Quote:

the G-man said:
As noted earlier, Limbaugh has always been as much a satirist and provacteur as a legitimate commentator. He performs in skits, plays parody songs and tells jokes on a regular basis on the program.

He uses humor and exageration to make points, not unlike Stone and Parker.

Stone and Parker mocked Reeve for his stem cell "obsession", Limbaugh mocked Fox.



So, then, it's your stance that we should take Rush Limbaugh's opinions with the same amount of intellectual cred as we take South Park? Heh. Oooookay...fair enough...

Quote:

He went beyond stem cell research advocacy. He specifically endorsed one candidate and attacked the other. That's "poliitcal"



Did he "attack"? Or, did he state his lack of support for the opponent? There's a difference.

Quote:

He specifically asked people to vote for his endorsed candidate. He did so at a time when, for whatever reason, his seizures were visibly more pronounced than when he, for example, films "Boston Legal."



And, yet, any time spent reading about Fox, and his current acting gigs, knows that he can only film so many shots at a time without jerking, as well, as the fact that the crew shoot around his visual availability. Why wasn't the same done for the "commercial"? What's the point of being the poster boy for the disease, if you have to hide it while trying to make a point about it? That doesn't seem logical to me.

Quote:

Why did Fox do the ad, if not to stir sympathy and emotion?



I've answered this.

Quote:

Furthermore, as noted above, there is a real question whether Fox's statements against the Republican candidate were even accurate:

    "Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research," Fox says in the 30-second spot. "Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope."

    Talent's campaign called the ad a false attack.

    "Senator Talent supports medical research including stem cell research that doesn't involve cloning or destroying a human embryo," said Talent spokesman Rich Chrismer.

    Earlier this year, Talent withdrew his support for a Senate bill that would ban all embryonic stem cell research and impose a million-dollar fine and jail sentence on violators. But he opposes the Missouri ballot initiative, claiming it would "make cloning human life at the earliest stage a constitutional right."




First of all, if you were cutting and pasting the quote, why did you edit out the "Unfortunately" at the beginning of his statement? To make him sound more "accusatory"?

Second, you left off this bit...

    Supporters of the state referendum deny that assertion, noting the language of the proposed constitutional amendment explicitly bans human cloning.


Thus, sounds like Fox was pretty accurate in his statement.

Quote:

Granted, you may, for whatever reason, chose not to believe Talent. However, the mere fact that Fox, who "has been politically active for Democratic causes [and] campaigned for John Kerry" might suffer from a disease doesn't make him automatically more credible that Talent, or anyone else.



No one said it did. And, again, you're straying from the issue. Disagreeing with Fox is fine. But, like Limbaugh, don't make assumptions about him "acting" or "being off his meds" just because you (not you, literally, but Rush) disagree with his politics. Instead of coming at him with facts and reason, Limbaugh wants to smear him personally. That's the reason he's an asshole.

Quote:

Finally, as noted on another thread, even Scientific American (hardly a "right wing" or "Catholic" magazine) has reported on some of the inherent dangers in embyonic stem cells, including cancer. Much of the Republicans opposition to federal funding has been based on those dangers.



Somehow, I doubt fear of cancer keeps them from supporting, at the very least, active research into the concept. More to the point, I would bet dollars to dicks that it's the religious base of their party that thinks it's "unholy", or something. However...and I freely admit this plainly...that's just my opinion.

Quote:

In contrast, many (if not most) Republicans support federal funding for non-embryonic stem cell research which, as noted in the other thread, may be even more promising.



Then, if it's all the more promising, why isn't it given more support? What would be the point of even bothering with embryonic research? Could it be that the results from testings are incomplete? Or that it's only in theoretical stages, and thus, would set back the research decades? Curious.

Quote:

Given that support, isn't a bit disingenuous for Fox to portray Talent, as wanting to criminalize stem cell research?



Where did he say Talent was wanting to "criminalize" anything? He simply pointed out the fact that Talent doesn't support the research. And, given the above, he's right.

Quote:

Finally, if we get right down to it. Fox, a millionaire, is attacking politicians for not spending other peoples' money, and engaging in perhaps scientifically risky research for his Fox's personal benefit.

Is that nobility...or self interest?



Oh that's petty, man. You cannot say that he wants it because of himself. That's an illogical line to draw. If they had a spokesperson for the disease that didn't even HAVE the disease, how on Earth would that be effective by any stretch?

Quote:

And, if so, why is Fox's self interest any more important than any other "special interest group"?



Who said they were? He didn't. I didn't either. Where's that coming from? Don't blame Fox because he has Parkinson's, and happens to be a celebrity...