The idea behind Missouri Constitutional Amendment No. 2 is that IF it is passed, it will provide a safehaven for stem cell research, therapy, and cures. This could conceivably benefit not only Michael J. Fox, but anyone else, resident or not. But first, it needs to pass. I can tell you that the Catholic Church is fighting this amendment tooth and nail. My point about Michael Fox was that he could have supported this legislation, perhaps later helped to raise research funds, or other funds, thus helping to create a situation that could benefit him or others. That is his goal, right? Instead, he chose to insert himself in an election that has little to do with him directly, between Talent and McCaskill. I might add that regardless of who is elected, either in Missouri or elsewhere is not going to help Michael J. Fox in terms of what he says he wants. Yet he had the opportunity to make direct difference by speaking in favor of the Amendment. The fact that he did not do so illustrates the purpose of the ad that Michael J. Fox made, all by itself. But going a step further, he also portrayed himself (I believe "dramatize" is the word you used) in a manner that he has never portrayed himself publicly in the past. Not in the Congressional hearings, not on Boston Legal. I'll allow you to draw your own conclusions as to why he chose this method of "dramatization"....there is several possibilities. But I'd say none of them have to do with being more honest than 99.9% of the commercials as you say. Take that hook out of your mouth before they reel you in. OldTrader
Missouri based state funded stem cell research, huh? The hope of suffering humanity. ROTFLOL. Makes you wonder why Michael J. Fox does not care about it and is instead concerned with a very minor issue of whether pro-stem cell research democrats will control the Senate and federal funding, right? You are missing the point. The commercial was not about Michael J. Fox, it was about PARKINSON'S DISEASE. MJF just happened to be the best spokesman to introduce it (the disease) to Missourians. He may or may not have "dramatized" his personal condition but he certainly did not exaggerate the nature and manifestations of the disease and THAT was the objective. If it was a Merck's commercial touting a cure for the disease you'd have absolutely no problem with it but I guess when your tax cut is at stake the rules are different. Missouri is supposed to be the "show me" state, isn't it, MJF showed you what Parkinson disease is all about but it sounds like you can't stomach what you saw. Then again the right wing smear machine did not get its name for nothing, thanks to people like you we are not discussing the best cure for the disease and whether federal funding should be provided which would be legitimate issues (albeit losers for republicans). We're discussing whether MJF acted in the commercial instead.
You mean people who have dedicated their studies to the field believe it needs continued financing? No I mean people like Davenport who "strictly follows the teachings of the Catholic Church in her practice of medicine", people who mix their religious agendas with medicine are the worst possible sources of unbiased information on controvercial scientific issues like stem cell research. Let me ask you something, how much should be given? At what point do we stop funding the project if it nets zero results? Do we just keep dishing more money into the project if absolutely nothing is seen after 5, 10, or 20 years? Or do we just keep spending no matter what? LOL, sounds like Iraq and Bush's stay the course policy, does not it? It's a valid question though but we have not even started funding stem cell research, don't you think it's a tad premature to discuss when it's time to pull the plug on it?
Worst possible source of unbiased information because she is a Catholic Doctor. So we cant listen to Isrealis about the palistinians. Any source is great if the information is without bias. I would happy if hillary clinton provide unbiased information about the success of Bush's tax cut on the economy. You would be happy if GWB provided unvbiased info about the iraq war. (so would I.)
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Katie-Couric-MJFox.wmv Michael J Fox makes a fool out of Limbaugh By: John Amato @ 7:19 PM - PDT Submit or Digg this Post MichaelJFox.jpgWill Rush apologize to MJ Fox after he told Katie Couric that he was on his medication while filming an ad promoting embryonic stem cell research? Watching Fox's condition up close and personal is so sad to see and for Rush to mock him for a political agenda is tragic. Limbaugh will never apologize or honestly regret what he's done because it's part of a long term strategy to once again attack the messenger. Unfortunately for the countryâ conservatives can say anything they want and never pay a price for their outlandish remarks so Limbaugh will escape unscathed.
Well the Democrats do seem to like timetables, and they are the ones pushing this idea. I'm just curious if they have a timetable in this situation too. It is interesting that you bring up Iraq though, because there are some parallels between the two. For one, George Bush sent us to Iraq under the belief that Saddam possessed WMD's. Democrats asked where the proof was, and say there was none. In this debate, Republicans and anyone else that is against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research are asking where the proof is that this research will net any result. You had the top intelligence agencies in the world supporting Bush's claim, and some that did not. In the embryonic stem cell issue, you have some top scientists in the field who say we should "stay the course", and some who say we should not. You can go back to my post with the article about Dr. Peter Hollands, clinical embryologist as a refresher that there are experts in the field that are also against the federal funding of ESCR. Now Bush admitted that they were wrong about the WMD's. However, the sad thing is that just pulling out of there was not an option. Sadly, we have lost lives in the war as well. Now, we may not lose lives with this research, but many have complained about the cost of the war and the fact that we are spending money on something that is clearly not making a positive impact. Now we are contemplating spending money on another issue where we have no proof that it will have positive results. I would rather avoid another quagmire in the form of a federally funded bureaucracy. That's just me.
Clearly that's not what I said, there is no problem with being a Catholic Doctor, the problem is that she is conflating her religous beliefs with Medicine.
Well the Democrats do seem to like timetables, and they are the ones pushing this idea. I'm just curious if they have a timetable in this situation too. As I said before we have not even started, it's impossible to discuss a timetable at this moment, it will depend on the progress of the research (or lack of thereof). Obviously it should not go unsupervised, it should not continue indefinitetely but we have not even got our feet wet yet. For one, George Bush sent us to Iraq under the belief that Saddam possessed WMD's. And what exactly did it have to do with 9/11 and Al-Qaeda? There were better ways to handle the situation, the inspectors were there begging for a few more months to complete their job. Read the Downing street memos, first the decision was made to invade iraq, than the excuses were found. In this debate, Republicans and anyone else that is against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research are asking where the proof is that this research will net any result. That's not true, republicans are against the research on moral, not financial grounds. An overwhelming majority of the scientific community (with the exception of Davenport) believes that the research is promising but of course no one can possibly guarantee a success until it's even started. I would rather avoid another quagmire in the form of a federally funded bureaucracy. That's just me. Just a reminder that a similar federally funded bureaucracy sent a man to the moon. You don't think that private sector would have invested hunderds of billions of dollars without any clear profit perspectives and quarantees to achieve that, do you?
Just a reminder that a similar federally funded bureaucracy sent a man to the moon. You don't think that private sector would have invested hunderds of billions of dollars without any clear profit perspectives and quarantees to achieve that, do you? [/B][/QUOTE] ______________________________________________ So all of the miracle drugs we are taking today came from gov't research? All of the procedures that are now used and all of the machines and instruments as well. Is there not embryonic stem cell research going on here now with private funding? Is there embryonic stem cell work being done outside the US with or without gov't funding? Is there adult stem cell research and procedures being done in other countries.