Reply With Quote
No I don't understand your point.
You think everyone shouldn't want to keep what they have and if they think that way they are unchristian and evil?
I think you understand my point. I did go there.
No I don't understand your point.
You think everyone shouldn't want to keep what they have and if they think that way they are unchristian and evil?
I suppose Tammy Duckworth has no right to campaign against the war if she mentions the fact that both her legs were blown off when the helicopter she was piloting was blown out of the sky.
When will limbaugh attack her like he did Fox?
No, I just think people should have more compassion for others.
I'm confused.
Are we still talking about taxes?
Nevermind, I've got to go....
Well, well, well. All the venom. My goodness. Poor
Michael. Poor Michael. He has this terrible disease and
you attack him. Really!
Let's not face the truth, just tell on X that he is mean,
so cruel, he has no feelings. Really?
Let's not look at the facts. Facts, my goodness, don't
confuse me with facts. Right?
Michael is lying in his little ad. Michael has admitted
he goes off meds to prove a point. What damn point?
We all know he has a terrible, terrible illness. He
cant help it, I cant help it and no known cure exist.
No one says stem cell research will or can or has even
been remotely said that it can cure it. But he says
you vote for a Republican it aint gonna happen, you
gotta vote Democrat to get this one the road for a cure.
Now, in my book that is POLITICAL.
Now maybe you don't. That is your decision.
What lie does he say?Michael is lying in his little ad.I would hope so, since it's a political ad.Now, in my book that is POLITICAL.
Most people can't afford those medications. One of my neighbors has Parkinsons. Whats wrong with showing the effects of Parkinsons? Why not bring it to people's attention? Why just dismiss this as a political attack? Are people that shallow?
What lie did he say:
You vote for a Republican you are voting again
stem cell research. Horse Hockey.
A Republican President is the only President that
authorized federal money be spent on stem cell
research.
so there is your lie.....
FYI
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.
^^Aren't you happy you weren't one of those used for
research?
Nope, that's wrong. You lied.You vote for a Republican you are voting again
stem cell research.Well no , Sherlock. What does that have to do with anything? Next you'll be saying Fox couldn't put on his veil for the Taliban because he was off his meds.A Republican President is the only President that
authorized federal money be spent on stem cell
research.
We are talking about frozen embryos sitting around in storage degrading and eventually being disposed of (thrown away). This is not harvesting fetuses post-abortion.
I lied. You are full of yourself. Listen to what he said.
Vote for the dimm-o-crap or vote against stem cell
research. He said it not me.
sheeeeesh, clean your ears.
^^ He is supporting the candidate that supports stem cell research. In Missouri, that would be Claire McKaskill (sp?) and Jim Talent opposes.
Nice of you to admit it.I lied.Nope. He said the Republican senator opposes expanding stem cell research, which is true.Listen to what he said.
Vote for the dimm-o-crap or vote against stem cell
research.
Here's Rush mocking MJ Fox (or maybe he scored just scored some quality "baby blues")
...kinda reminiscent of DarkReign's sig.
(what's the story with that kid anyway?)
Looks like the politicos are getting the All-Star players involved...
St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan will start Game 4 of the World Series, Wednesday Oct. 25, 2006. Suppan appears in an ad telling Missouri voters to reject a controversial stem-cell law.
(CBS/AP)CBS NewsIn an effort to shoot down a controversial measure that would legalize stem cell research in Missouri — and rebut an advertisement featuring Michael J. Fox that supports the law — opponents will respond with their own celebrity-filled ad that will air during Game 4 of the World Series Wednesday night.
An added twist to the opponents' response is that St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan appears in the ad and will be the starter Wednesday against the Detroit Tigers.
Joining Suppan are celebrities such as NFL quarterback Kurt Warner, actors Jim Caviezel and Patricia Heaton, and, baseball player Mike Sweeney. Caviezel played the role of Jesus in the film, "The Passion of the Christ."
Nothing beats Jim Caviezel starting off the ad by speaking in Aramaic. It would be hilarious if not for the fact that he's being dead serious. Here is the video, check it out for yourself.
Can we question someone's opinion, expressed in an advertisement with much drama and delivered by a PROFESSIONAL and reasonable good ACTOR who suffers feom a disease that may or MAY NOT be cureable as a result of the research he advocates?
Further, is his REPRESENTATION of those he opposes accurate?
As a matter of FACT, neither of the candidates he opposes object to stem cell research. Quick aside, back in 1963-64 "stem cells" were indeed known. Back then they were called "undifferentated cells". Knowledge of these types of cells was discovered QUICKLY following the Watson-Crick discovery of DNA, RNA and messenger RNA.
At least they are NOT opposed to stem cell research, as long as people use stem cells from adults and from the afterbirth.
They are CONCERNED about the use of human embryo stem cells, at lease additional ones to those already in use. They are also opposed to "cloning" of human beings.
As long as there is a better way, before we go to embryo research, the better way (adult and umbical blood stem cells) is that which should get our attention. With taxpayer funds, of course.
I follow up here by saying that PRIVATE research can continue. The reason the lab rats want federal money is that PRIVATE money follows the line of research most likely to or has produced results. That would not be embryo.
So they (the dem's) are willing to pour billions of taxpayer dollars down a path of research of clearly questionable morality and doubtful results.
And to call them on it when a professional actor who suffers from a disease that will NOT be cured in Mr. Fox's lifetime (no matter how much we all might wish it) when he engages in making a political advert that is false and misleading is no terrible thing?
The "high moral ground" is not held in this issue by the Dem's who decided to exploit Mr. Fox's disease to create this dishonest advert, nor by Rush, with another of his flippant smart-ass remarks. Regardless of Mr. Fox's complicity or his being duped. In this particular case there is no high moral ground, only politics. And just about the worst I've seen lately
That's probably the most exercise that the porker has had in 30 years, although he probably gets good cardio workouts ing little boys in Dominican Republic.
I wonder why Rush didn't think MJF was faking it when he endorsed Sen. Arlen Specter?
What he said.
Am I seeing our brothers on the right attacking the accuracy of political commercials? I see GOP ads all the time that distort Dem votes and statments.. now all of a sudden the 'selective' outrage from the right?
So they (the dem's) are willing to pour billions of taxpayer dollars down a path of research of clearly questionable morality and doubtful results.
Since we don't know the benefits could we at least try? It seems to me your advocating the stance that is "since we don't know we surely can't try"
You want to talk about morality? What about the unecessary war in Iraq? Does that qualify as an aversion to morality? To me it does. Please be outraged about the morality of a war that was started on 'questionable' facts.
The "high moral ground" is not held in this issue by the Dem's who decided to exploit Mr. Fox's disease to create this dishonest advert, nor by Rush, with another of his flippant smart-ass remarks. Regardless of Mr. Fox's complicity or his being duped. In this particular case there is no high moral ground, only politics. And just about the worst I've seen lately
Now dems are exploiting Fox? Is Fox stupid? Did Fox have a say in making the ad? I am going to go on a limb and sya that if Fox felt that he was just being used then he probably would not have participated.
Please save me the 'selective outrage' by this. The GOP is just as guilty of distorting Democrats positions and statements on many of their ads and I never hear anyone on the right question the accuracy of those ads.
Last edited by George Gervin's Afro; 10-26-2006 at 12:37 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
