Michael J. Fox on Stem cell research....

[Winston]

I don't believe I would, nor do I think that it is relevant to the issue at hand. In this case of a severely ill person parading his illness for a purely emotional reaction, certainly.

I believe Christopher Reeve did the same thing a while back. I had the same reaction then.

[alva]

Same feeling when Bush uses the twin towers again? Or is that different?

[dannubis]

I never said anything about the content of what Fox said. I could care less about the political noise.

I am however disgusted by the personal attacks in which people who know jack **** of the disease say he is faking it. From an up close and personal observor: he is not !

[Winston]

If thereby you're implying that I unequivocally claimed that he "faked it", you're wrong, I didn't. I do have my doubts though, all the while bearing in mind that the guy is an actor. But I remain undecided on this point. None of us could know for sure, not even you, dannubis. And incidentally, raising one's doubts does not constitute a "personal attack" either way.

But it's obviously a side issue, at least to me it is. How about addressing my thoughts on whether rational argument or emotional pleas should be advanced in the course of political campaigns - you know, the real issue that this ad raises?

Would you like to see political arguments replaced by heartbreaking emotional appearences by celebrities as the main campaign focus of candidates?

[Spec]

Originally posted by Ninot
If only we could travel back in time, with some kind of technologically advanced car, and deliver stem cell research to the past.

Like Back to the futur....

Spec.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Spec


Like Back to the futur....

Spec.

The joke's been made already

[Spec]

Originally posted by Winston
...not by prying into the heartbreaking medical condition of celebrities who forgot to take their pills.

I understand your point of view Winston, and I somewhat agree. But if you read the article, the fact is that if he "acts" that way its because he IS on medication. And the reason he made that add imo, is to demonstarte the result of the illness, which can not always be done, or be as clear as when you use rational arguments like you propose.

Spec.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Winston
I don't believe I would, nor do I think that it is relevant to the issue at hand.

But I think it is

In this case of a severely ill person parading his illness for a purely emotional reaction, certainly.

You are quick to throw unsubstantiated claims around. Earlier you spoke of "celebrities who forgot to take their pills". I take it you're a medical expert who can judge his behaviour in the ad as indeed being a result of him not taking pills, so purely done for effect? Or did you just made that up?

Now he's - according to you - "parading his illness". How's he supposed to appear in public, or is your position that he should not appear in public at all due to his illness?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Basically Rush is 100% a partisan hack while Fox News is only 50%-75% partisan hack. Fox actually does try to fit the facts even if they have to twist those facts so horribly that they become unrecognizable. On this there is no two sides. If Michael J. Fox wasn't taking his medication then he would freeze up entirely and not be able to move his muscles; taking the medication allows him to move his muscles but the long term effect of taking L-Dupa is that you become progressively shakier and more spasmatic in your movements.

Rush is just desperate to find some issue to swing that election because it is very close but the Democrat keeps building a point or two each week. Unless they do something big then the Democrat will win thus Limbaugh's wild asshattery.

Probably Limbaughs shot backfired at himself.
Those people not convinced by MJ Foxs Ad to vote for the Dems,
might at least get convinced by the behavior of Repug-Supporters like Limbaugh, to not vote for the republicans.

[Spec]

Originally posted by BeBro
Now he's - according to you - "parading his illness". How's he supposed to appear in public, or is your position that he should not appear in public at all due to his illness?

BeBro, there's a difference between appearing in public and making a commercial....

Spec.

[BeBMan]

What difference? Ads are there to promote certain interests, and why should he not take the chance to promote his own? That's what all sides do, it's part of normal business in a democracy.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by alva
Same feeling when Bush uses the twin towers again? Or is that different?

[Spec]

Dont get me wrong, I'm all for his campaing add, but the fact of the matter is, appearing in public is not ment to "shock" people, unlike a commercial of that kind.

I'm just saying....

Spec.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Winston

Would you like to see political arguments replaced by heartbreaking emotional appearences by celebrities as the main campaign focus of candidates?

Very funnny you should mention emotional aspects as not an appropriate part of politics.

Let's not forget that the only reason Fox appeared in this TV ad is because the "pro-lifers" so unemotionally argued that stemcell research constitutes a mortal sin. Does it get any more emotional than that ? Politics is made by people, and hence emotions are inherently included.

The only difference I see in this case is that the GOP uses fear and the Dems use pity.

But that is besides the point. Fox is sick and knows what he is going through. It is not your place or Limbaughs to publically cast doubts on his suffering. Take the consequences of your political actions/beliefs and do not try to discredit the debate by smearing the opponent.

[Arrian]

I'm sure there is some "culture of life" add that shows cute little babies and tells you that people who favor stem cell research will kill those poor innocent little babies.

-Arrian