Michael J. Fox is a Faker

[quote]100meters wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

While it is pathetic that the left would try and take advantage of MJF for his illness, it is also asinine to say that he is faking.

Taking advantage? I’m pretty sure he’s an advocate for stem-cell research.

Checked my sources…he is.

[/quote]

And you think they are using him for these ads because he is an advocate?

If he was an advocate that didn’t have obvious Parkinson’s disease you think they would then also use him in the ad?

So are they really using him because he is an advocate or because he has obvious Parkinson’s?

Do the math Bro!

There is one born every minute!

[quote]Michael570 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hey Dr. dem/mikey:

First of all, thanks for honestly answering this question. You’ll find that there are many guys like marm who try to appear “above the fray” by saying they are “independent.” You’ll see that they are almost universally regurgitating talking points from the dems. They’ll side with the dems on 98% of the issues and throw in a “screw both parties” to try to seem “balanced.”

It’s just a crock. You lose points by being dishonest.

Now, if you voted for john “hey, I’ll say anything to get elected” kerry, you are a democrat. It’s plain and simple. He has been rated the second most liberal Senator next to his pal, ted.

If you had voted for Lieberman, or someone who is mainstream, then you’d have a point.

But, by voting for kerry, you equal dem.

Oh, if you disagree with this, we’ll be watching you closely and tallying your dem talking points. You’ll eventually sack up and admit it.

Now, to Michael J. Fox. The story keeps changing. I think the whole thing is sad.

It appears that Fox manipulates dosages to make a point.

Again, if you take either too much or too little, you can have the shakes. Since my first post, there have been indications that Fox took TOO MUCH medication to make his point.

I honestly cannot make it any clearer for you. Yes, my original objection stands. If you are manipulating the disease and it’s manifestations to take a (what many of us feel) is an unwarranted shot, that is wrong.

Finally, I wouldn’t have said anything about Fox if I were Rush.

JeffR

How did you figure me out so quickly? You’re right, only a Dem would think that some loud-mouthed, drug addled, fat fuck hedonist who enjoys island hoping with a bottle of Viagra so he can diddle LBFM’s would be out of line when he pisses on the character of someone struggling with Parkinson’s disease. I guess I’ll have to come clean…

Dear Jeffrey,

I woke up late yesterday after a long night of partying in the Castro with my gay lover. He’s an illegal alien from Venezuela. We both just love Hugo Chavez. We had spent the whole day driving metal spikes into trees and had to celebrate. Anyway, I smoked a doobie for breakfast (I take it for my back pain) and made a call to my pregnant friend. It took some coercing, but I convinced her to have an abortion. After the call I threw on my Che shirt and Birks, drove over to UC Berkeley in the VW Lovebus and passed out flyers for the Vegan Communist Association of Socialist Atheists. Chomsky is speaking at our next meeting! Needless to say, there was a lot of interest.

I had to cash my welfare check just to pay for gas to get back over the bridge. Gee, thanks Haliburton (Cheney!). I had Al Franken’s “Lying Liars” book on tape playing in the Lovebus so that calmed me down a bit. That and some more medical marijuana. I had to get back to SF quickly because it’s soooo much safer there now that we’ve finally banned handguns.

I got back to the city just in time for a Free Mumia/Anti-Bush/Flag burning rally. Danny Glover was in the zone! When I got home I invited some friends over for our weekly Michael Moore Marathon. We capped the night off with some more pot, discussions about our white guilt and why we hate America (viva la France!), then burned some more flags. A naked bongo drum circle may have been involved, but I’m a bit hazy on that part. It’s a good thing I don’t work because after such a busy day I’m spent. I think I’ll just spend the whole day reading Ward Churchill’s blog.

Regards,

Round Peg in a Round Hole

[/quote]

Michael570: (Please note capitalization and correct name)

I nominate this for post of the year!!!

dem or no, that was a wonderful post!!!

No sarcasm intended, I’m not going to cheapen your post with a remark of my own.

That post stands tall.

With new respect,

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Dr. mikey:

Did you vote for john kerry?

Or, are you a pseudo-paleolithic-crispy-creme-libertarian-Republican like marm?

This should be fun.

JeffR[/quote]

Hey, at least he didn’t vote for a genocidal maniac who was about to loose 2 wars at once. And that’s not funny at all.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sorry, but I don’t want my tax dollars going to the research. So yeah, definitely against federal funding.

No funding for all scientific research, or just this one random issue?

All. I’m a Libertarian type.
[/quote]

Are you really? Does that mean you don’t take any medicine or treatment that was developed with federal funding?

Because if you do, that would mean you’re just a cheap bastard pretending to be libertarian type.

[quote]Smitty88 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I wasn’t aware that Stem cell research was illegal.

in fact the only veto done by President Bush during his presidency is to veto stem cell research. He maintained that it destroys fetuses.

I maintain he is a hypocrit because 1,000’s of stem cells are destroyed daily by failed invitro fertilization, but he is fine with that. Not to mention the day after pill, he is fine with, which I (a pro choicer) have a problem with because it opens the door to using it as a form of birth control.

My logic based on the fact it is much more involved, painful, and expensive to get an abortion.

He only stops the federal funding of new embryonic stem cell lines.

The federal government still funds existing embryonic stem cell lines as well as lines generated by adult stem cells etc.

You have been deceived on this issue.

You mean the tainted ones scientists don’t want?

Hence, people called “scientists” wanting new lines destined for a toilet flushing.

“You have been deceived on this issue.”

Hilarious. In an ironic/sad sort of way.

Wrong again sparky. All embroynic stem cell lines are “tainted” with mouse cells because otherwise they would die.

If new embryonic stem cell lines were started today they would also have to be “tainted” to survive.

Thank God this isn’t true!
(Clue:“scientists” desire funding for new untainted lines–you know, ones not given mouse/animal based feeding solutions)

Hilarious, because you could have said all FEDERALLY FUNDED stem cell lines are tainted, but ya went with the lie instead…

interesting choice.

I believe you are completely wrong on this one. Provide a link that shows embryonic stem cells can live without the antigen from mouse DNA or once again I will assume you are lying.

I think,[/quote]

That’s a lie, right there.

[quote] until proven otherwise, it’s a safe bet to assume 100 meters is lying.
[/quote]

[quote]JeffRo wrote:
Michael570: (Please note capitalization and correct name)

I nominate this for post of the year!!!

dem or no, that was a wonderful post!!!

No sarcasm intended, I’m not going to cheapen your post with a remark of my one.

That post stands tall.

With new respect,

JeffR

[/quote]

JeffR,
This is likely only the first or maybe second time you’ve ever been right on this board, but you nailed this one.

That was an all time fucking-A classic.

[quote]tme wrote:
JeffRo wrote:
Michael570: (Please note capitalization and correct name)

I nominate this for post of the year!!!

dem or no, that was a wonderful post!!!

No sarcasm intended, I’m not going to cheapen your post with a remark of my one.

That post stands tall.

With new respect,

JeffR

JeffR,
This is likely only the first or maybe second time you’ve ever been right on this board, but you nailed this one.

That was an all time fucking-A classic.

[/quote]

Dear tme:

I’m usually right. You see the world through an opaque lens. Therefore, your vision suffers.

Since you (and you should) follow my posting closely, you will remember me saying that one should acknowledge a wonderful post. Even if (gasp) it’s at your expense.

Now, after this wonderful post, I’m going to be more likely to listen to what Michael says.

He earned it.

I believe it shows more class on my part than to come back with some half-assed retort.

JeffR

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Dr. mikey:

Did you vote for john kerry?

Or, are you a pseudo-paleolithic-crispy-creme-libertarian-Republican like marm?

This should be fun.

JeffR

Hey, at least he didn’t vote for a genocidal maniac who was about to loose 2 wars at once. And that’s not funny at all.[/quote]

Hey reckless,

Genocidal?

Do you know madonna? You and she share one thing: You both will do or say anything to get attention. She ties herself to a cross, you foam at the mouth and spit your unfounded hatred.

If you weren’t so sad, you’d be amusing.

JeffR

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sorry, but I don’t want my tax dollars going to the research. So yeah, definitely against federal funding.

No funding for all scientific research, or just this one random issue?

All. I’m a Libertarian type.

Are you really? Does that mean you don’t take any medicine or treatment that was developed with federal funding?

Because if you do, that would mean you’re just a cheap bastard pretending to be libertarian type.
[/quote]

No sport, this issue is that our tax dollars are used to fund this research. Then, the pharmaceutical companies, after saving billions on research, turn around and charge money for the drug to the same people who helped fund this research in the first place.

So the people end up paying twice (once for the research and then for the medication itself). Then the pharmaceutical companies laugh all the way to the bank making millions on medications that they spend very little to develop.

This is called corporate welfare!

[quote]tme wrote:
JeffRo wrote:
Michael570: (Please note capitalization and correct name)

I nominate this for post of the year!!!

dem or no, that was a wonderful post!!!

No sarcasm intended, I’m not going to cheapen your post with a remark of my one.

That post stands tall.

With new respect,

JeffR

JeffR,
This is likely only the first or maybe second time you’ve ever been right on this board, but you nailed this one.

That was an all time fucking-A classic.

[/quote]

Time to pull a Costanza.

Alright! That’s it for me. Goodnight
everybody.

[quote]JeffR wrote:

I’m usually right.

[/quote]

Hilarious.

LoveH

[quote]Smitty88 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:

Look at the balance of what corporations do!

Yes, let’s take a look. They employ millions of people who support our economy. Pay billions in taxes, and supply us with the latest gadgets, toys, clothing, cares, inventions etc.

Feel like a retard yet?

You need to get out from your parents basement more often.

I reiterate, bye dip shit.

[/quote]

Oh I see. If corporations didn’t exsist we would all die of starvation and human beings would cease to exsist.

Sorry, my bad!

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Smitty88 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:

Look at the balance of what corporations do!

Yes, let’s take a look. They employ millions of people who support our economy. Pay billions in taxes, and supply us with the latest gadgets, toys, clothing, cares, inventions etc.

Feel like a retard yet?

You need to get out from your parents basement more often.

I reiterate, bye dip shit.

Oh I see. If corporations didn’t exsist we would all die of starvation and human beings would cease to exsist.

Sorry, my bad![/quote]

Read what I posted again very carefully. Don’t go off on a tangent. In a free market system, like the one we have, someone will step up to the plate in order to fill the needs of the consumers.

It doesn’t matter if it’s GM making cars or “Tom’s Car Gallery.” Right?

Does a company suddenly become evil when they get to a certain size? Or are all those who sell goods and services to the public evil?

Your argument is illogical.

As long as there is a need for a product someone will start a corporation and prosper from filling that need.

And that alone does not make anyone evil.

Now run along your lesson is over for today.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Then the pharmaceutical companies laugh all the way to the bank making millions on medications that they spend very little to develop.

This is called corporate welfare!

[/quote]
I’m pretty sure those millions would be nicely taxed, no? Lots of little startups hiring lots of smart people, attracting lots of imported brains, who’ll also make lots of money. While helping people.

It’s called investing, and of course the government should be involved

[quote]Smitty88 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Smitty88 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:

Look at the balance of what corporations do!

Yes, let’s take a look. They employ millions of people who support our economy. Pay billions in taxes, and supply us with the latest gadgets, toys, clothing, cares, inventions etc.

Feel like a retard yet?

You need to get out from your parents basement more often.

I reiterate, bye dip shit.

Oh I see. If corporations didn’t exsist we would all die of starvation and human beings would cease to exsist.

Sorry, my bad!

Read what I posted again very carefully. Don’t go off on a tangent. In a free market system, like the one we have, someone will step up to the plate in order to fill the needs of the consumers.

It doesn’t matter if it’s GM making cars or “Tom’s Car Gallery.” Right?

Does a company suddenly become evil when they get to a certain size? Or are all those who sell goods and services to the public evil?

Your argument is illogical.

As long as there is a need for a product someone will start a corporation and prosper from filling that need.

And that alone does not make anyone evil.

Now run along your lesson is over for today.

[/quote]

In a free market system, minds are also free to move elsewhere to do research with other companies. The idea is to be as encouraging as possible to keep the brains here. A free market won’t help us if the future corportations are base elsewhere.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I wasn’t aware that Stem cell research was illegal.

in fact the only veto done by President Bush during his presidency is to veto stem cell research. He maintained that it destroys fetuses.

I maintain he is a hypocrit because 1,000’s of stem cells are destroyed daily by failed invitro fertilization, but he is fine with that. Not to mention the day after pill, he is fine with, which I (a pro choicer) have a problem with because it opens the door to using it as a form of birth control.

My logic based on the fact it is much more involved, painful, and expensive to get an abortion.

He only stops the federal funding of new embryonic stem cell lines.

The federal government still funds existing embryonic stem cell lines as well as lines generated by adult stem cells etc.

You have been deceived on this issue.

You mean the tainted ones scientists don’t want?

Hence, people called “scientists” wanting new lines destined for a toilet flushing.

“You have been deceived on this issue.”

Hilarious. In an ironic/sad sort of way.

Wrong again sparky. All embroynic stem cell lines are “tainted” with mouse cells because otherwise they would die.

If new embryonic stem cell lines were started today they would also have to be “tainted” to survive.

Thank God this isn’t true!
(Clue:“scientists” desire funding for new untainted lines–you know, ones not given mouse/animal based feeding solutions)

Hilarious, because you could have said all FEDERALLY FUNDED stem cell lines are tainted, but ya went with the lie instead…

interesting choice.

I believe you are completely wrong on this one. Provide a link that shows embryonic stem cells can live without the antigen from mouse DNA or once again I will assume you are lying.[/quote]

Why do I have to disprove something you made up? What’s next unicorns…

Sigh,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7420-2004Oct28.html

When you read that scientists and politicians want funding for non tainted stem cell lines what do you think they are talking about?

For example here’s Norm Coleman’s take:
“Under the potential Coleman-proposed approach to stem cell line research existing, untainted stem cell lines that have already been developed in the private sector since 2001 would be open to federal funding of research…”

…?The gift of life and the power of hope are two of God?s greatest gifts,? said Coleman. ?And current research points to the fact that we possess both the tools to protect life and offer hope for a better life for all Americans. At the time the President made his decision on stem cell line research in 2001, he made the right choice. As it stands today, the President?s intentions have not been met. We need to go back to his original vision?today. I want to work on a solution with my colleagues in the Senate to explore the promise and potential of stem cell line research by expanding research to include lines that have already been created in the private sector and do it in a way that is pro-research, pro-life, pro-cure, and pro-hope.?

http://coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=717&Month=8&Year=2005

[quote]Michael570 wrote:
“He is exaggerating the effects of the disease,” Limbaugh told listeners. “He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act…This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.”

Is Rush strung out again?[/quote]

Thats so evil its frightening. Why would you say something like that? Does Limbaugh have Parkinsons??? He has no clue what its like to have a debilitating disease like that. Ass.
Tells you something about what kind of people are being elected.

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
“He is exaggerating the effects of the disease,” Limbaugh told listeners. “He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act…This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.”

Is Rush strung out again?

Thats so evil its frightening. Why would you say something like that? Does Limbaugh have Parkinsons??? He has no clue what its like to have a debilitating disease like that. Ass.
Tells you something about what kind of people are being elected.

[/quote]

My opinion is he clearly doesn’t believe it himself, Rush knows he’s lying to his listeners–that’s what he does everyday. The point is to cast doubt on MJF’s credibility in he’s listeners minds, and at that he’s quite skilled

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Sorry, but I don’t want my tax dollars going to the research. So yeah, definitely against federal funding.

No funding for all scientific research, or just this one random issue?

All. I’m a Libertarian type.

Are you really? Does that mean you don’t take any medicine or treatment that was developed with federal funding?

Because if you do, that would mean you’re just a cheap bastard pretending to be libertarian type.
[/quote]

Huh? I shouldn’t take the medicine because government pre-emptively taxed me, and distributed funds towards it’s development? That makes no sense.

[quote]100meters wrote:
In a free market system, minds are also free to move elsewhere to do research with other companies. The idea is to be as encouraging as possible to keep the brains here. A free market won’t help us if the future corportations are base elsewhere.[/quote]

I agree, that’s why we need to offer proper incentives to company’s willing to grow and prosper here.