RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman

RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Level -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 2:22:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nefertari quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie quote: ORIGINAL: nefertari quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie quote: ORIGINAL: nefertari Start hijack. Julia, I completely agree with you. The pro-lifers are all about making sure the babies are born and then wash their hands of it. They are not at all concerned with quality of life. They want to make sure these babies are born, but they are part of the same group of people who cut medicaid and other benefits to these children. If you are going to force them to be born, you're responsibility for them cannot stop at birth. End hijack. Please do not begin to tell me what I am all about. You truly do not know. I did not reference you at all. I also did not say that all pro-lifers wanted to do so. I stated they are part of the same group that does. Which is a fact. "The pro-lifers" appears all encompassing. As opposed to "some" or "many pro-lifers." Apparently I have misunderstood an unclear post. Sigh....now you're just being catty. No, she's being correct. If it was not rhetoric, then it was at the very least an annoying blanket statement.

Archer -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 5:39:25 AM)
Not as an excuse for the level of entertainment idiocy Rush put on in the clip, but......... "Seems that Rush made a complete ass out of himself on this one, and no moderate person with half a clue would think that Fox intentionally made himself look sicker to get votes for someone." MJ Fox states in his own book that he purposully went off his medications for the expressed purpose of showing how bad parkinsons can be, when he testified before congress. Past behaviour being a pretty good indicater for future behaviour it would seem that no person with half a clue would think that he might very well have done it again for a political ad. BTW the Federal ban is not on the research itself privatlyfunded research using embrionic stem cells was is and seems will be for the foseeable future perfectly legal, within some basic ethical controls set more by scientists than government. It is the Federal Funding of those actions that were stopped, not the research itself. So statements like Sinergy's "The problem with Monkeyboy and Congress' right to life stance stopping all fetal stem cell research ..." Are misleading at best. as yet I've seen no bills to stop the research outrightwhen funded privately

juliaoceania -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 7:04:04 AM)
quote: MJ Fox states in his own book that he purposully went off his medications for the expressed purpose of showing how bad parkinsons can be, when he testified before congress. Archer, The medication Fox takes makes him shake, not being off of it, I do not believe that statement and would be very interested to know where you got that info.. it was not from his book, and unless you read it I do not believe it These people will say anything, do anything, lie, spin, ... god it is sickening... not you Archer, the source you got this from. I saw Fox on TV talking about this very issue... that not taking the drugs makes him shake, not the other way around. If you can show me he lied about this and read his book I might believe you... but something tells me that you haven't

juliaoceania -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 7:15:51 AM)
What are the symptoms of Parkinson's disease? People with Parkinson's disease experience tremors (shakiness) as a result of the damage to their nerve cells. The tremor of Parkinson's disease gets worse when the person is at rest and better when the person moves. The tremor may affect one side of the body more than the other, and can affect the lower jaw, arms and legs. Handwriting may also look "shaky" and smaller than usual. Other symptoms of Parkinson's disease include nightmares, depression, excess saliva, difficulty turning over in bed and buttoning clothes or cutting food, and problems with walking. http://familydoctor.org/187.xml What causes Parkinson's disease? Doctors don't know exactly what causes Parkinson's disease. They do know some medicines can cause or worsen symptoms of Parkinson's disease.

farglebargle -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 7:39:39 AM)
"Generally a good statement, but when it comes to pregnancy, it's not just one body involved. " CORRECT! It's One Body ( the mothers ) and The Mother's PROPERTY RIGHTS in her creation. ( Absolute, btw... ) Unless you're some sort of Socialist or Commie who thinks The State has a greater claim upon the child...

Archer -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 7:55:02 AM)
http://www.michaeljfox.org/news/article.php?id=5 Lucky Man Chapter 8: Unwrapping the Gift I need to explain the "on-off" phenomenon. This Jekyll-and-Hyde melodrama is a constant vexation for the P.D. patient, especially one as determined as I was to remain closeted. "On" refers to the time when the medication is telling my brain everything it wants to hear. I'm relatively loose and fluid, my mind clear and movements under control. Only a trained observer could detect my Parkinson's. During one of my "off" periods, even the most myopic layperson, while perhaps not able to diagnose P.D. specifically, can recognize that I am in serious trouble. When I'm "off," the disease has complete authority over my physical being. I'm utterly in its possession. Sometimes there are flashes of function, and I can be effective at performing basic physical tasks, certainly feeding and dressing myself (though I'll lean toward loafers and pullover sweaters), as well as any chore calling for more brute force than manual dexterity. In my very worst "off" times I experience the full panoply of classic Parkinsonian symptoms: rigidity, shuffling, tremors, lack of balance, diminished small motor control, and the insidious cluster of symptoms that makes communicationówritten as well as spokenódifficult and sometimes impossible. a more plain languge statement that tells me that his case is the other way the meds eliminate the symptoms. "I just hope my pills kick in by the time the Who comes on," I told Tracy. "Because I want to be able to relax and enjoy the music." That's all I was thinking about. I realized this represented a 180-degree change in outlook, a change made possible by my willingness to let others in on my disease." AS to admitting he appeared ithout his medication. "Snippets of my testimony were featured on several of the nightly news broadcasts. One line in particular from my prepared statement got a lot of play: "In my forties, I can expect challenges most people wouldn't face until their seventies and eighties, if ever. But with your help, if we all do everything we can to eradicate this disease, when I'm in my fifties I'll be dancing at my children's weddings." I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease, and the urgency we as a community were feeling, be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling."

Archer -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 8:08:08 AM)
Just as a BTW I don't fault him for taking the tactic it's effective, and maybe the Senators needed their heart strings tugged at with little reality of what Parkinson's is likefor a victim. and I'm in favor of the research itself within some level of moral controls. But I seethe potential for some problems with this specific proposed law. I have no problem with MJ Fox making all the adds he wants to make in whatever condition he wishes so long as there is a little disclosure.

LotusSong -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 8:33:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Just as a BTW I don't fault him for taking the tactic it's effective, and maybe the Senators needed their heart strings tugged at with little reality of what Parkinson's is likefor a victim. and I'm in favor of the research itself within some level of moral controls. But I seethe potential for some problems with this specific proposed law. I have no problem with MJ Fox making all the adds he wants to make in whatever condition he wishes so long as there is a little disclosure. One thing to consider is that Parkinson's disease is a progressive disease. What he looked like 5 years ago without medication is no where near what he looks like today WITH medication.

Archer -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 8:41:06 AM)
I can't say for certain that he did the ad without medication, I can say he's gone off medication for the purpose of making the statement politicly stronger in the past, so it's not beyond his ethical boundries to do so. I really care much less about on or off his medications than I want a declaration of it in the ad. I don't think it would effect the power of the ad, and it would certainly add to the ethical disclosure of a political ad. I'm not claimig he's faking the effects I am questioning if he has again used the tactic without disclosing he is dong so for a purpose.

LotusSong -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 8:46:21 AM)
I've seen him in interviews where he begins to show symptoms and excuses himself to take his meds.. When he comes back he says he's better.. but the twitching continues. He's just gotten worse. Sometimes the harder you try to control the symptoms the worse they get. He can still move. In the latter stages of the disease, you basically are frozen within your body.

Archer -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 8:57:00 AM)
Now for my part while I found Rush's treatement of the question to be OTT and way outta line, the question itself is a valid question. Rush made the statement more as an accusation in tone and with his "flair for entertainment" cough cough it was distastefull and cruel. That does not mean the question itself is out of bounds just the way he presented it.

philosophy -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 9:31:12 AM)
......i am struck by the rhetoric implied by those who appose abortion calling themselves pro-life. Is it pro-life to compile a list of doctors who perform abortions and cheer when they are assasinated? Clearly not. So when i see so called pro-lifers condemning such activities without caveats then i will stop seeing them as moral hypocrites.

farglebargle -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 9:47:07 AM)
Well, If he wasn't just sitting there paralyzed, he was ON his meds.

LotusSong -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 11:05:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Well, If he wasn't just sitting there paralyzed, he was ON his meds. Depends on the advancement. My mother was in the paralysis state and on the prescribed meds. Neurological diseases are what I call "designer" diseases. They affect everyone differently. You also vary from day to day. It's like with my MS. I'm no were near the Annette Funiello degree nor the Richard Prr situation.. and mine started when I was 16. My maternal Cousin who is also female and only 2 months younger than I had hers begin later in life and is at the pre-cane stage. You take to the cane after you fall on your face enough times thinking you don't need it. Self-pride and public ignorance are the two biggest hurdles we have to overcome.

farglebargle -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 11:08:42 AM)
"Many millions of people oppose stem cell research because they believe they are defending human life. This is not a bad thing. " If it ain't THEIR LIFE, it ain't THEIR BUSINESS...

scottNchastity -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 11:22:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ......i am struck by the rhetoric implied by those who appose abortion calling themselves pro-life. Is it pro-life to compile a list of doctors who perform abortions and cheer when they are assasinated? Clearly not. So when i see so called pro-lifers condemning such activities without caveats then i will stop seeing them as moral hypocrites. How often do you really see abortion clinics get bomb? Now, if it happens weekly, I can understand your point, but I can't remember the last time. 99.2% of the people who are in the concenus that abortion is wrong does not advocate abortion clinic bombings. So, you are essentially saying that .8% of a particular segment of society rules that whole segment. Your belief is fundamentally flawed. You must have something personal against religion or something, becuase you probably see that it is all religion backed. You are entitled to your opinion, but at least have an educated opinion; .8% does not equal 100%; at least that was the case the last time I checked.

philosophy -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 11:29:25 AM)
"How often do you really see abortion clinics get bomb? Now, if it happens weekly, I can understand your point, but I can't remember the last time." ...fair point......this link has a graph although i can not vouch for its accuracy.... http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm ...it shows in 2004 (last year it has figures for) only 2 actual bombings, but 130 threats of the type that include bombing. However i wasn't suggesting that all so-called pro-lifers were bombing such clinics. What i was suggesting is the idea that if they aren't prepared to equally condemn such incidents without caveat as they condemn the act of abortion then to call themselves 'pro' life is, at best, misleading and at worst downright hypocritical.

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 12:08:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Unless you're some sort of Socialist or Commie who thinks The State has a greater claim upon the child... Um, wasn't the Soviet Union, under Lenin, the first country to legalise abortion?

Sinergy -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 12:13:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie I simply do not know if it is a better option. I was bringing it up for discussion, as no one seemed to want to talk about it as an option, or even a future option. You in turn provided a 9 year old study that is likely outdated by now. I only wanted to bring the option up for discussion. I do not have a means to answer your question of proving it is better. I provided a study from a site you recommended as being able to answer the question I was asking. Then you proceeded to try to denigrate it by saying it was 9 years old. So I asked you for something more recent, and you state that you have no means of providing the information I asked you for. Umm, ok. In my experience, which may have nothing to do with you, many in the ranks of those opposed to abortion tend to bring up things like "umbilical cord stem cells" as a panacea which could be used instead of fetal stem cells. It has not been empirically proven to be so. It is a method of getting stem cells that have some uses. I am sorry you took my response as hostility. I asked you for some empirical evidence to suggest that umbilical stem cells were as effective as fetal stem cells, and you provided a long list of sites promoting umbilical stem cells. As I pointed out, this did not answer my question. When pressed, you admitted being unable to provide me with the information I asked you for. So I will ask you again, what do you base your conclusion that umbilical stem cells are as effective as fetal stem cells? From what you have stated, it cannot be from a scientific perspective proven by experimentation. There is a book called "Pure Drivel" written by Steve Martin. In one of the chapters, he is talking about the bird bath in his back yard, which he knows was carved by Raphael. He does not know this because of studies. He does not know this because of any research he has done. He knows this because he has a deep certainty which transcends empirical investigation. While I understand you have no means of stating that umbilical cells are better, what I find in discussions with people who oppose the use of fetal stem cells is a lack of a scientific basis to substantiate their claims. When pressed, what generally happens is they resort to waving whatever their belief systems and ethical biases are as a means of avoiding the question. Again, this may not include you. On the other hand, the more you write about it, it is difficult for me to not class you with the other uneducated anti stem cell research zealots. This also raises another important question. Since Monkeyboy et al have cut most funding and propose amendments to the constitution to prevent the use of fetal stem cells, the scientific community has been at a standstill in their research into them. You state that the study was 9 years old. That is true, there has been almost no stem cell research in the United States for 6 of those years because of the guy Dumbfuckistan put into office. Since we have such a limit to the availability of fetal stem cells, and a lack of funding, it is not even possible to do the research to determine if umbilical stem cells are better or worse than fetal stem cells. Thank the religious right's stranglehold on education and research in the United States for this one. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/30/2006 12:28:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LotusSong quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Just as a BTW I don't fault him for taking the tactic it's effective, and maybe the Senators needed their heart strings tugged at with little reality of what Parkinson's is likefor a victim. and I'm in favor of the research itself within some level of moral controls. But I seethe potential for some problems with this specific proposed law. I have no problem with MJ Fox making all the adds he wants to make in whatever condition he wishes so long as there is a little disclosure. One thing to consider is that Parkinson's disease is a progressive disease. What he looked like 5 years ago without medication is no where near what he looks like today WITH medication. Hello A/all, My grandmother years ago died of Parkinson's disease after spending 10 years sinking into Parkinson's dementia. From what I recall, it is a disease where the brain stops producing a substance known as "dopamine" which moderates and calms nerve function. So what ends up happening is without this chemical to moderate it, the nerves "zap" each other and the person ends up losing control of movement, thought, whatever. As these nerves zap each other, it sets of tiny chain reactions which cause wholesale muscle spasms. The primary medication was, and may still be, L-Dopa, a synthetic dopamine. This medicine will work for a while, but over time the brain develops a resistance to it and goes back to the slide into the abyss of all the ancillary effects of Parkinson's disease. The primary problem with L-Dopa treatment is that it arrests, for a while, the slide. It has no curative ability. My grandmother (gotta thank my grandfather for that one, he believed Vitamin C would cure her) was not treated for the first 8 years, and by the time they got her on L-Dopa, the damage had been done. Michael J. Fox may be on that medication, but he may also be on a whole cocktail of drugs to quell the effects of the brain misfires. Just me, etc. Sinergy

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625