What is Digg?94 Comments
- oskite, on 10/12/2007, -12/+41What the...
Did you even watch the video? And if you did, how can you say the ad was deceptive? - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29everybody who has any take on this whole issue with the ad and MJF, watch this interview. if you think he was faking it or playing up his illness for political gain, then watch this video.
- whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27@appleann1
those are some pretty strong statements. you want to explain a little bit on how the ad is deceptive? since it was aired a lot of different sources say that there was nothing deceptive about it. - iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24"Despite the fact that Katie Couric tilts the CBS Evening News to the right.."
Regardless of what your stance in on MJF the implication that Couric "tilts" to the right is just funny. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Watch the video.. He says it's caused by too much medication. He's on his meds 24/7.
- stan205, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20If the above link didn't work for you, try here:
http://digg.com/videos_people/Katie_Couric_Interviews_Michael_J_Fox
My work blocks WMF from streaming. - Chebyshev, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17The meds cause the motion you imbecile. If he didn't take his meds he wouldn't be able to function. Maybe you should be the one doing the research.
- musntSurfatWork, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I don't know what's worse, defending a politition, or judging a crippling disease by media.
The brainwashing thing seems to be working. Welcome to the NWO - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Who knows what Limbaugh really thinks about anything. After I experienced his "coverage" of the Paul Wellstone funeral, I came to the conclusion that he is either clinically delusional or violently partisan. Either way, he's a ***** douchebag. You may think those are strong words. If so, I recommend you educate yourself about this man.
- reed311, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15This thread isn't complete without a "but Dan Rather" and a "but Clinton".
- clownguyx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Except that he did an ad for a republican some time ago that supported the issue. Maybe it won't be the cure, but right now it shows the most promise.
Why can't the guy just want to campaign for the guys who will support stem cell research? Yeah, they happen to be democrats for the most part, but most republicans are opposed to it. I know I would support it if I had Parkinsons or knew somebody with it. - Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -12/+23After watching this video, and knowing what you already know about Michael J. Fox, his struggle, his book, everything....and you still think he's "feigning illness", you're at the very bottom of the barrel.
Rush Limbaugh is a disgrace. - johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Actually, if you had bothered to watch the interview, Fox mentioned that his meds can actually *cause* more violent shakes, or different kinds. Normally he has a series of small, uncontrollable spasms that make it difficult to even sit upright. With the medication, he can at least sit, but "slides" from side to side (as seen in the commercial).
So, sorry, but Mr. Limbaugh is still either ignorant or lying. - airship, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12The effects of the medication change day to day. If you follow what Fox says, you'll hear that he says that. He says he can't count on 'a good day' happening at any particular time.
What's wrong with you right wingnuts? Sheesh! - musntSurfatWork, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17I don't get people who defend Rush disbelief of MJ's disease. no wonder our world is in the state it is, you people aren't human and ought to get into shock therapy or something.
- Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19"It would have quietly appeared in the target states, and fooled voters."
as Rush has fooled you? - stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10they are doing the exact opposite of funding a cure. They are blocking the research path. If you are anti-science there probably won't be many digg stories for you.
- shatters, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15@billyboobs
I think you need to watch the video (and listen!) before you comment. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11That interview almost brought tears to my eyes. God bless Michael J. Fox for being such a strong individual.
- jayesbee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I had a problem with the link in the original story. I found one on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8lsjfjgAA8 - muleking, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15If embryonic stem cell research could cure alcholism and prescription drug addiction that abusing hypocrit Limbaugh would be all over it.
- dognose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I don't see how they are blocking stem cell research.
- astx813, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10This was difficult to watch. You can hear the tremors in his voice. The hatred and closed mindedness clouds people's vision in times like these. Do some of you think that just because some people want to find a cure, those people want to indiscriminately destroy potential lives (aka embryos)? It's never so black and white. There is potential, yes POTENTIAL, not a guarantee, for cures to come from this kind of research. This research can be done while maintaining respect for human life. Some are opposed to it no matter what, even if that means a death sentence for others. Whatever your belief, don't forget to respect yourself by respecting others. And if you live in this country and you have the privilege, get offline on Nov 7th and cast your ballot.
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Wow, MJF has won me over. I used to be against stem cell research, not because of some ideological, religious priciple, but because I thought it was treading dangerous ground, which could lead into a Gattica kind of world, were human life becomes a production factory and nature not allowed to be the mechanism to determine it.
But now I realize we are already way beyond that point, anyhow, with arguably any form of modern medicine. I'm still against abortion in principle, but I would not deny someone else to make that choice on their own. I just think their choices are poor. I guess this is the difference between some, who think they have the moral right to force other people to live according to their beliefs, where as I don't.
And so, if people are going to throw away all these cells, we may as well get some positive benefit out of it. - luma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"No, there just aren't any references showing progress made from embryonic stem cells. Stem cell research is already legal in Missouri, the amendment is about cloning."
Stem cell research is legal everywhere - it's just that the NSF isn't going to fund it. At least, not while the social conservatives are running the country. - brishchik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7What a gentleman MJF is, I hope there is some cure soon enough for him and millions of other suffering people.
- cramtod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@killinger777
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm is not a credible source.
The site is registered to the "Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity", a Christian bioethics organization. Some senior fellows of the organization are:
Harold O.J. Brown, PhD;
Served on the editorial staff of Human Life Review (an anti-abortion journal of option) and Christianity Today (news and commentary from a biblical perspective).
Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Ph.D
Dean of The Wilberforce Forum, a group whose goal is, "to help Christians approach life with a biblical world view so that they can in turn shape culture from a biblical perspective."
C. Ben Mitchell, PhD
Fellow of The Wilberforce Forum (see above)
Paige C. Cunningham, JD
Chairman of the Board of Americans United for Life (AUL).
AUL is the first national incorporated pro-life organization to counter, through national education, the growing threat of disrespect for human life. It's slogan is, "Changing the law to protect human life, state by state." - tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Here's a link to something i posted on digg. Anyone that thinks the media is "liberal" needs to have a look.
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Who_Owns_What_News_Corporation - franksmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wmv/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/Video/Fox.asx
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8LMFAO, Katie Couric tilts news to the right?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
And Bill O'Reilly tilts the news to the left, right? roflmao - ilferetl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7why do these websites insist on changing my browser window size? I like my window the way it is thank you! Just show me the video.
- ZeroG52, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We're not talking about the research here folks, we're talking about the government funding that research. Let's make sure we're clear on this before we accuse anybody of trying to stop the research for a particular disease.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3killinger777's atrocious behaviour is reminiscent of creationists'. Creationists will cite organizations like Answers in Genesis or the Discovery Institute over and over and over no matter how many times these organizations have been shown to be non-credible. Facts simply don't matter to these people, all that they care about is having someone they believe to be an authority figure endorse their position.
- MrBlackthorne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@smileygirl:
What you're talking about is not "the other side of the issue". It is a conservative talking point with no basis in reality at all. The fact is that there has been positive progress in the use of stem cells to alleviate symptoms of a variety of diseases. Is it ready for prime time? No. Is there progress being made? Absolutely. Abandoning the research just because it isn't ready for prime time (or may never be) would be contrary to everything this nation stands for. Lies for the sake of bolstering conservative ideology is not becoming.
I ask you this: What if they gave up on vaccines? We'd still have kids dying of viruses that are avoidable today. Is it wrong to give sufferers some hope in promising new research? Judging by the technological and biological advances we've had in the last 50 years, I'd have to say, "no." In fact, I pray for the day that MJF is interviewed with his symptoms greatly reduced due to this type of therapy. From everything I've read, I'm optimistic that it will happen. - dmsean, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Even if he is/is not faking it, that point doesn't matter. If a man with no arms was video taped showing how hard it was for him to get through his day, you could say "Hey, he's faking how hard it is" but HOW would you know?
The fact of the matter is, life is difficult for people with this disease. Even if he didn't take his medication, good, he's showing the effects of his disease.
We are everything we have experienced/remembered. YOU ALL EAT MEAT WITHOUT A SECOND OF CONSCIOUSNESS SO SCREW THE UNBORN STEM CELLS. - astx813, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Amendment 2 seeks to guarantee that stem cell research will not be made illegal. According to NPR (the least biased source I can find at the moment), "The amendment basically says that any stem-cell research allowed under federal law will also be allowed in Missouri." Legislation has been proposed in each of the last six legislative sessions to make anyone involved in this research a felon.
- stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7killinger777.
That list is a crock of *****. The peer-references only include the one side they are supporting. It's like someone started to do a comparison and then stopped before researching the other half. - reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I am absolutely tired of republican *****. MJF's reasoning should make every person in America think about stem-cell research.
- tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There is plenty of conservative media out there. Fox news, for example, isn't just a conservative show, but an entire network. Not to mention radio talk shows which are almost all conservative. Sure, there is liberal media. But it is incorrrect to make a blanket statement that the media is liberal. If anything, the media is sensationalistic. They just want to scare people into watching/reading/listening to their respective outlet. They produce different products for different customers.
Example: During the Lewinsky scandal, "the liberal media" didn't exactly help Clinton. He was pretty much attacked from all fronts, "liberal" as well as conservative. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Shatters, I did and he says himself that he takes what he needs for specific purposes. Liken this to Robin Williams who takes his medication in amounts that are beneficial to the roles in which he is currently acting in.
- tafdc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not only does Rush step on this landmine. He relishes in jumping up and down on it and damaging as many of his supporter's republican candidates chances as well.
Hmmm. He's a jerk but he's not stupid... (Don't EVEN say I support that a**hole!)
But, is he playing the reverse psychology on this one issue thta privately pisses him off? - founderofpork, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I'm not even remotely a fan of Micheal J. Fox, but *****, that was a ***** impressive interview. He speaks more articulately than our damn president. A guy, 15 years into a battle with Parkinson's speaks more fluently than the president of the USA. That's a sad ***** state of affairs.
- froman98, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Limbaugh is pretty bad. I wonder if they offered stem cell research for erectile dysfunction, if he would be all for it?
- f4st4word, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Unbelievable! I know quite a few Parkinson's victims and none of them have the extreme symptoms that MJF exhibits here in this video. He is exaggerated to the max."
*****. His symptoms in this video are entirely consistent with advancing Parkison's Disease.
"Anyone who knows the disease well would regard his movement as classic severe Parkinson's disease," said Elaine Richman, a neuroscientist in Baltimore who co-wrote "Parkinson's Disease and the Family." "Any other interpretation is misinformed." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@johnhummel
Rush's initial comments may conceivably have been made out of ignorance, but since then he's made it abundantly clear that he's just another dishonest scumbag. He's had plenty of time to educate himself, and it's not like he hasn't got incentive. Instead, he's decided to stick with his lies. - Sunwalker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Rush Limbaugh - Viaggravating OxyMoron
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK1ySfKQf_4 - astx813, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Try IETab, one of the best plugins for FF.
- OldeGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Redundant, but obligatory last word on the subject:
http://www.limbaugh.com/OutFox
The irony is too much, with a bit of reading-between-the-lines. - streak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone interested in the issue being debated in Missouri should read the text of the proposed Amendment 2 here:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp
The text is just under 2,000 words in length and (at least for me) the language is quite accessible. Just remember a "blastocyst" is the technical term for an early-stage embryo.
Opponents of Amendment 2 are spewing misinformation. For instance, in an ad featuring Kurt Warner and other celebrities, St. Louis Cardinal's pitcher Jeff Suppan says "Amendment 2 claims it bans human cloning, but in the 2,000 words you won't read, it makes cloning a constitutional right. Don't be deceived." What 2,000 words is he saying we won't read? There is no hidden text, just the 2,000 words of the proposed amendment. Read it. See for yourself that the amendment will in fact prohibit human cloning while ensuring the continued legality of other forms of cloning. [N.B.: after his team won the World Series last night, Cardinals outfielder Jim Edmonds described his team as a "bunch of idiots".] In the same commercial, Kurt Warner suggests the amendment will cost Missouri residents billions of dollars and that we should not "be tricked". In fact, as you can read for yourself, the proposed amendment does not have *any* state funding attached or implied. Furthermore, biomedical research in Missouri is almost entirely funded, not through state taxes, but by Federal grants which directly benefit the state. If researchers in Missouri don't compete for and win those grant dollars, some other state will. (If you are from another state, remember that increased competition ultimately benefits everyone, no matter what happens in your particular locality). Contrary to Warner's implication, Amendment 2 is nothing like the budgetary legislation enacted in California. Warner also says California researchers say there won't be any cures for at least 15 years. What he doesn't say is that, after only 8 years of research in somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), promising results have already been obtained in mouse models of Parkinson's disease. It might take another 15 years to conduct sufficient testing in humans and obtain FDA approval. If we sit on our hands by killing Amendment 2, we can help extend the suffering of debilitating diseases and injuries. In the ad, acress Patricia Heaton says "Low income women will be seduced by big checks. And extracting donor eggs is an extremely complicated, dangerous and painful procedure." Read the text of the proposed amendment: it only allows an inconvenience fee to be paid to donors. This is similar to men being compensated for donating semen, but the compensation for women is usually higher because of the greater inconvenience. However, extracting donor eggs is not complicated, dangerous or painful. In the same ad, Mike Sweeney says, "25 women have died and 6,000 have complained of complications. Missouri, don't be fooled." Note that Sweeney doesn't say the 25 women died from egg donation. No, that would have been a lie, because there are NO documented fatalities from egg donation. "Complications" could be as benign as missing a period or a heavy period, but of course Sweeney doesn't even say these women experienced complications from egg donation. The complications might have arisen from a totally unrelated procedure, such as having a PAP smear. Kurt Warner then asks, "Why does it cost $28 million to convince Missourians that an amendment is good for them? Maybe because it's not." Or maybe because it is expensive to educate the lay person as to the facts and importance of this issue, to raise the public's awareness out of the Dark Ages, and to cut through the misinformation and terror being spread by opponents of all forms of cloning.
Senator Jim Talent, who is running for re-election in Missouri, says in one of his campaign ads that he is "against human cloning" and that the proposed Amendment 2 "would make cloning legal". Note his implication that Amendment 2 would make human cloning illegal. He does not actually say the amendment would make human cloning legal, because that would actually be contrary to the facts. Amendment 2 explicitly prohibits human cloning, but Talent intentionally implies it will make human cloning legal.
In case you're wondering why it is necessary to make such legislation an amendment, prior fundamentalist efforts in Missouri have attempted to prohibit cloning of all types, including therapeutic cloning. As a result, Missouri institutions have already lost excellent researchers to other states where the socio-political environment does not threaten their work. Without such legislation, Missouri residents will later lose out on the benefits of cloning because they will have to leave their state for treatment. - postal21, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3wow, watch this video. its powerful and moving...
He explains how it just randomly kicks in and out without him having control over it.
And the fact that hes "too medicated" because of the unpredictable nature of the disease and the side-effects he has to live with day in and day out. -
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is