What's everyones take? Is the ad fair? Is he free game? Rush really hammered him. I thought it was unfair. Him and his Special Interests want money and research for Parkinsons. Chenney made a comment that voting for a Democrat is a vote for Terrorism which I thought was unfair. The Reagons are in favor of stem cell research. Nixon is the one who got Cancer research going. Don't slam MJF because he has only been an American citizen since 2000. He is a legal citizen. He wants what is best and fair for those with his disease. He is someone with clout and a name that you need for something like this.

 

My opinion, any personality that wants to endorse a political candidate is fair game. Especially when that candidate they are endorsing they can not even vote for. They are not part of the district or state that he resides in.
It is interesting to note that in MD he is endorsing Ben Cardin who voted against one of the stem cell bills in congress.

 

Like Rush said, he has every right to do this kind of add. He, and others, shouldn't be surprised when someone calls him on it though.

If the add isn't truthful than that should be called to the attention of the voters. Apperantly the issue is a provision for cloning that is mislabeled with something that makes it sound like stem cell research. To say that republicans are against stem cell research is wrong. Sure, some forms of research, like fetal stem cell, are a moral issue for some. I think that further discussion is warranted. There aren't any guarantees that any type of stem cell research will result in the cures like some are claiming. This is in it very earlie stages. Some, like me, think that jumping in head first isn't the best wat to handle this type of research.

Fox isn't ammune from scrutiny just because he's a celeberty with a disease. If he wants to be involved in politics, he'd better get used to people requesting more accurate information.

 

John McCain (R-AZ) was just in NJ campaigning for a Republican. I haven't followed the stem-cell issue. But I was under the impression that it could lead to modern day Frankensteins or cloning. If it can help find cures is that a bad gamble. Would it be wise not allowing this knowing other countries will be doing this research?

 

This is why I mentioned the Reagons. They are in favor of it. There will be stem cell research whether it is this country or another. Should we spend millions in the court system fighting it knowing darn well down the road we will be doing it.

 

The research is legal; but, in the States, researchers are restricted to somewhere around 70 different lines of stem cells. This is one of those issues where there's lots of hypocrisy on the Republican side. On one hand, abortion and stem cell research are frowned upon; but, many of the same people feel perfectly OK throwing away stem cells, that were reserved for in vitro fertilization, rather than using them for medical research. The children that could have been, are no less wasted, and there are benefits to take into consideration for people already living.

 

We are doing nothing but throwing the aborted fetus's in a city dump, hospitals and abortion clinics won't tevn give the unborn a dignified burial. I say use what ever parts are left over to do stem cell research.

Hell I ain't afraid of no Frankenstein, I've been married TWICE!!!

 

No. We shouldn't be spending millions of tax dollars in court. Ads like this one that Fox did proves that we can't even have an honest discussion. We've got a lot of work to do before we can come to a conclusion on embryonic stem cell research.

Maybe there will be a breakthrough from another country. Maybe there will be a breakthrough right here in the US, with private funding. Isn't that the main issue? Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? I think that we all need to get more of the facts so that we can start an honest discussion. I don't think the people that currently frame the discussion aren't being honest enough.

 

I forgot to add that. The 70 or so lines that can be used are Fed. funded. Privately funded researchers are not limited to these. I think that private money would be more prevalent, if there was less of a chance that tax payer money would eventually be paying for the R&D of medicines and procedures that will benefit pharmaceutical companies financially.

 

I know that this research, which I know zero about, will eventually be done in this country. But we have a history of spending millions in the courts fighting something that we eventually get years down the road.

 

In the world of medicine, is being dominant more important than thorough, proper research that may lead to better lives for people around the world?

I am all for embryonic stem cell research. I'm just not ready to say that our tax dollars should fund it. We complain about big government when we feel that our rights are being infringed apon but also complain if it doesn't fund research that might be a benefit in the future. I'd much rather see private dollars funding alot of the programs that benefit small groups rather than have all of our tax dollars paying for a bunch of programs that are of little or no benefit to many of us.

If we are going to establish ourselves in the world of....., whatever, we need to stop bickering about what the government is or isn't doing and take a good look at what we are doing. The dumbing down. We keep lowering the bar so even those who haven't worked for it, can succede. It seems like everything is geared twards the "lowest common denominator". Accountability seems to be a thing of the past. There are excuses for everything it seems. If we end up not becoming established in the feild of medicine, it wont be because we didn't spend enough tax dollars, it'll be because we "were asleep at the wheel".

Politicians make up a very small percentage of this country. The rest of us should wake up and start doing for ourselves. We are the ones who need to do the work to make this country a success.

 

In the event that you might want to seek out different points of view on this topic:

The Weekly Standard-Spin City

It is right leaning but might provide a bit more of the story.

 

Ahhh....what a topic...

The Slippery Slope

The Law of Unintended Consequences

Fruit from the Poison Tree...


Remember back when the first test tube babies were being "created". Many conservatives were against it because we were playing God and didn't realize the potential dangers and risks. Others said "Bah you are standing in the way of helping millions of people."

Well here we are some 20+ years later.

Abortions are up...humans created in labs are up...adoptions...uh not so much...

We create humans in the lab and store them in a freezer until the parents are ready for them. These couples couldn't have children on their own and medical science helps. Yet to insure it isn't overly expensive and timely we "make" extra kids.... just in case. Well then the parents get pregnant and the extra kids just aren't wanted anymore so they are perpetually stored or discarded.

Great and Romantic story huh?

So now we decide....well we are just going to throw the <insert dehumanizing medical term here> away so lets use them for research. If we called it what it really is...harvesting human parts... it wouldn't have the support it does.

I understand the arguments for it. I heard the "well 200 years you died from diseases cured today with a pill...should we stop that too?"

Well those types of arguments don't fly with me because we aren't creating and destroying humans for the research. I'm as sympathetic as the next guy when it comes to touching personal stories of medical challenges and "Hey it's life" sounds cruel but it is Life.

Destroying one to conduct research isn't a moral, ethical, or intelligent choice in my mind.

Lets see this same bill...supports paying women to donate their eggs...wonder why...oh wait...cause we are gonna create people to have more stem cells. Do you think rich white women will donate their eggs? No but the poor of our society will...another romantic story...

The Slippery Slope

The Law of Unintended Consequences

Fruit from the Poison Tree...

 

i say anyone with an illness or disease can say whatever they want. Let the educated people take that into consideration when making a choice.

does anyone think he is faking it or that he dosent want to live to see his kids grow up? if you had the stoke to get on tv and extend your live 6 months, would you do it? I would.

talk radio is entertainment. plain and simply, Rush is collecting a check and with his self proclaimed brilliance hasent changed a phucking thing, MJ fox has people talking at the very least.

 

The educated people can consider many aspects of a situation. What should the uneducated people do when they make their choice? You don't have to be educated to vote. In fact some might prefer your weren't.

Who said that Fox is faking? I don't think that is the bone of contention. I think the issue is that Fox claims that his cause is a non partisan one yet he appears to be endorsing a canidate. His ads are paid for with money from a particular political party. His ads contain misinformation and that's not a guess, it can be proven. Embryonic stem cell research is an important subject and should be discussed honestly. Fox and some others aren't being honest in what they say.

Talk radio is just entertainment. Rush does collect a check. To say that he hasn't changed anything is your opinion. Do you listen to Rush? Do you listen to Thom Hartman, Rani Rhodes or Al Frankin? I listen to all to some extent. I don't just take what any of them say to be the truth. I have time to type my opinions here, so I figure I should take some time on the internet to verify what people are saying in the political arena. Rush can be a pompous a$$ but I find his "rhetoric" to be more accurate than the three Air America hosts that I listen too. It's obviously subjective, but I would guess that others might come to the same conclusion.