Do you agree that honest discussion is necessary?

I think that we should continue the discussion. I don't think that we should be amending legislation until there is a more general consensus.

I'm not against research that will be beneficial in the fight against disease. I just don't like that misinformation can be spread, and when checked, that same misinformation is defended.

 

I much prefer dishonest screaming more fun....

I'm against the entire topic on moral principle so I know there is not enough evidence in the world to convince me.

That said you aren't gonna get "honest" debate from either side. They know that sound bites are all the "uneducated" remember and they'll use that tactic to win. And who can blame them....when you are fighting for something you believe in so passionately the ends almost always justify the means. I don't agree with it but its the way of the world.

 

Fox has also done campaign ads for Arlen Specter.
This was on CBS last night:

"COURIC: Would you support a Republican candidate?

FOX: I have. Arlen Specter is my guy. I have campaigned for Arlen Specter. He has been a fantastic champion of stem cell research. In the meantime, separate and apart from my political involvement, I’ve started a foundation that has raised $85 million for research and is the second leading funder of Parkinson’s research after the federal government. "


Your argument doesn't hold water.


regards

 

I'm not getting into the nitty gritty, but ANYONE that thinks it was 100% random chance that Fox happened to be on the verge of freaking convulsions during the taping of the commercial is delusional.

Can you honestly sit and say he couldn't have waited and done it another time, or another day? They taped it while he was in that physical state for dramatic effect and to get the exact attention they are.

They are using fox like a little puppy dog in a window to get sympathy votes....brilliant...it will work.

 

It would also be nice if Fox got his facts straight. In MD, Ben Cardin is the one who voted against stem cell research, and Steele's sister has MS and is now on an ad for her brother stating he supports stem cell research.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...1/votes/page2/

See S 2754 on July 18. Note, both senators (democrats) from MD voted for this measure.

 

You're right. He did contribute to Arlen Spectors campaign. So my argument doesn't hold water. Or does it?

You think it's so far off that I think that Fox appears to be endorsing a particular political party?


Maybe this doesn't prove anything but I would think that it may support my assesment to some extent:www.newsmeat.com

People are missing the point in this discussion. This isn't so much about Fox but the fact that the ads he did, paid for by democrats, misinform and mislead voters. Politics is a dirty game. So much so that it resembles a clown show. (I say that in a bi-partisan way) The Fox ads aren't simply distorting information like many of the attack ads that we are seeing. The ads out and out lie.

 

I think Fox's agenda is driven strictly by Parkinsons and getting a cure. I'm sure he has other concerns but his main focus is his illness. He knows he is terminally ill and must do what he can with his remaining life. If it means stepping on toes he is gonna do so.

Whether Rush's comments are fair or not is not helping his Party. The public sees it as an attack on Michael and his disease. Rush has brought this into the spotlight and I think it is gonna be damaging for the Republicans. I also think it can be damaging to those Republicans who favor stem-cell research.

It does take publicity and a famous name to get things done faster. Whether MJF is successful with his crusade or not probably won't be known until well after his death.

 

If Foxs agenda is driven by his disease, why didn't his foundation pay for the ads?

The public sees Rush's comments as an attack because it's being portrayed that way. The coverage is very one sided. I don't need to defend Rush but I heard what he said. I heard the whole thing, not bits and pieces. He was trying to point out that the ads weren't being truthful, because, well, we know they aren't.

What ever it takes to win an election, I guess. All I know that people being misinformed and voting for canidates they are being falsely told can do wonderful things for them will likely be a detriment to the small buisness that I work for. It will be tough on many of the small buinesses that we work with. People complain about corporate America. I guess that they don't realize that higher taxes and costly social programs squeeze the small buisnesses out of contention. The higher minimum wage will be great because there very well could be many more people forced to work for big corporations at minimum wage. Things are good for us woking saps here in the trenches. I fear that soon, at a time when I've worked enough to get up the ladder a couple rungs, someone is going to chop of the bottom off the ladder.

Embryonic stem cell research is important. Determining the best way to pay for it is too. That's unfortunatly not what we're talking about. We're not even talking about being truthful when explaining the details. We're talking about what it sound like when you play bit's of a story. When you manipulate the story to reach an objective.