Michael J Fox's Political Ad

[lazur]

he is stumping for stem cell research.

It's this callous disregard for accuracy that gets me about this whole discussion. This is not a fight for "stem cell research". This is a fight for EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

One of the major problems, as I've said, that I have with MJF's ad is that he didn't once mention the word "embryonic". He simply got in front of the camera and made it sound like republicans are against ALL stem cell research, which just isn't true.

But anyway, carry on...

 

[Mr Sparkle]

It's this callous disregard for accuracy that gets me about this whole discussion. This is not a fight for "stem cell research". This is a fight for EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

One of the major problems, as I've said, that I have with MJF's ad is that he didn't once mention the word "embryonic". He simply got in front of the camera and made it sound like republicans are against ALL stem cell research, which just isn't true.

But anyway, carry on...

well, see, this is one of those times when accuracy can come back and bite you in the ass.
his ad never mentions "republicans" he mentions a person who Michael Believes will be instrumental in the fight for the cure, and another who he believes is an obstacle.

see, he never goes "republicans wan to do this"

he is stumping for research. but to ascribe to him ideals he didn't even comes close to express on his ad, that is "callous" , you see you made it sound like he spoke about all republicans.

which is not just untrue.

it's borderline paranoid-dellusional.


much love :heart:

 

[Addendum]

Exactly. All Fox mentioned was the people. He didn't bring up the political parties. If you're a resident of Missouri, you already know which candidate is democrat or republican.

 

[Kurt Wagner]

let's go over this again- you might think you're being benign by capitalizing "IF"- but no. you're reasserting doubt, disseminating a feeling of doubt, about Fox. It's a weasely tactic I've seen used by Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter dozens of times before. (a cartoon-ized example: "i don't KNOW IF the 'Candidate X' is a SATANIST, and it's certainly not my place to say he IS, only He knows for sure. Adn i guess the voters will have to decide that for themselves on polling day.")

Sure, I think I already explained myself and stated my intent. If you want to continue to tell me that I'm reasserting doubt, then you're doing the same thign that Rush did to Fox. I think I already made it clear that I could have phrased it better and that it wasn't my intent to pass judgement on Fox. All I was saying was that Fox knows what his intentions were... just as I know what my intentions were in making that comment. That's all.

But i need a very specifc, point by point of how the ad is innacurate. Because to me it was not inaccurate. it was expressing an opinion. So please, not a genreal overview- but a point by point. Because i saw nothing misleading. Only the accusation that it was.

How is not mentioning embryonic stem cells not specific enough? Isn't that where the controversy lies?

well thank you. but please do you research efore making factually incorrdct statments on public message boards. t's mistakes liek that which diseminate incorrect and/or distorted views of the subject.

That's great. thank you.




PS-LAZUR, if you're reading this- i will be getting to your post from a few days ago.

you're welcome.

 

[maxwell's demon]

It was appropriate for the discussion.

Ok. That doesn't change the fact that it was also about as heartfelt as Limbaughs apology.

Okay, so this is about whether or not we want a cure for Parkinson's? Is that *really* what you're trying to claim here?

And no one's taking issue with how he is when he's not on his meds. They're taking issue with the fact that he went on camera in that condition to try and garner sympathy votes for a political candidate who probably does not have his best interest in mind. He didn't even say ANYTHING about embryonic stem cell research. All he said was stem cell research, so the bulk of his complaint wasn't even accurate.

But I still can't believe you of all people would sit here and insinuate, because we're critical of the ad's METHOD, that I or anyone else don't want a cure for Parkinson's. That's just ludicrous.



Because it's playing politics, pure and simple. Putting ad like that up is like saying "Woe is me, the republicans want to keep me in this condition, please don't let them keep hurting me!" You can't see that?*



I think we've already established that *everyone* wants a cure, and that anyone who doesn't (which excludes, oh, about 100% of the current posters) is a moron.

ok, in this part of the post you:

a)assumed I was personally atacking you and/or "republicans", "the right" or whatever blanket grouping. i was not.
b)began the shift in your argument FROM: "the controversy here is the method used to make the point - not the actual point he was trying to make." TO:All he said was stem cell research, so the bulk of his complaint wasn't even accurate.
c)reasserted what you perceived as an insinuation. I never insinuated anything. I just wanted to make my stance clear. is that allowable? It's your choice, give me the benefit of the doubt or don't. But first ask yourself, have i really been one of the more kneejerk posters on this board?
d)used that godawful COPOUT phrase "playing politics". What the HELL does that mean anyway? Becuase to me it only means "i'm through talking about the actual issue, so i'll just pull out 'playing politics' and end this once and for all!" What is that, like the political equivalent of Voltron's "FORM BLAZING SWORD!"?

*And for your information, no. I cannot see that. But Sparkle already addressed this point in his earlier post. No need for me to reitierate it

I've never bashed Fox.

I never said you did. I just said its a tactic I don't like.

Read the first post. In the very first post, Fox is insulted by someone saying he's not even American, as if that should be a reason NOT to campaign for a cure.

So writing "Dems R Losers" is just as insulting as providing information about MJF's upbringing? seriously? I disagree with the first poster (and they're idiouts MJF is an american citizen), but seriously- you're saying that's as insulting as "LOSER"?

c'mon Lazur, you're grasping at straws there. c'mon.

 

[maxwell's demon]

Sure, I think I already explained myself and stated my intent. If you want to continue to tell me that I'm reasserting doubt, then you're doing the same thign that Rush did to Fox. I think I already made it clear that I could have phrased it better and that it wasn't my intent to pass judgement on Fox. All I was saying was that Fox knows what his intentions were... just as I know what my intentions were in making that comment. That's all.

ok. let's move on.

How is not mentioning embryonic stem cells not specific enough? Isn't that where the controversy lies?

well, as i just posted, the original controversy seemed to be Michael J. Fox's appearing on camera while displaying the visible effects of Parkinson's.

But yes, now the argument has shifted and i'm glad you pointed that out. MJF did not mention embryonic. I for one, don't think he needed to. embryonic stem cell research is part of the overall field of stem cell research.

"embryo" is a charged word.

You were once an embryo. So was I. AS such, we feel a very strong attachment to this word.
When added to "stem cell research" and the talk of "embryos" being "destroyed" the picture painted is one where potential life is beign detroyed to protect current life. of embryo's beign used to "farm" body parts. This is also the picture Bush painted in his speech in 2001. It was the first time most Americans had probably heard of the process. It reinforced this view.

this view is demonstrably false. The truth is, as we've already both agreed, those embryos are not potential life in pragmetic sense. They will be thrown out. And they have been for years. And there was never any uproar of this magnitude during all those years that they were thrown out. AS such, using a charged, and already distorted and inaccurate, word like "embryonic" is irresponsible.

It is a view that says, we should not take these embryos, which will be WASTED anyhow, and use them to heal the living.
IF you belive they are a form of life8, and you understand the FACT that they will be thrown out anyhow, then isn't it doing that life a DIS-service by not using it to heal the living?

*(and i am not saying I do, but i understand you perhaps do)

you're welcome.

 

[comicgirl]

Here's an oldie, but a goodie

 

[maxwell's demon]

 

[War Lord]

This Neurologist, more or less, agrees with Rush.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/....html?id=9eeae5c9-c9ff-4eab-8ef1-907ae94b1326

Limbaugh not far off on Fox, neurologist says

Published: Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Michael J. Fox in an advertisement for a Democratic Senate candidate who supports embryonic stem cell research.

Re: Oct. 28 editorial cartoon, showing Rush Limbaugh shouting into a radio microphone, with a technician saying, "He must be off his meds."

There is no doubt that the U.S. radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh's direct style and his own past medication issues make him an inviting target. And although he was, in all probability, technically inaccurate in accusing Michael J. Fox of "acting" in his recent political TV ad supporting a Democratic senatorial candidate, Mr. Limbaugh may have been very close to the mark.

As a neurologist with a large number of Parkinson's disease patients, my impression of the video is that Mr. Fox displayed the poorly controlled "choreo-athetotic" movements seen when advanced Parkinson's patients take their medication to turn "on" and emerge from their natural state of rigidity and rest tremor. At some point after taking a pill, a patient's voluntary movements are freed up, without much excess involuntary movement.

The issue, then, is one of timing. Indeed, a few days after his political ad came out, Mr. Fox appeared at a Democratic event in Chicago with his movements under control, a situation he called "ironic." Strangely, however, he seemed unable to appear controlled for a pre-taped TV ad a few days earlier, when the appropriate timing should have been easier, given the possibility of multiple "takes." Lest this all sound too cynical, consider that Mr. Fox admitted in his 2002 autobiography to going off his medication to appear more disabled before a 1999 Senate subcommittee appearance.

Democratic party manipulation appears to go much further. In offering Mr. Fox as a spokesman, they have clearly hoped he would cut a sympathetic figure immune from criticism, and the faux outrage at Mr. Limbaugh's comments seems to confirm this. While Mr. Fox deserves sympathy for this medical plight, he must assume full responsibility for his words and actions when he chooses to enter the political arena. By politicizing a medical issue, he is, in effect, saying that anyone who cares about new treatment hope for Parkinson's disease patients must vote for the the Democratic candidate in Missouri -- not coincidentally, a pivotal state in the upcoming election to control the U.S. Senate.

This is not only unfair, but absurd. Everyone, including Republicans, supports the many new treatments emerging for Parkinson's patients that promise far more immediate application than do stem cells. Republicans also support stem cell research when it comes from ethically sound sources, such as adult tissues and umbilical cord blood. Ironically, these forms of stem cells have had greater success to date than the embryonic-source stem cells lionized in the Michael J. Fox TV ad.

Dr. Paul Ranalli, FRCPC, Toronto.

 

[maxwell's demon]

multiple "takes"? thats irrelevant. unless the "takes" were spaced out over DAYS not, hours.

 

[War Lord]

multiple "takes"? thats irrelevant. unless the "takes" were spaced out over DAYS not, hours.

It's normal for ads to be done and re-done until they are just right.

 

[maxwell's demon]

yes. when its for BEER.

for a political campaign when everyone has a busy schedule, not so much.

And you know what? i still don't care. if he was on , off or what. what i saw was a guy WITH parkinsons. the drugs he's taking are NOT A CURE. how many times does this have to be said?

 

[War Lord]

yes. when its for BEER.

for a political campaign when everyone has a busy schedule, not so much.

And you know what? i still don't care. if he was on , off or what. what i saw was a guy WITH parkinsons. the drugs he's taking are NOT A CURE. how many times does this have to be said?

But the point was that he was promoting stem cell research, which is associated with embryonic stem cell research in most people's minds.

 

[AnimeJune]

I've always been a fan of Michael J. Fox. I've seen the ads, and I honestly can't comment because I've never known anyone with Parkinsons. Personally, I'm against embryionic stem cell research, but other stem cell research is fine (we already use it - marrow transplants, anyone?).

 

[Fanticon]

whats being said about Fox somehow faking it, appearing over the top...is sad, and just wrong...he's definitely not faking that he's got a disease, bottom line, would you question a person as overexaggerating if they were paralyzed from the waist down but trying to help themselves into their wheelchair...if that were the commercial would people have said..."Oh he's faking it...I've seen him get into his wheelchair before, I know he can do much better than that." F*** Limbaugh!

 

[War Lord]

whats being said about Fox somehow faking it, appearing over the top...is sad, and just wrong...he's definitely not faking that he's got a disease, bottom line, would you question a person as overexaggerating if they were paralyzed from the waist down but trying to help themselves into their wheelchair...if that were the commercial would people have said..."Oh he's faking it...I've seen him get into his wheelchair before, I know he can do much better than that." F*** Limbaugh!

It's already public knowledge that Fox goes off the meds at will, so that is a form of manipulation.

 

[maxwell's demon]

But the point was that he was promoting stem cell research, which is associated with embryonic stem cell research in most people's minds.

i don't see how that applies to anything i just said. really. i mean i "see". but not REALLY.

 

[Addendum]

I've always been a fan of Michael J. Fox. I've seen the ads, and I honestly can't comment because I've never known anyone with Parkinsons. Personally, I'm against embryionic stem cell research, but other stem cell research is fine (we already use it - marrow transplants, anyone?).

The thing is, the embryos being discussed are going to be thrown away. Why not use them if the researchers are just going to toss them out

 

[Addendum]

It's already public knowledge that Fox goes off the meds at will, so that is a form of manipulation.

So people taking medication aren't allowed to stop at times?

 

[maxwell's demon]

It's already public knowledge that Fox goes off the meds at will, so that is a form of manipulation.

NO. NO no no no.

get it straight,. The MEDS are the manipulation. The MEDS suppress the symptoms of the disease. they don't cure it , they suppress it. THE MEDS ARE THE MANIPULATION. got it?


so either he was pure out ACTING_ or he was giving us an honest window into his disease. your choice.

 

[War Lord]

The thing is, the embryos being discussed are going to be thrown away. Why not use them if the researchers are just going to toss them out

Why not use any person that has been defined as less than functional for research purposes?

 

[War Lord]

So people taking medication aren't allowed to stop at times?

They can do whatever they want, but to really understand the ad fully, he should have disclosed that he was off the meds for the purpose of the ad.

 

[AnimeJune]

NO. NO no no no.

get it straight,. The MEDS are the manipulation. The MEDS suppress the symptoms of the disease. they don't cure it , they suppress it. THE MEDS ARE THE MANIPULATION. got it?


so either he was pure out ACTING_ or he was giving us an honest window into his disease. your choice.

I agree - and an excellent point.

I can still see the other side - if the meds suppress the shaking, then why would embryonic stem cells be needed?

I think any work on embryos is morally controversial, at best. It seems evolutionarily backwards to eat our own young to make our old people stronger.

 

[War Lord]

NO. NO no no no.

get it straight,. The MEDS are the manipulation. The MEDS suppress the symptoms of the disease. they don't cure it , they suppress it. THE MEDS ARE THE MANIPULATION. got it?


so either he was pure out ACTING_ or he was giving us an honest window into his disease. your choice.

The meds allow those with parkinson's to function normally. Being off the meds has no inherent benefit.

 

[Addendum]

Why not use any person that has been defined as less than functional for research purposes?

An embryo isn't a person. It's a lump of cells. No comparison.