
Her taking of thousands of government dollars resluting from her sons death and has spent NOT A PENNY to respectfully honor her sons grave.
Claim: Casey Sheehan's grave is unmarked with a standard headstone.
Status: Multiple:
Casey Sheehan's grave lacked a headstone for the first two years after his death: True.
Casey Sheehan's grave is not now marked with a headstone: False. link (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sheehangrave.asp)
Point B - M.Fox is just so grasping in his desperation as his affliction tightens it's sad grip on him. Whom are these many "Medical Experts" that agree with him , and whom are any that disagree ?. Leaves me to wonder of the motivation behind such vagueness of detail(s).
So so we're clear, you want the entire list of medical experts?
Point C - back to point A with addition that cindy is nothing more than a puppet for SOROS and the DNC. Quite proven by how she has allowed herself to be such a self important puppet while of course being funded by Soros's PAC's and the DNC directly ( and yes both have blatantly admitted to their monetary support of this demented femme ).
Point D - You sir are full of "elpoopo" , as are all socialista leftnutzers.
facts, smacts.:D
budgie
10-30-2006, 03:33 AM
Point B - M.Fox is just so grasping in his desperation as his affliction tightens it's sad grip on him. Whom are these many "Medical Experts" that agree with him , and whom are any that disagree ?. Leaves me to wonder of the motivation behind such vagueness of detail(s).
Point D - You sir are full of "elpoopo" , as are all socialista leftnutzers.
This is what I`m talking about - silly name-calling.
My "vagueness" on the issue is deliberate - as I said earlier in the thread I`m not concerned with the minutae and details of the stem cell debate. There`s your "motivation".
I am not particarly interested in the minutae of the stem cell debate although I have my own opinion. My problem, and the point of this thread is Rush's pigheaded bullying. As usual the extreme right aims for the messenger and tries to discredit/defame/insult individuals in lieu of any form of intellectual debate.
My posts in this thread have been about the recent words of Limbaugh in which Fox was accused of exaggerating his Parkinson`s disease symptoms. It is not about the research it`s about the dishonorable behaviour of Limbaugh: and he`s not faking his symptoms, so as I said, it`s distasteful to call him a fake, liar or to say he`s hamming it up. I`m not interested in the stem cell debate, we were talking about bullying. Rush Limbaugh is a bully.
As usual the republicans aim for the messenger. It`s silly too because at least on stem cell research they can claim some morality and argue the case on it`s merits. But no, they choose to act like apes and hurl turds at people instead. Thank you Rush and thank you Rove for lowering the bar on political discussion in perpetuity.
This is a new low for Rush too although I`m hardly surprised. He`s been heading in that direction for a long time and he`ll say worse things in the future, of that I am sure.
And as I see , you`ve also resorted to name calling and accusations with Sheehan above. I doubt you have the slightest idea how she spends her money or how her son`s grave is looked after.
Geezah
10-30-2006, 12:23 PM
I am not particarly interested in the minutae of the stem cell debate although I have my own opinion. My problem, and the point of this thread is Rush's pigheaded bullying. As usual the extreme right aims for the messenger and tries to discredit/defame/insult individuals in lieu of any form of intellectual debate.
As you're so against bullying, I'm sure you will no doubt join me in condeming George Clooney???
I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association. He deserves whatever anyone says about him.George Clooney
budgie
10-31-2006, 11:55 AM
As you're so against bullying, I'm sure you will no doubt join me in condeming George Clooney???
I think you`re missing the point here. Yeah George is being dismissive when it`s really not constructive, but attacking someone`s political beliefs in the context of a political debate is fine by me. Out of context it would be bullying. It`s a little different from having a go at someone`s incurable disease. Rush sank too low there.
Now if you want more detail on how I feel about Clooney`s comments your`re going to have to provide a context instead of just a sound byte. But I cannot imagine any context in which accusing MJ Fox of faking his symptoms for sympathy could be construed as anything other than bullying.
Fox purposefully used his symptoms as a tool for garnering sympathy when they could have been normally controlled by medication.
He admitted to doing so before his tesimony in Congress. Why should we not believe he did the same thing here in a political ad supporting a candidate for a bill he did not even read?
His protection from criticism was forfeit when he admitted to manipulating Congress for sympathy.
budgie
10-31-2006, 11:29 PM
Fox purposefully used his symptoms as a tool for garnering sympathy when they could have been normally controlled by medication.
He admitted to doing so before his tesimony in Congress. Why should we not believe he did the same thing here in a political ad supporting a candidate for a bill he did not even read?
His protection from criticism was forfeit when he admitted to manipulating Congress for sympathy.
You got a link or quotation there? Preferably the question and he answer. I couldn`t find a transcript on the web.
If you mean Fox admitting he didn't even read the bill it's here:
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/print?id=2613377
You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so 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.
If you mean Fox admitting he purposefully skipped his meds before testifying in front of Congress, he admitted it in his book Lucky Man and in a Diane Sawyer interview in 2000.
9mmRifle
10-31-2006, 11:49 PM
Hey, this former First Lady is no radical lefist or Liberal-commie
http://www.oldfields.org/images/friendships/reagan_1_frmd.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40263000/jpg/_40263541_nancycasketbbc_203.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3700015.stm
Actor Michael J. Fox praised Mrs Reagan for "taking the issue out of politics"
So you're saying Nancy Reagan has supported stem cells ?
9mmRifle
11-02-2006, 03:53 AM
So did Rush (no longer entertaining anyway) argue the merits or just the delivery and messenger? Rush has always been a coward. A lot of Republicans find Rush to be an embarrassing loudmouth
budgie
11-02-2006, 08:42 AM
If you mean Fox admitting he didn't even read the bill it's here:
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/print?id=2613377
If you mean Fox admitting he purposefully skipped his meds before testifying in front of Congress, he admitted it in his book Lucky Man and in a Diane Sawyer interview in 2000.
Not interested in the Bill. Even most congress members only read summaries anyway.
So Fox skipped his meds to show how devestating the disease and symptoms can be and was forthcoming about it as well. I don"t see that as a problem since he was trying to illustrate his suffering. So far it doesn't vindicate Rush for basically saying Fox is fraud and exaggerating his illness for sympathy. Skipping meds is not an exaggeration, it shows the natural state of the disease.
Hiroshima
11-02-2006, 08:46 AM
Even most congress members only read summaries anyway.
Yep, and their aides (the ones that write the summaries) can flavor those summaries any way they (or their good friends) want.
Not interested in the Bill. Even most congress members only read summaries anyway.
So Fox skipped his meds to show how devestating the disease and symptoms can be and was forthcoming about it as well. I don"t see that as a problem since he was trying to illustrate his suffering. So far it doesn't vindicate Rush for basically saying Fox is fraud and exaggerating his illness for sympathy. Skipping meds is not an exaggeration, it shows the natural state of the disease.
Well if I remember correctly, Rush said either Fox was acting or off his meds which sure seems pretty damn close to the truth. I believe Fox is saying he was over-medicated or something. Why should anyone believe he did not do it on purpose to garner sympathy?
It was Fox manipulating the audience as he's admitted to doing before.
Hiroshima
11-02-2006, 10:43 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/27/fox.couric.ap/index.html
Interesting tid-bit of info...
The ads triggered a backlash, with radio commentator Limbaugh claiming during his broadcast that Fox was "either off his medication or acting." Limbaugh called Fox "really shameless" in his effort to stir up sympathy.
Also...
"Disease is a nonpartisan problem that requires a bipartisan solution," he said.
"Would you support a Republican candidate?" Couric asked.
"I have," Fox replied. "I've campaigned for Arlen Specter," describing the Republican senator from Pennsylvania as a "fantastic champion of stem-cell research."
Satellite Weapon
11-03-2006, 12:02 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/27/fox.couric.ap/index.html
Interesting tid-bit of info...
Also... . good link
Hot Lips
11-03-2006, 12:39 AM
Honestly, I don't care if Fox was under medicated, over medicated, or not medicated at all. What viewers saw is what people with the disease have to live with. I think it's good for unknowledgable people (on the subject of the disease) to see the effects of a disease that is being discussed because it's just to easy for some to sit at home as say "meh, we don't need that research, the disease isn't that bad he looks OK now" not realizing that medication doesn't make all patients OK 24x7. My understanding is that for many medication can be a trade off between tremors and other side effects.
As for the research I'm Ok with it. Laws to address cloning, conceiving embryos for resale, etc can be addressed if people are concerned about that. As far as abortion relates to the topic...... when people that want to force others to carry children to term start putting up their homes and incomes to support all the unwanted, unadopted children in the world today both financially and emotionally they can start telling others how to live their lives. It's far too easy to tell someone else they have to have a baby when you can turn your back on the child yourself.
If these embryos are being destroyed anyway, put them to some good use.
budgie
11-04-2006, 12:18 PM
Well if I remember correctly, Rush said either Fox was acting or off his meds which sure seems pretty damn close to the truth. I believe Fox is saying he was over-medicated or something. Why should anyone believe he did not do it on purpose to garner sympathy?
It was Fox manipulating the audience as he's admitted to doing before.
We know Karl Rove is winning when conservatives call telling the plain facts 'manipulating' people.
If the reality hurts, if it affects negatively, if it garners sympathy so be it. It's still reality and it should not be deemed wrong to tell it like it is.
Satellite Weapon
11-05-2006, 09:27 PM
Stem Cells: Missouri Election's Wild Card http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/03/politics/main2149843.shtml
We know Karl Rove is winning when conservatives call telling the plain facts 'manipulating' people.
If the reality hurts, if it affects negatively, if it garners sympathy so be it. It's still reality and it should not be deemed wrong to tell it like it is.
But it was not the reality. The reality is that these symptoms can be better controlled by properly taking your medication. This is what Fox chose not to do in order to manipulate the audience.
It was dishonest.
Hot Lips
11-06-2006, 01:02 AM
It wasn't dishonest because he told them that is what he did and why.... so that people that know nothing about the desease could see the affects.
It wasn't dishonest because he told them that is what he did and why.... so that people that know nothing about the desease could see the affects.
He only admitted it well after the appearance.
Try again.
Hot Lips
11-06-2006, 01:06 AM
Exposing his illness for what it is, is not being dishonest. It's reality.
Exposing his illness for what it is, is not being dishonest. It's reality.
Purposefully neglecting the proper medication which controls the symptoms is not reality, it's manipulation.
People saw Fox shaking and said to themselves "he can't help it" when in reality he can help it by taking his prescriptions as directed.
Hot Lips
11-06-2006, 01:32 AM
It's dishonest to imply that the medication is a cure or even an enduring fix.
It's dishonest to imply that the medication is a cure or even an enduring fix.
Now you're the one being dishonest.
My own quotes:
the proper medication which controls the symptoms
these symptoms can be better controlled by properly taking your medication
etc.
I never claimed a cure. I never implied a cure. I never claimed or implied an enduring fix. I clearly said it was to control the symptoms.
If you have no way to counter my arguments honestly, please just admit defeat and move on. Trying, poorly, to put words in my mouth so you can knock them down as some sort of straw-man is pathetic.
Hot Lips
11-06-2006, 01:51 AM
Admit what defeat? He honestly showed people the impact of the desease.
If people felt sorry for him, it was because his symptoms are reality for many people with the desease. Medication is not a sure thing for someone in advance stages (which he is) and can even result in impaired speech which would not have helped him give a speech.
Would you have been happier to see him parade a group of people that couldn't afford the medications and treatments he can through the room?
What dishonest statements did he make about the desease?
If Fox were honest, he would have said out front that he purposefully did not take his medication (or over-medicated) in order to illustrate the physical effects of the disease. But he didn't. He manipulated his audience for sympathy and only admitted it much later.
That's reality.
Hot Lips
11-06-2006, 02:17 AM
Reality is that any good speaker uses examples and visuals for what they are speaking about to reinforce the message. He was speaking about the affects of the desease. That is what he showed them.
There were also other patients and scientists there to speak about the issue as well. I have no doubt the men and women of congress and anyone that read more than a sound byte or headline got a good dose of reality.
Reality is that his honest portray of the affects of the desease made people that would rather keep their heads buried in the sand uncomfortable.
Reality is that any good speaker uses examples and visuals for what they are speaking about to reinforce the message. He was speaking about the affects of the desease. That is what he showed them.
So you admit he purposefully did not take his meds, though he normally would have, for purposes of theatricality?
If Fox were honest, he would have said "I did not take my medication today so you can see what this disease does." That would have been truthful. He chose not to do that.
Hot Lips
11-06-2006, 02:22 AM
He admitted, why should I not? He didn't deny it. Unless you are suggesting that congress asked him that question and he lied to them?
For purposes of waking people up to the affects of the desease. Which you would clearly rather ignore because it doesn't suit your purpose.
Wanting to hide the affects of the desease temporarily (all the medication can really accomplish) as if these people are not suffering on a daily basis is dishonest.
RECON DOC
11-06-2006, 02:25 AM
Purposefully neglecting the proper medication which controls the symptoms is not reality, it's manipulation.
People saw Fox shaking and said to themselves "he can't help it" when in reality he can help it by taking his prescriptions as directed.
Uh actually the severe shaking is caused by the medication, more specifically over medication. If he doesn't take it he freezes up and can't move or speak.
He admitted, why should I not? He didn't deny it. Unless you are suggesting that congress asked him that question and he lied to them?
For purposes of waking people up to the affects of the desease. Which you would clearly rather ignore because it doesn't suit your purpose.
Wanting to hide the affects of the desease temporarily (all the medication can really accomplish) as if these people are not suffering on a daily basis is dishonest.
If Fox's normal way of dealing with his disease meant taking his medication, he should have taken it or told us that he had not. Purposefully not taking his meds was not reality it was a departure from reality. Reality is that he had been controlling the symptoms with medication.
He chose to hide that little tidbit in order to garner more sympathy.
Maybe you want to make excuses for somebody attempting to manipulate others through dishonest portrayal but I don't. I think he should have been open about what he was doing.
Hot Lips
11-06-2006, 02:40 AM
Reality is he said as much as soon as he was asked. If congress was suspicious I'm sure they would have asked, but then again I'm sure they fully expected to see what they saw. That is what people pleading any case before congress does. If they are speaking about amputees..... they bring amputees in. Reality is medication doesn't control the symptoms 100% nor 24x7. Reality is he could have showed up and not been able to speak and then you'd be crying that was unfair too. Reality is there were other patients there who were medicated along with scientists so congress got a does of all aspects of the truth about the desease.
Oh, so it's not dishonesty until someone asks you?
Give me a break. Your argument is so weak hehe.
Hot Lips
11-06-2006, 03:05 AM
According to that logic you are a liar because you have not disclosed a great many things about your life to us here online. If we have to ask you something about your life it's because you've been lying to us.
Not.
According to that logic you are a liar because you have not disclosed a great many things about your life to us here online. If we have to ask you something about your life it's because you've been lying to us.
Not.
Give me a break, you know you lost the argument so you're resorting to some weak sauce. :)
What information I volunteer here on the forum about my own life has no relation to Michael J. Fox's testimony. I'm not here advocating anything. I'm not here asking you people to do anything for a cause I'm involved with. Michael J. Fox wasn't having fun on a message board, he was petitioning the United States Senate.
Try again.
Satellite Weapon
11-06-2006, 07:20 AM
Stem cells and the suffering of real people
http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/116260530985800.xml&coll=7
ClydeFrog
11-06-2006, 08:03 AM
I thought it was told a dozen times now that he had taken too much of his medicine and suffered from something called dyskinesia.
But hey of course, he either took deliberately too much or deliberately too little right? I bet you have prove for that and it's not just accusations because you don't like the man? You know, I have a neighbour with parkinson living in the appartment under mine and he has worse symptoms than Fox sometimes when I see him, like shaking his head back and forth all the time. Maybe I should tell him to stop overmedicating for effect eh?
And like this even matters, he has parkinson with or without the symptoms you know.
Beowulf
11-06-2006, 08:23 AM
I thought it was told a dozen times now that he had taken too much of his medicine and suffered from something called dyskinesia.
But hey of course, he either took deliberately too much or deliberately too little right? I bet you have prove for that and it's not just accusations because you don't like the man? You know, I have a neighbour with parkinson living in the appartment under mine and he has worse symptoms than Fox sometimes when I see him, like shaking his head back and forth all the time. Maybe I should tell him to stop overmedicating for effect eh?
And like this even matters, he has parkinson with or without the symptoms you know.
....I think he admitted that he didn't take his meds.
But you should put on some hip-hop for your downstairs neighbor and see if his shakes sync to the beat.
Hot Lips
11-06-2006, 06:15 PM
He actually said as much his speech before congress that his medication was not in affect at that time which is why they were seeing his tremors. He wrote it in his book as well and told Diane Sawyer that was intentional. Honestly, some need to try reading more than a sound byte, headline, or blurb from a blogger with an agenda to push.
He never tried to hide that he wasn't medicated at the time of the speech.
He did this because he wanted people to see the affects of the desease because that was the topic under discussion.
There were also other medicated and unmedicated patients and scientist there as well.
It would be remise of a speaker to go before congress to discuss a topic and not have evidence to support what they are talking about. Part of that evidence was the visual of his own symptoms at his stage of the desease.... a big contrast to the MJF many grew up watching on TV..... and that of other patients there that day.
I think what his opposition are really complaining about is that they didn't get to control the event and hide the affects of the desease from the audience........ their own desire, IMO, for a dishonest portrayal of the desease.
budgie
11-06-2006, 09:32 PM
But it was not the reality. The reality is that these symptoms can be better controlled by properly taking your medication. This is what Fox chose not to do in order to manipulate the audience.
It was dishonest.
I can't see the dishonesty in being forthright about something - even after the fact. Fox may not have stood up and said, "this is me without proper meds" but who says he had to? I can't imagine why he'd want to hide his symptoms with medication when he's trying to demonstrate them to others. Fox showed what the disease actually does to people. What relevance to medications that offer temporary relief have? The man is sick and he showed us the reality of that illness. You can't fake that. Are you even aware that Parkinson's is terminal? It is killing the man. He will die of this disease. You can't fake that.
You say he was dishonest for not saying "This is me off my meds."? I say he showed his symptoms as was the intention and meds are irrelevant. You say he's dishonest because nobody asked him if he was on or off the meds so he didn't have to answer? I say who had to ask? The question was not relevant. Let me ask you something - Did Fox stand up and say "Look I'm on FULL medication and these are my symptoms."? That's the only way he could have been actually lying. Manipulating his audience? Please - demonstrating details, showing the ravages of a disease or giving bad news in general is not manipulating anyone. Facts stand regardless of how people respond to them. To use a favorite neocon catchphrase from another left/right debate: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Attacking a person over their illness is cruel and personal and hardly necessary in a political debate. To say he was just 'asking for it' by putting his illness out there or to boldly claim that he was dishonest for not taking his meds is typical bully behaviour - blame the victim.
You guys don't like the news so you attack the integrity of the person delivering it.
Hot Lips
11-06-2006, 09:36 PM
It's not fair that he used his illness to....... make a point about his illness.
???
Are you really resurrecting this thread so we can go over the same ol' crap again?
If Fox did not mean to manipulate the audience, he would have been up front about not taking the meds that he normal takes to control the symptoms. He did not do that. He didn't admit it until after he got the reaction he wanted.
I have lots of sympathy for Fox due to his condition but I do not like being manipulated by anybody. A sick manipulator is no different than a healthy one.
Hot Lips
11-06-2006, 10:03 PM
He did let them know that his medication was not in affect during the speech and that was why they were seeing his tremors.
I can't live with manipulated......... because it was done in an honest manner for good reasons, portraying truth about his disease, and with the support of other patients and scientists. That was never hidden with malice. No one pulled a fast on on congress at that meeting.
The arguement that showing his symptoms mislead you about how "well" he is shows you haven't really looked into the topic of the disease. He's not well even with medication.
We simply disagree on the motives of people trying to whine that displaying his symptoms wasn't fair to the audience the team was trying to educate about the disease. You can't understand a disease without understanding it's affects first. The scientists and other patients were on hand to cover other aspects of the disease and limitations and/or benefits of existing treatments. I have yet to read that any member of congress felt he manipulated them, but they don't rely solely on what one person presents to them.
budgie
11-06-2006, 10:07 PM
Are you really resurrecting this thread so we can go over the same ol' crap again?
If Fox did not mean to manipulate the audience, he would have been up front about not taking the meds that he normal takes to control the symptoms. He did not do that. He didn't admit it until after he got the reaction he wanted.
I have lots of sympathy for Fox due to his condition but I do not like being manipulated by anybody. A sick manipulator is no different than a healthy one.
Nice choice of words - 'admit' it. You're working on the assumption that Fox was hiding something. The meds hide the symptoms. By not taking them was he hiding the thing that could hide his symptoms? Then he tried to hide the fact that he was hiding the meds that could have otherwise been used to hide the reality of his illness? I'm getting confused.
Really are you that easily manipulated? People that easily fooled still think Saddam was hiding WMD in 2003 even though they've never been found.. Fox sought to show his illness in its natural state. He didn't pretend did he? Again I ask did he say he was on meds then retract it later? If not, he was hiding nothing.
Hot Lips
11-06-2006, 10:27 PM
I was reading that medication is often used by patients to hide their illness in the early stages from employers for fear of losing their jobs. Eventually though they can't completely hide the symptoms even when medicated. But if you are giving a speech about the affects of the disease it make little sense to hide the affects of the disease from your audience. That would be down right stupid.
If someone wants to give a speech about the benefits of current medication over finding a possible cure it would make sense to parade perfectly medicated patients before congress. Though from what I've read there are no "perfectly" medicated patient particularly in the late stages due to the nature of the medication and the illness.
It's my understanding congress saw a variety of patients that day. Some medicated. And scientists. I don't think anyone tried to lie or be malicious. I think they are now though.
I don't see Republicans giving speeches about great things Democrats do for the nation nor Democrats giving speeches about great things Republicans do for the nation. Why? It's off topic. They are there to discuss one and not the other. Yet neither's audience leaves a campaign rally feeling manipulated. They only seem to feel manipulated when they've been subjected to the opposition.
I think this has more to do with picking political sides.
On any other day Fox would have taken his medication as prescribed. He chose not to for theatricality to manipulate the audience. It gave the impression that there was no treatment for the shaking which was untrue. He simply chose not to treat it to garner sympathy.
It's not about hiding the real effects of the disease. It's about lying to the audience about how he lives with the disease on a day to day basis. He chose to depart from the normal treatment. He chose to give a dishonest portrayal of how he deals with his condition.
That's just not acceptable to me.
California Joe
11-07-2006, 11:06 AM
Bottom line is, if you walk in there medicated off your ass everyone goes, "hey, that guy sounds a little loaded but not that bad, why should we worry about funding research, hell, he's more coherent than Ted Kennedy" But if you walk in there showing the full effects of the disease that IS killing you you get your point across a little more forcefully. It's common sense. Get off your high horse.
Bottom line is, if you walk in there medicated off your ass everyone goes, "hey, that guy sounds a little loaded but not that bad, why should we worry about funding research, hell, he's more coherent than Ted Kennedy" But if you walk in there showing the full effects of the disease that IS killing you you get your point across a little more forcefully. It's common sense. Get off your high horse.
He should have been honest about not taking his meds and "showing the full effects." I don't think that's too much to ask.
That's my bottom line.
California Joe
11-07-2006, 02:35 PM
Pretty sure Hot Lips said that about 37 times. He brings it up in his speech before congress. If they can't process that it's a bad thing then they shouldn't be there.
Why do you hate women and America Jobu?
Pretty sure Hot Lips said that about 37 times. He brings it up in his speech before congress. If they can't process that it's a bad thing then they shouldn't be there.
Wrong. He told Congress that he was waiting for the meds to kick in. In his book he admits he deliberately chose not to take the meds at all for theatricality. Fox lied.
Maybe that's excusable to you but it's not to me.
ElHombre
11-07-2006, 03:00 PM
Why do you hate women and America Jobu?
Because neither one thinks as well of him as he does.
(C'mon, y'all were thinking it)
California Joe
11-07-2006, 03:13 PM
Wrong. He told Congress that he was waiting for the meds to kick in. In his book he admits he deliberately chose not to take the meds at all for theatricality. Fox lied.
Maybe that's excusable to you but it's not to me.
It's not excusable to you? Hahahahaha I bet he's really upset about that. You know, when he's not busy dying.
Well, his past dishonesty sure didn't help me switch my vote to the person he endorsed. I would assume he cares about his reputation among his intended audience or he wouldn't be out campaigning.
Hot Lips
11-07-2006, 06:26 PM
Wrong. He told Congress that he was waiting for the meds to kick in. In his book he admits he deliberately chose not to take the meds at all for theatricality. Fox lied.
Maybe that's excusable to you but it's not to me.
I don't care if you don't like him because he's too liberal for you. I don't care if you don't like him because you are against stem cell research. I don't care if you have some deep seeded childhood trauma from watching Family Ties.
I find truly sad when I read about people that want to demonize a patient dying a slow or quick death from a disease for daring to allow anyone to see the true affects of the disease in the effort to gain support for research funds..... all to support members of the media who think it's funny to mock the sick and dying for the sake of ratings.
It's akin to wanting to crucify a double mastectomy patient for not wearing a wonderbra or getting implants before a speech about the affects of breast cancer. Or demonizing a cancer patient for not wearing a wig to cover the baldness caused by their chemo.
I find it odd to say "I feel sorry for the guy" as if this somehow conveys a sense of being a compassionate person.... all the while complaining about feeling manipulated into feeling sympathy.....thereby implying that sympathy for these patients are not deserved.... because the meds would have made him appear normal enough to make you comfortable with their lives being cut short by the disease.
It really does sadden me when people get so wrapped up in defending a party that they seem to lose their humanity.
You can have the last word because I've lost all respect for you at this point.
ElHombre
11-07-2006, 06:33 PM
Jobu, look down. Those are your intestines that Hot Lips just tore out of you. :lol:
California Joe
11-07-2006, 07:04 PM
Jobu, this is where you say, "I know you are, but what am I"
Cause frankly, the semantics you've been arguing are sh*t. And I pretty sure you knew that going in.
Taking your prescribed medication as directed by a physician is not the same as wearing a wonderbra or a wig. Your argument holds no water, Hotlips.
Michael J. Fox is sick and that's terrible but it doesn't give him absolute moral authority. When a sick person is dishonest it's no different than when a healthy person is dishonest.
So you can get back on that horse and keep riding.
budgie
11-07-2006, 10:41 PM
Christ how many times do we have to tell you there was no dishonesty?.
But attacking Fox for this is like saying a cripple can't advocate moulded prosthetics when he's in a wheelchair, because he left his wooden legs at home.
Like the others said Jobu, you're so wrapped up in taking a stand for the extreme right that you can't even acknowledge a piece of simple bullying is wrong if it's done by your side.
You may say there was no dishonesty but the facts say otherwise so I think I'll stick to my position.
Thanks for your concern.
budgie
11-07-2006, 10:56 PM
You may say there was no dishonesty but the facts say otherwise so I think I'll stick to my position.
Thanks for your concern.
As I said in another thread I tend to avoid the word 'you' in the forums as it's a sure sign things are getting personal. But this thread is an exception.
You sir, have at best a skewed interpretation of facts and at worst a poor grasp of reality. The facts as you see them...are not. They exist only in your head and no amount of semantics or obfuscation can back them up.
California Joe
11-07-2006, 10:59 PM
Holy Christ, I just realized that Jobu is actually W.
On one hand it's cool that W is hanging out here. On the other hand it seems like he doesn't know which advice to take. Oh wait, sorry, nothing's changed.....
Fact #1: Fox lied before congress when he said he was waiting for his meds to kick in.
Fact #2: Fox deliberately chose not to take his meds in order to garner sympathy.
Fact #3: Fox campaigned for a bill that he didn't even read.
Those are the facts as I see them because those are the facts as Fox himself has admitted. Why should I change my position?
Hot Lips
11-07-2006, 11:09 PM
You shouldn't change your stance. It defines who you are (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2061169&postcount=101).
.
Unless you can somehow change the facts I listed, I'll remain pretty satisfied with my stance. I'm not going to change it because somebody on an internet message board chooses to give Fox a pass.
Hot Lips
11-08-2006, 12:13 AM
We can't change the "facts" as they exist in a mind such as your own. Even the man you sought to defend said this....
They're saying that I said Michael J. Fox was acting. Some of them got it right and said I said he's either acting or off his medications. I said he's off his medications is speculated because he's admitted that he does that in order to show the ravages of the disease -- which I said, by the way, is not a bad thing to do, when you're trying to raise consciousness about it. It was not even critical of it.
Fact #1: He didn't lie. You simply can't accept reality.
Fact #2: So what. Better to garner sympathy for a good cause than garner hatred for the sake of ratings and attention.
Fact #3: So what. People he trusted read it and advised him. He didn't hide that either.
Rush is wrong.
Lying for what you think is a good cause should not be acceptable.
ElHombre
11-08-2006, 07:48 PM
Looks like the people of Missouri chose (http://columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=22756) Fox over Limbaugh.
Hot Lips
11-08-2006, 08:15 PM
I hope something good comes from it all.
budgie
11-09-2006, 12:48 AM
In this case a democrat-dominated House and senate. Hooray for checks and balances.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.