and Hannity agrees that Fox should be criticized...
wow, this is a pretty low, even coming from these two blowhards.
[QUOTE]Hannity: Michael J. Fox Can Be Criticized for Stem Cell Ad
Radio Show Host Says Ad Won't Affect Midterm Elections' Outcome
Oct. 25, 2006 — - Conservatives came to the defense of talk radio host Rush Limbaugh over his accusation that actor Michael J. Fox's appearance in a political ad about stem cell research was "purely an act."
ABC talk radio host Sean Hannity told "Good Morning America" that Fox deserved to be criticized.
"Michael J. Fox admits now that he stopped taking his medication prior to testifying before Congress," Hannity said. "You have a right to speak up, but he also has a right to be criticized."
Fox cut a highly emotional spot for several Democratic candidates, including Missouri's Senate candidate Claire McCaskill.
Limbaugh questioned whether Fox's very real physical tremors had been faked.
"In this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking. And it's purely an act," Limbaugh said.[/B]
Limbaugh apologized after his listeners clued him in that Fox was not acting, but some Democrats say the conservative radio host didn't seem sincere.
"There are some inaccuracies in the ad that need to be debated," Hannity said. "Unfortunately he wants to create an impression where Republicans don't care about the health of people. This is only about the funding of federal stem cell issues."
"Bottom line: Did Rush Limbaugh go too far? My take is that he was referring to his own admission in his own book. He didn't talk about the congressional testimony. Everybody wants Michael J. Fox to get well. It is a difficult disease," Hannity said.
"What's unfortunate and deceiving about the ad is that this is about the federal funding of embryotic stem cells," he said, alleging that congressional candidates didn't have a say in those decisions.
As for the results of the midterm elections, Hannity wasn't sure what the outcome would be.
"If I could pick those, I think I would be a pretty wealthy guy," he said. "But, I sense being on radio talking to people three hours a day, that there's been a shift."
"I think this Michael J. Fox [ad controversy] is going to backfire," he said. "I think the race ultimately is going to be decided on issues: national security, immigration, taxes. And when people focus on that, I think it benefits the Republicans."
Stopping taking his Meds to make it look like he is worse off than he is IS dishonesty.
And frankly, since the CONTENT of his ads are patently dishonest (see the other thread on this topic), it is not a reach to wonder if a well-trained ACTOR with clear-cut political biases would perhaps EXAGERATE his off-meds symptoms for political gain.
He put himself in the crosshairs of criticism by doing the ads, being dishonest in the ads content, and stopping his meds to look worse than he truly is.
I don't know or not if he was acting. But when it comes to politics, EVERYTHIGN is questionable and EVERYTHING should be put up to full scrutany. If nothing else, BOTH parties have proven time and again that lying for political gain is S.O.P.
Warfish do you really love Rush Limbaugh that much to side with him on this issue? I thought you were somewhat independant, this man is a worthless hack.[/QUOTE]
I enjoy his show for entertainment (and perspective on "the Right") purposes. Same as I do the Air America/Progressive Talk shows I listen to. I don't listen to either side regularly, I have an iPod for work (damn, I love iPod).
Hence I did not hear his show when this was discussed. If he said "purely an act", he's wrong. It is well known that Fox sufferes from Parkinsons. If he said anything more than what I said above, he's wrong, period.
Against, QUESTIONING his going off-meds and perhaps exagerating his actual symptoms for political gain is a legitimate question in these dishonest highly partisan times. But if indeed he said "purely an act', he's wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it bitonti, who time and time again says we should only focus on what our elected officials say and do.
I must've missed the election of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity into political office.
You unwilling liberal dupes continue to prove Ann Coulters point over and over again.
Second point, whether fox was acting or not, one of the candidates he is supporting is the only one to actually vote against stem cell research.
Furthermore no candidate is advocating blocking stem cell research. The issue is to prevent the [color=black][b]GOVERNMENT[/b][/color] from funding [b]EMBRYONIC[/b] stem cell research -- not to make it illegal or stop the private sector from researching it.
I live in Missouri now and this is a hard choice. On the one hand it seems like Jim Talent wants to kill Michael J. Fox. But on the other hand Claire McCaskill has failed to audit Old Folks Homes and hasn't stopped the abuse that goes on at them,so I think she wants to kill senior citizens. I don't know what to do. I thought Fox was great in Family Matters but I know a lot of nice old people too.
I guess I'll have to do research on both candidates and their voting records, stop watching stupid 30 second political ads and treat pundits on both sides as the hacks they are. Then cast a vote.
[QUOTE=B-HOW]I live in Missouri now and this is a hard choice. On the one hand it seems like Jim Talent wants to kill Michael J. Fox. But on the other hand Claire McCaskill has failed to audit Old Folks Homes and hasn't stopped the abuse that goes on at them,so I think she wants to kill senior citizens. I don't know what to do. I thought Fox was great in Family Matters but I know a lot of nice old people too.
I guess I'll have to do research on both candidates and their voting records, stop watching stupid 30 second political ads and treat pundits on both sides as the hacks they are. Then cast a vote.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Fox was in Family Ties, not Family Matters (that was Urkel bro).
Trying to do whatever it takes to cure illness is one of the greatest things a govt and a nation can do..What could be more life affirming and 'christian'..
These morons on the right have it wrong. I recently lost my father to an illness that may be able to be alleviated through stem cells..And I have a nephew with an illness that also may be affected by stem cells..
Do I think the govt is selling them short? NO..But I do feel that this govt (which is basically the christian right) is so warped in its thinking and doesn't encourage science..They basically act like the anti christ..Christ would want to heal people..screw religious fanatics..they are the scurge of mankind.
A-hole..You're wrong on so many issues I think you may have been hit in the head with a baseball bat..You probably still think Saddam was a senior member of al qeada! I guess once a moron always a moron.
[QUOTE=bman]A-hole..You're wrong on so many issues I think you may have been hit in the head with a baseball bat..You probably still think Saddam was a senior member of al qeada! I guess once a moron always a moron.[/QUOTE]
THe quote about the embryonic stem cells causing cancer is true.
One of hte confusing things is that ther eare several types of stem cells. The main objection that we Right Wing Christians have is with using the fetus tissue of abortioned babies. Scientifically, it is the least encouraging (at least from what I have heard - and it's not that much) and morally, one group is being killed to benefit others. That is our objection.
I have two friends who have undergone stem cell transplants. Both did so from their owen stem cells - a type of stem cell research that shows much better hope. As far sa I know, all Christian right wing nut jobd who are against science actively support such procedures; in fact, we would thoroughly endorse more of the present monies being devoted to just such research.
Now, if I can help anyone suffering from a disease (like Mr. Fox) by working with his own or other ethically obtained stem cells, let's do it. But if you ask me to turn my back on an unborn baby and (in effect) decide that that yet born child's stem cells are best served going to Mr. Fox, that decision I will not make. Does that stance really seem cruel and insensitive?