October Surprise: Michael J. Fox Falsely Campaigns for Dems

[MonsterMark]

I just watched the Olberman hit piece.

Keith Doberman is a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. He will never have anyone even remotely centrist on his show. His strategy is to cater to the farthest of the far left. The guy is a complete joke.

Did anyone see his Bush rant the other night? He went on and on for 15 minutes, bashing Bush every second he could.

I actually watch the guy to get reinvigorated. He is such an asshat that it is enjoyable watching him squint his eyes as he trying to be a serious journalist. :Bang

 

[MonsterMark]

Regardless, he is clearly using his "Jesus" fame to fuel the add and that was my point.

And Mr. Fox is clearly using his name to shill for the Democrats.

As far as Rush Limbaugh goes, I thought the exact same thing. The guy stopped taking his meds (or as it turned out, overdosed on them) to make is affliction more attention getting. Makes me sick that a guy like that would do such a thing.

He argues what he did was OK because after all, he made an ad for Arlene Specter (an evil rethuglican). You know the difference. In the Specter ad, Michael was not twitching all over the place, on purpose. Now he chooses to twitch on purpose. Don't think so. Shame, shame. Shame on you Michael.

 

[Joeychgo]

I saw this and thought alot about you guys.....

 

[TheDude]

And Mr. Fox is clearly using his name to shill for the Democrats.

As far as Rush Limbaugh goes, I thought the exact same thing. The guy stopped taking his meds (or as it turned out, overdosed on them) to make is affliction more attention getting. Makes me sick that a guy like that would do such a thing.

He argues what he did was OK because after all, he made an ad for Arlene Specter (an evil rethuglican). You know the difference. In the Specter ad, Michael was not twitching all over the place, on purpose. Now he chooses to twitch on purpose. Don't think so. Shame, shame. Shame on you Michael.

First, Fox doesn't take his meds so he can shake more and add melodrama to the add... When the facts come out the meds he takes actally causes the shaking, it gets switched to Fox overdosing for further effect... What a joke and Rush is as always a blowhard clown.

There is no proof that he twitched on purpose more or less for either add. The Specter add was in 2004, could it be possible that his condition has degenerated over the last two years since Parkinsons is a degenerative disease? Even just a little bit possible? Could it be that in the 2004 Spector add he was having a 'good day' with his condition?

 

[fossten]

There is no proof that he twitched on purpose more or less for either add. The Specter add was in 2004, could it be possible that his condition has degenerated over the last two years since Parkinsons is a degenerative disease? Even just a little bit possible? Could it be that in the 2004 Spector add he was having a 'good day' with his condition?

There IS proof. Did you watch Boston Legal recently? He had a multi-episode stint there and he didn't twitch nearly as much as he did on the ad. Not only that, but he didn't twitch very much on Oprah or with Katie Couric. Not only that, but he's since made more ads for other Senators in other states and he twitches just as much in those.

*owned*

 

[MonsterMark]

Could it be that in the 2004 Spector add he was having a 'good day' with his condition?

No. I have seen Fox on TV multiple times. He was not in the condition he PURPOSELY represented for effect on that shill ad for Democrats. He can control his condition and I have personally seen it.

Keep drinking the koolaid my friend. I hear it is very tasty.

 

[MonsterMark]

There IS proof. Did you watch Boston Legal recently? He had a multi-episode stint there and he didn't twitch nearly as much as he did on the ad.

It is soo easy to own these guys. I can't believe they haven't figured out yet why we do (own lefties) Could it be because we always have the truth on our side? Tell the truth instead of inventing fabrications. The truth is much more powerful.

Here, watch an episode. See for yourself.
http://www.boston-legal.org/
BTW. There are many more VERY recent examples of Michael J. Fox 'ACTING' normal. Gee, he must be one hell of an actor to be able to completely hide his illness when HE SO chooses.

 

[MonsterMark]

Rush was right which is why everyone on the left acted so offended. Rush had exposed another drive-by-media propaganda campaign.

 

[TheDude]

There IS proof. Did you watch Boston Legal recently? He had a multi-episode stint there and he didn't twitch nearly as much as he did on the ad. Not only that, but he didn't twitch very much on Oprah or with Katie Couric. Not only that, but he's since made more ads for other Senators in other states and he twitches just as much in those.

*owned*

And as I said, could it be possible he was having an especially bad day that day? The benefits of a sitcom would be retakes and editing BTW.

 

[TheDude]

No. I have seen Fox on TV multiple times. He was not in the condition he PURPOSELY represented for effect on that shill ad for Democrats. He can control his condition and I have personally seen it.

Keep drinking the koolaid my friend. I hear it is very tasty.

You must know everything about Parkinsons disease just like Rush. Super... Oh, did you finally settle on if he purposely didn't takes his meds to shake more or if he purposely overdosed to shake more or if the meds aggravate or sooth the shaking?

 

[TheDude]

Rush was right which is why everyone on the left acted so offended. Rush had exposed another drive-by-media propaganda campaign.

Did you miss the FACT that Rush didn't have his facts straight?

 

[Marcus]

The fact of the matter is that people who have Parkinsons DO have good and bad days, even when they're taking their drugs.

http://www.pdf.org/AboutPD/med_treatment.cfm

For example...

Levodopa combined with carbidopa (or Sinemet®) represented a significant improvement in the treatment of Parkinson's disease. The addition of carbidopa prevents levodopa from being converted into dopamine in the bloodstream, allowing more of it to get to the brain. Therefore, a smaller dose of levodopa is needed to treat symptoms. In addition, the nausea and vomiting often associated with levodopa treatment is greatly reduced by the presence of carbidopa. Unfortunately, with increased dosing and prolonged use of levodopa, patients experience other side-effects including dyskinesias (spontaneous, involuntary movements) and "on-off" periods when the medication will suddenly and unpredictably start or stop working.

The symptoms Fox was exhibiting in the ad have been described as dyskinesias, which is characterized by more "wavy" movements rather than the tremors that they would have without any medication at all. This condition is caused by TOO MUCH medication rather than not enough.

Whether he took too little or too much medication for the ad is irrelevant though. The fact of the matter is that drugs only mask the problem. Parkinsons is a terrible disease and it cannot be controlled indefinitely with drugs. It progressively gets worse. So while he may be able to function okay on occasion, it won't always be that way. So why the hell shouldn't he want us all to see the effects the disease and the drugs have on him?

 

[fossten]

And as I said, could it be possible he was having an especially bad day that day? The benefits of a sitcom would be retakes and editing BTW.

My, my, how naive you are. You don't think there are takes and retakes when making a political ad? You think Michael J. Fox just called McCaskill up one day and said, "Hey, Claire baby, I think I'd like to make an ad for you about stem cell research amendments." Yeah, that's it! She didn't call him first and pay him for his help, yeah! And then he just showed up, and there just happened to be a camera crew there, and he did just one take, yeah, that's the ticket! And he got it right the first time, yeah! They don't allow retakes or rehearsals for political ads because that wouldn't be genuine, yeah, that's it! He just HAPPENS to be twitching worse than usual only in the ads, and not the interviews, yeah! He doesn't have a good mastery of how many meds to take in a day yet, because he's only had the disease for fifteen years, that's the ticket!

The FACT remains, Fox happens to be twitching just as badly in all the ads, and he didn't shoot all those even on the same DAY. The fact remains that all films shot for TV or big screen involve lots of rehearsal, and political ads are no different. The FACT remains that Michael J. Fox has now admitted that he didn't really read the amendment before doing his false ad. "I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly." (From an interview with Stephanopoulos)

The FACT remains that he is doing a horrible disservice to people who have his disease by giving them a false hope that embryonic stem cells cure Parkinson's, because they don't. The FACT remains that the ad is false because it hides the real reason behind the amendment: legalization of human cloning.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

This is hilarious, all you RuSh supporters spinning about whether a sick man was acting up due to his intake (or lack thereof) of his meds. Man, how DESPERATE 'yall must be to make some trivial point this election season.

 

[Calabrio]

I don't think most people are being critical of Michael J. Fox.

I've always had the impression that Fox was a genuinely good person, and I have a great deal of compassion for him. I understand why he would be so motivated to find a cure and to cling to anything that gives him hope.

I think it's a pity that opportunistic politicians are taking advantage of him though and politicizing a medical issue. The "stem cell research" debate is now polarizing and dishonest, in part, because the necessary distinctions aren't made. The left has effectively blurred the lines.

Stem Cell research does show potential. Adult stem cell, embryonic has been less successful.

Stem Cell research can be federally funded.

And despite not being federally funded, embryonic stem cell research is legal, just not subsidized.

But again, the well intentioned, not particularly well educated or informed, Fox is being taken advantage of by the Democrats. He's even being used to campaign for Democrats who've voted against stem cell research in the past.

Rush Limbaugh shouldn't even be part of the story. That's just more gotcha crap from the mainstream media, who appear to get their talking points from George Sorros and MEDIA MATTERS

 

[MonsterMark]

This is hilarious, all you RuSh supporters spinning about whether a sick man was acting up due to his intake (or lack thereof) of his meds. Man, how DESPERATE 'yall must be to make some trivial point this election season.

Talk about hilarious. Isn't this the same state that voted for a dead man a couple years back? Talk about a joke. Democrats are so inbred that they will vote for a dead man before they would ever vote for anybody else!

And now you are upset because the little Michael J. Fox ploy has been exposed? The guy doesn't even know what he is shilling for. Now that is hilarious if you ask me.

And I'll stick by my comments on Michael's meds. He screwed them up on purpose to make a point. He is now stuck with 'acting' whether he likes it or not. All this good day/bad day crap. What a joke. Fossten covered it pretty well. They could have waited until he was having a good day, couldn't they? He could have called the weenies (liberal media) when he was having a splendid day and said, let's do it now. Lights, camera, action!

But guess what? That wouldn't have produced the same 'feel sorry for you' impact now would it have?

I feel very sorry for Mr. Fox's affliction and I think it terrible. Wouldn't wish it on anyone. His illness has never been my point and I am sorry he suffers from it.

But I have little mercy for a guy using his illness to gain political favor like he has. He could shown excerpts of his illness on the ad if he wanted, and spoke with poise if he wanted. Point is, he has again chosen when and where to use his illness to curry favor for the Democrats, just like he did in front of Congress.

Had he done the commercial for Arlen Specter suffering the same motions he exhibited, I wouldn't have had a problem with him using his illness now. Fact is, he is exploiting his illness, has not truthfully represented himself in the ad, and worse of all, doesn't even know what he is shilling for because he hasn't even read the damn thing. He is 'sure' he would agree with it in principal? WTF is that all about.

It is about him using his illness to affect the outcome of the election in favor of Democrats getting elected. Apparently at all costs. Unfortunately for Fox, I think he will be forced to appear in the future without any or with too much of his meds. Otherwise, people will have to ask themselves; Who is the real Michael J. Fox? The shill or the afflicted one?

Edit: And now that I just read Calabrio's fantastic post, I have to once again point out he hit the nail on the head again. Point by point. Read it again. AND THEN READ IT AGAIN. It will tell you all you need to know about Democrats and the Media and how they operate. GREAT POST CALABRIO!

 

[fossten]

This is hilarious, all you RuSh supporters spinning about whether a sick man was acting up due to his intake (or lack thereof) of his meds. Man, how DESPERATE 'yall must be to make some trivial point this election season.

Um...JoHnNy, just curious, what does the capital "s" in RuSh stand for? And what does the capital "r" stand for as well?

I think you're trying to use the BuSh thing on Rush, but you got caught with no definition for it.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Rush Limbaugh shouldn't even be part of the story.

With that, I'd agree. RuSh (<force of habit there Percy) is nothing more than a klingon on the ass of the GOP. Nor should Fox be persecuted for endorsing the candidate of his choice. It's STILL a free country, CORRECT?

 

[Marcus]

My, my, how naive you are. You don't think there are takes and retakes when making a political ad?
.....
The FACT remains, Fox happens to be twitching just as badly in all the ads, and he didn't shoot all those even on the same DAY. The fact remains that all films shot for TV or big screen involve lots of rehearsal, and political ads are no different.

EXACTLY! Which is why it is not surprising to see him acting somewhat "normal" in the "Boston Legal" episodes. The FACT is that they do indeed have "good days" and bad days". I already posted a link to the Parkinsons Disease Foundation web site that describes the effects of the drugs these people have to take.

The FACT remains that he is doing a horrible disservice to people who have his disease by giving them a false hope that embryonic stem cells cure Parkinson's, because they don't.

What would be a terrible disservice is to pretend that drugs are 100% effective in controlling the disease. THEY ARE NOT. Waiting until he has a "good" moment to film the ad is much more dishonest in my opinion.

As for the "FACT" that stem cell research offers false hope, there are plenty of people who disagree with that assessment, who are much more qualified than you.

The FACT remains that the ad is false because it hides the real reason behind the amendment: legalization of human cloning.

I've read the amendment and heard the arguments of the opponents. This notion that it gives a constitutional right to use "somatic cell nuclear transfer" is malarky. While it doesn't explicitly prohibit it, it doesn't explicitly allow it either. In fact it's not mentioned at all.

With that said, I'll repeat my opposition to it strictly on the grounds that it's a constitutional amendment. I am vehemently opposed to constitutional amendments, state or federal.

 

[Calabrio]

With that, I'd agree. RuSh (<force of habit there Percy) is nothing more than a klingon on the ass of the GOP.

As for the klingon part, no. If he weren't such an effective and persuasive voice, liberals wouldn't hate him so much, nor would they invest so much energy in trying to destroy him. Be it the realm of the media, or the area inbetween criminal and poliitcal.

Nor should Fox be persecuted for endorsing the candidate of his choice.

This is a bit more tricky. But putting himself out as a spokesman, making an emotional appeal, he is subject to a degree of scrutiny you or I would not be.

It's STILL a free country, CORRECT?

Yes, but apparently less so if you want to criticize a liberal, or worse yet, the decision of a liberal with a handicap.

 

[fossten]

EXACTLY! Which is why it is not surprising to see him acting somewhat "normal" in the "Boston Legal" episodes. The FACT is that they do indeed have "good days" and bad days". I already posted a link to the Parkinsons Disease Foundation web site that describes the effects of the drugs these people have to take.



What would be a terrible disservice is to pretend that drugs are 100% effective in controlling the disease. THEY ARE NOT. Waiting until he has a "good" moment to film the ad is much more dishonest in my opinion.

As for the "FACT" that stem cell research offers false hope, there are plenty of people who disagree with that assessment, who are much more qualified than you.



I've read the amendment and heard the arguments of the opponents. This notion that it gives a constitutional right to use "somatic cell nuclear transfer" is malarky. While it doesn't explicitly prohibit it, it doesn't explicitly allow it either. In fact it's not mentioned at all.

With that said, I'll repeat my opposition to it strictly on the grounds that it's a constitutional amendment. I am vehemently opposed to constitutional amendments, state or federal.

Let me tell you something, TommyB:

Your statement proves that you are no lawyer. You do not have any training in how to read a legal document, nor would you be able to detect nuances within a document that is designed to obfuscate anything not intended to be reported publicly. In fact, legal authorities have already commented on the subject and confirm my opinion.

I've already clearly spelled out for you, Mr. Amateur Document-Reader, the exact parts of the amendment which you DID NOT READ. As far as I'm concerned, your opinion is worthless on this subject because you are not qualified to comment on the legality or specificity of definitions within a constitutional amendment.

Furthermore, you took my post comments out of context. You have shown that you are ignorant of how to make a campaign ad. You have shown that you are ignorant of how films are shot. And you are evidently dense enough to be oblivious to my clear, obvious sarcasm.

Finally, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that embryonic stem cell research has cured or even is close to curing ONE SINGLE disease. You just made that up out of thin air, and I challenge you to back up your statement. For every "authority" (read celebrity ad) that you cite to back up your assertion, I can cite ACTUAL SCIENTISTS who say it's baloney. Furthermore, if embryonic research were SOOOOOOO promising, why isn't there any private sector money going into it, although it's legal? Even Fox himself hasn't put any money into it. (HELLO!) He's poured almost $2 Million into gene therapy, however, because that DOES show signs of actually working.

So what are we to conclude by the fact that the liberal "Brave New Worlders" want to authorize federal funding for embryonic cloning? Simple. They want money.

 

[fossten]

While I'm on the subject, for those of you (besides TommyB, who doesn't really want to know the truth) interested in why Amendment 2 allows embryonic cloning, here are the facts:

What is somatic cell nuclear transfer?

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), sometimes known as 'therapeutic cloning', involves transferring a nucleus from a donor cell, such as a skin cell, into an unfertilized egg. The injected egg is then induced to divide, and when it reaches a few hundred cells, the so-called blastocyst stage, it can be used to derive embryonic stem cells that are genetically identical to the original donor. No sperm is involved, and therefore no fertilization occurs, in this procedure. Moreover, because the blastocyst is not implanted in a uterus, no pregnancy is established.

Now contrast that definition with this:

(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

By defining cloning narrowly, the writers attempt to allow somatic cell nuclear transfer to escape the definition and not be considered cloning.

Now read these definitions:

(14) “Stem cell clinical trials” means federally regulated clinical trials involving stem cells and human subjects designed to develop, or assess or test the efficacy or safety of, medical treatments.

(15) “Stem cell research” means any scientific or medical research involving stem cells. For purposes of this section, stem cell research does not include stem cell clinical trials.

(16) “Stem cell therapies and cures” means any medical treatment that involves or otherwise derives from the use of stem cells, and that is used to treat or cure any disease or injury. For purposes of this section, stem cell therapies and cures does include stem cell clinical trials.

7. The provisions of this section and of all state and local laws, regulations, rules, charters, ordinances, and other governmental actions shall be construed in favor of the conduct of stem cell research and the provision of stem cell therapies and cures. No state or local law, regulation, rule, charter, ordinance, or other governmental action shall (i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by this section to be conducted or provided, or (ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies and cures.

So there you have it. Not only will they be able to clone live embryos and then kill them, but there will be no legislative oversight.

Talk about a big money grab.

By the way, I used TommyB's link to get all my definitions.

 

[Marcus]

Let me tell you something, TommyB:

Your statement proves that you are no lawyer. You do not have any training in how to read a legal document, nor would you be able to detect nuances within a document that is designed to obfuscate anything not intended to be reported publicly. In fact, legal authorities have already commented on the subject and confirm my opinion.

I've already clearly spelled out for you, Mr. Amateur Document-Reader, the exact parts of the amendment which you DID NOT READ. As far as I'm concerned, your opinion is worthless on this subject because you are not qualified to comment on the legality or specificity of definitions within a constitutional amendment.

I read the document from beginning to end, Professor Fossten, and NOWHERE does it grant the right to clone a human being. I assume you're picking bones with the definition of "clone" here:

(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

...whereas you take that to mean that other methods could be used to make a clone. Yet there is no other passage that explicitly grants any other method. Hence, you cannot claim that the amendment gives a constitutional "right" to cloning, either through a specific method or in general. All it does is spell out what can't be done. If it does, then please share your great legal knowledge and explain why it does.

Furthermore, you took my post comments out of context. You have shown that you are ignorant of how to make a campaign ad. You have shown that you are ignorant of how films are shot. And you are evidently dense enough to be oblivious to my clear, obvious sarcasm.

Being a big dumb liberal, I have no clue what the fcuk you're referring to. And I really don't care.

Finally, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that embryonic stem cell research has cured or even is close to curing ONE SINGLE disease. You just made that up out of thin air, and I challenge you to back up your statement.

How about the National Institute of Health?

There are many ways in which human stem cells can be used in basic research and in clinical research. However, there are many technical hurdles between the promise of stem cells and the realization of these uses, which will only be overcome by continued intensive stem cell research.

...

Perhaps the most important potential application of human stem cells is the generation of cells and tissues that could be used for cell-based therapies. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace ailing or destroyed tissue, but the need for transplantable tissues and organs far outweighs the available supply. Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis.

For every "authority" (read celebrity ad) that you cite to back up your assertion, I can cite ACTUAL SCIENTISTS who say it's baloney.

For every right-wing, "pro-life" "authority" you cite, I can cite ACTUAL SCIENTISTS who say yours are playing politics.

Furthermore, if embryonic research were SOOOOOOO promising, why isn't there any private sector money going into it, although it's legal? Even Fox himself hasn't put any money into it. (HELLO!) He's poured almost $2 Million into gene therapy, however, because that DOES show signs of actually working.

Do you EVER do even the most rudimentary research before you make these ludicrous claims?

Fox's foundation gave $4.4 million for the study of Dopaminergic cells derived from stem cells. Embryonic stem cells. I suppose that makes him the antiChrist though.

Furthermore...

Reason Magazine August 24, 2005 Do We Really Need the Feds?

Setting aside commercial efforts like those of the Geron Corporation, private funding for academic stem-cell research is also rising. For example, the Starr Foundation is providing $50 million over three years for human embryonic stem-cell research at three New York City medical institutions, including the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center. The Harvard University Stem Cell Institute is seeking $100 million in private funding. The University of California, Los Angeles announced the establishment of its Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine with $20 million in funding over the next 5 years. Stanford University announced the creation of $120 million Institute for Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine in 2002. Former Intel CEO Andy Grove gave the University of California in San Francisco a matching grant of $5 million to start its Developmental and Stem Cell Biology Program. In 2001, an anonymous donor gave Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore a $58.5 million gift to launch an Institute for Cell Engineering. The University of Minnesota has set up a Stem Cell Institute with a $15 million capital grant. In 2004, an a grateful patient pledged $25 million over the next ten years to finance stem-cell research at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston.

Obviously some people see the potential in it. And obviously you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Ever.

So what are we to conclude by the fact that the liberal "Brave New Worlders" want to authorize federal funding for embryonic cloning? Simple. They want money.

Another of your infinite straw man arguments that doesn't deserve a response.

 

[Marcus]

Fossten,

I've read your post above mine (it wasn't there when I started mine), and you have convinced me. The wording can be construed to mean that the legislature cannot prohibit other methods. Whether that was intentional or not is another story.

Regardless, that's exactly why I believe constitutional amendments are bad.

 

[pbslmo]

As someone with a spinal cord injury, resulting in Syringomyelia. My thought is - anyone who isn't in the position to benifit from any stem cell research should look at the study and see (hope) some good may come of this. I, myself take many differnt medications, and believe me, some did exacerbate some of my symtoms. I have good days and bad days, so please stop the Michael Fox bashing.

We all are just one accident from being disabled, or heaven forbid, develop some inherited disease. Think of someone other than yourself. What if your child, or grandchild gets hurt in a football game or falls off their bike or a car accident. You have to explain to them "sorry your parents didn't believe in any benefit of stem cell research so you have to stay in that wheelchair.

We live in an egocentic country, where individuals who really don't give a dam, get on a bandwagon to stop something that other may benifit others, in order to make themselves feel important.

I hope I didn't offend anyone, with my "illeriate" thoughts. and for those of you in favor of the amendment, I applaud you. Thanks you!