English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If you think this is true, can you explain it to me? Thanks.

2006-10-26 09:52:18 · 24 answers · asked by TxSup 5 in Politics & Government Politics

24 answers

No. Michael J. Fox is an activist for stem cell research. This type of research could help him and countless others reverse horrendous diseases which are slowly destroying their lives. Cindy Sheehan has put her self out on the line due to what she consider the unnecessary death of her son.

These people, and many others like them are fighting for what they believe can make this nation and this world a better place. Nobody is pushing them, they have stepped out on their own. Like them or not, agree with them or not it is nothing short of despicable to attack them on a personal level as some have done.

Note for Skerry, Rush and others: If a person with Fox's disease does not take the meds they do not become overly agitated. Their muscles slowly shut down until they become immobile. It's the meds that cause the exagerated movement. Don't believe me? Look it up. That way you won't look clueless when you start making judgements.

2006-10-26 09:57:02 · answer #1 · answered by toff 6 · 4 1

The answer is no. In every case you cited they are willing accomplices and each have their own agenda.

Michael J. Fox is an advocate for embryonic stem research. The fact that there is no evidence to support any of the conclusions regarding this research and so far all research in the area has produced no results does not matter. Democrats are promising miracle cures and saying Republicans are evil again because they don't agree with the liberal brilliance and compassion. I am curious how many people think that embryonic stem cell research is illegal. It isn't and in fact is being practiced at a state level in one of the states where the ad in question is running. The only prohibition on the research is that it cannot be federally funded.

Cindy Sheehan has shown no evidence of being a grieving mother. She is an antiwar activist and even when beseeched by her own family to stop using Casey's name for her cause she ignored their wishes. Now a new book has just been released showing she was actually being paid by the Kerry campaign during that stay in Crawford Texas. She has accused our troops of war crimes and has stood in solidarity with the decidedly anti american Hugo Chavez. Cindy Sheehan is not a victim, she is a paid political activist with an agenda.

The Jersey Girls hate republicans and especially George W, Bush and have used the attention to slander and malign the adminstration at every turn.

In each of these cases I have great sympathy for the losses suffered and consider the people who were lost true patriots. In the case of Mr Fox I have no doubt that he is suffering and I hope they find a cure for his disease. However, every one of these people chose to place themselves in the political spotlight and we are not supposed to challenge their views with facts because they are suffering or grieving. Not a chance. If you step into the harsh light of fame no matter how dubious you open yourself up to legitimate criticism. The fact that it upsets liberals is just a bonus, especially given some of their vile proclamations about others they don't like. Remember, in most liberals eyes, it's only free speech if they are the ones saying it.

2006-10-26 10:14:42 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1 2

that whole Michael J Fox thing yesterday by Rush Limbough was uncalled for. He crossed the line. An no appology will make up for what he said.... Rush is such a low life druggy that the only way he can make himself feel better is by making fun of people.

I think that Micahel J Fox should file suit against Rush and donate all the money he wins to the parkins disease foundation....

How dare Rush make fun of somoene when Rush is addicted to oxy coden and has been caught writing out fake prescriptions how many times.

Oh wait Rush will just blame his latest on oh I am sorry I was on oxy coden, I better go through treatment again.

2006-10-26 10:01:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

i'm a reasonable. i think of Bush might have given Sheehan a minimum of a 2d assembly in Crawford for a minimum of 5 or 10 minutes on account that her son became killed in Iraq. He might have subtle the placement, and might have provided a "kinder and gentler" (sound consumer-friendly?) image to the rustic. i think of she's somewhat a quack, yet she might have been pushed into being a raging leftist via the dying of her son. She's nonetheless a citizen of the U. S. and has each and all of the rights (and household projects) to protest. yet, if she breaks any rules, alongside with trespassing or interrupting Congress, throw her in penitentiary. She's been there lots recently. As for Fox, his issue is valid. he's dying. He believes in stem cellular examine. he's merely pointing out his case. Rush Limbaugh has been making some undesirable judgment demands extremely a mutually as now. He did it back, questioning Fox became "faking" his tremors and tics. back, he's have been given a perfect to declare what he needs. merely like Rush does. yet to misidentify a guy or woman as being a "fake" using his ailment is a low blow and makes perfect-wingers appear like they're insensitive, uncaring, hateful and deceitful. back, i'm no longer a liberal. i'm perfect smack dab interior the midsection.

2016-11-25 22:11:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No, these people are putting themselves out there, because THEY want change. These are all brave people, in my opinion. Did the conservatives exploit the tragedy of Terry Shivo? She couldn't speak for herself, and yet the conservatives used her tragedy for their own political maneuvering. She didn't have a choice.

2006-10-26 10:20:11 · answer #5 · answered by wendy g 7 · 1 1

It is perhaps wrong to say that a party that uses deaths and so on to push political reform- isn't it essential that after casualties the mode of operation should be reviewed?

It would be wrong to sweep deaths under the carpet, and ignore them totally when making decisions and policies- that would mean you hadn't learnt anything at all.

2006-10-26 09:56:21 · answer #6 · answered by dane 4 · 3 0

Absolutely. The Micheal J. Fox ad was meant to tug on the heartstrings of Americans. It tries to make people think that Republicans don't care about curing these diseases.The truth is that adult stem cells actually have a produced cures for 72 diseases while embryonic stem cells have cured 0.

2006-10-26 09:59:49 · answer #7 · answered by only p 6 · 2 3

No, only a Republican could twist what these people have done, courageously, and willingly into exploitation by the Democrats. Why aren't you willing to believe that they (and I'll add Kevin Tillman to your list) are being sincere?

2006-10-26 10:07:49 · answer #8 · answered by Dastardly 6 · 1 2

Legitimately care about them, probably. Exploit them, I won't exactly disregard it, but I doubt it. Exploitation is any politicians primary weapon of defense.

2006-10-26 14:12:39 · answer #9 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 0 0

Yes, and here's how you know:
Those are household names. They've helped campaign for the Democrats/liberals (I put it that way because liberals tend to lean to the Democratic side) countless times.
Name ONE person who has become the face of tragedy for the Republican party.
There's how you know.

2006-10-26 10:01:28 · answer #10 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers