| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Washington Post writes about Rush’s statements on MJ Fox ad, but doesn’t note that he apologized “bigly” for his remarks later in the show
(SCROLL to the bottom for an important update)
Yesterday afternoon I blogged about the Michael J. Fox ad running in Missouri in which he passionately called for government funding of stem cell research in a show of support for Senator Jim Talent’s opponent demagogue Claire McCaskill. McCaskill currently has a three point lead over Talent in the latest poll.
In that same post, I talked about the controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh’s comments on yesterday’s program where he said he thought that Fox might have either been off his medication or ‘acting’ in the ad because of the way he looked. I labelled the comment that Fox might have been ‘acting’ disgraceful, but also pointed out that as far as not taking his medication before appearing the ad, that it wasnt’ wrong to speculate on this, because Fox had admitted in his 2002 memoir Lucky Man that he had done just that before his testimony in front of a Senate subcommittee.
Today, the Washington Post has a write-up about Rush’s comments, but it omits an important detail: Rush’s apology, which I included in my prior post on the topic. Rush said:
Now, people are telling me that they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial for Claire McCaskill. All right, then I stand corrected. I’ve seen him on Boston Legal. I’ve seen him on a number of stand-up appearances. I know he’s got it; it’s pitiable that he has the disease. It is a debilitating disease, and I understand that fully. Just stick with me on this.
All I’m saying is I’ve never seen him the way he appears in this commercial for Claire McCaskill. So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act, especially since people are telling me they have seen him this way on other interviews and in other television appearances.
[...]
I must share this. I have gotten a plethora of e-mails from people saying Michael J. Fox has admitted in interviews that he goes off his medication for Parkinson’s disease when he appears before Congress or other groups as a means of illustrating the ravages of the disease. So lest there be any misunderstanding, we talked about a half hour ago of the commercial that’s running for Claire McCaskill featuring Michael J. Fox on what appears to be when he’s off his meds. I have never seen him this way and I stated when I was commenting to you about it that he was either off his medication or acting. He is an actor after all, and started hearing from people, “Oh, no, I’ve seen him on TV this way, this is how the disease has affected him when he’s not on his medications.” Then the e-mails started coming in saying he’s admitted not to taking them in certain circumstances so as to illustrate how the disease affects people. All of which I understand, and I’m not even critical of that. Parkinson’s disease is hideous.
[...]
So let there be no misunderstanding about this. I stand corrected, did not know and had never seen Michael J. Fox in the way I saw him in this commercial for Claire McCaskill. But people have and have seen him say in interviews that he doesn’t take his medications when he wants to make an impression to show people just how horrible the disease is. And it’s true of all Parkinson’s patients. At some point the medication will not work, and the condition will become permanent, and there’s nothing pleasant about it. It’s one of the most frustrating diseases one can have. Pope had it. It’s not pleasant in any way, shape, manner, or form, nor did I mean to implicate that one could easily act it out for the purposes of a commercial.
While I was diappointed at Rush’s suggestion that Fox would be ‘acting’ out symptoms of Parkinson’s disease (as far as I’m concerned, that type of talk adds nothing to the debate), I’m also disappointed with the Washington Post for failing to do the research they were supposed to do on finding out whether Rush later amended or apologized for what he said. For goodness sake, the man’s website had the transcript so it’s not like they had to do a lot of digging.
To let the WaPo know how you feel about their incomplete reporting, contact them: letters@washpost.com or ombudsman@washpost.com
Update I – 8:06 PM: I just pulled up the article and see that it now mentions that Rush later “backed away” from his comments. That was not in the article before.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
46 Responses to “Washington Post writes about Rush’s statements on MJ Fox ad, but doesn’t note that he apologized “bigly” for his remarks later in the show”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Not taking medications makes them move less, not more.
That is simply not true, brad. When he appeared before that Senate subcommittee he was visibly shaking – taking the medications helps cut back on the tremors. Maybe over time they make them worse, but not initially.
A little understanding of Parkinson Disease:
National Parkinson Foundation
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
It does seem that Parkinsons is something that is not easily controlled, and that medications will vary on effectiveness and reliability each time it is used.
So what dosage may work well one day, may not work as well the next.
At least that is what I have gathered from reading on it.
So is he initial, or over time? It looks like people just don’t understand this disease. We’ll deal with them with grace.
Dr. Brad, the problem is that Michael J. Fox HIMSELF has said on video in interviews that he stoppped taking medication to have more visible and dramatic effects of Parkinsins. You are arguing against Michael’s admission.
I don’t know whether or not how he was in the ad was “initial” or “over time”.
And as usual, you guys pathetically try and make Rush the issue, when he ISN’T the issue – the dishonesty of claiming someone “doesn’t support stem cell research” is the issue.
I wonder how willing Fox would be to volunteer for embryonic stem cell treatment knowing that there was, historically, a 100% chance he’d wind up with a massive brain tumor even if it did cure his Parkinson’s? Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. The entire issue of embryonic stem cells is a red herring, designed and used by the Democrats to make Republicans look uncaring and callous. It has nothing to do with good science, or good medicine, it’s a ploy, and one which Fox lends himself to willingly, to obscure the fact that the Democrats have no real plan or ideas that most people really would support, only emotional sleight of hand that they use to paint the other side as mean. That’s a poor way to try and win elections, and if we had an electorate that paid attention and wasn’t educated in government run schools, people who had a basic understanding of the science involved, they would hand the Dems their heads over this. Instead, we get people with 10 second attention spans who get emotionally upset when a shaking, popular actor gets up and whines and supports the lies. Guess I can understand why the Dems do this, they do understand the people in some ways, and know how uneducated and shallow most Americans are.
You can’t count on the MSM to bring this to light, only the alternative media, which is why they are lambasting Rush so much, how dare he point out the truth of the issue when they are trying to pull a fast one!
Private industry, if embryonic stem cells were truly a promising treatment, would be all over it, but they aren’t for a reason. It remains a dangerous, unpredictable technique, and there is no guarantee that dumping billions on it will ever change that. Industry, and governent, are right to focus on other types of stem cells, such as adult stem cells, that have shown promise in treating numerous conditions without the problems embryonic stem cells have. Money does not grow on trees or on taxpayers, the govenment has no money that they didn’t take from you, the taxpayer, it’s still a limited supply, and we shouldn’t be asked to dump it down a hole just for feel good reasons on a technique with little to no potential benefit.
And, once again, embryonic stem cell research is not illegal anywhere in the US. If you want to do it, go for it, just don’t expect me to help pay for it. I’d rather my money go for more promising research, and one with fewer negative ethical implications.
I have no problem with Fox on or off his meds, he is trying to show what this disease is like, that is why he is in the ad….
BUT, I do have a problem with him not stating the FACTS, and as Karl said, if he was off his meds when he was doing so, he should have stated such.
Rush is right when he states that when Fox puts himself in the political arena, that it doesn’t make him persona nongrata, hands off.
What I have a problem with is hypocrisy of his statements, and the usage of such to make it sound as if no republican wants stem cell research or to find a cure.
I know many of the left will come back and say, well what about the war on terror, arent the republicans doing the same? How is that voting record on the democrats, the media support, leaks, ect?
Now look a little deeper and see what the government is doing for funding, who supports the stem cell research, the progress being made in each line, and why or where the private sector funding is?
Let me ask you this, if the private sector doesn’t feel comfortable majorly investing in embryonic, why should the federal government?
And if the private sector felt there was something to ebryonic stem cells and had significant funding to it, why would there be a such a fervent call for the government to be funding it?
If I was to be an investor in something, shouldn’t I see some sort of improvement, some sort of progress (like adult stem cell), before I start investing majorly in something?
Bak, ST: if you look up the side effects of levodopa, you’ll notice it includes this muscle twichting. Look up also dyskinesia.
Oh, and Rush is the issue at least as far as this post is concerned. But thanks for telling me, and Michael J. Fox, what is “simply not true” about his disease and medication.
Stop being dishonest, brad. This is what I said that you conveniently ignored (emphasis added):
That is simply not true, brad. When he appeared before that Senate subcommittee he was visibly shaking – taking the medications helps cut back on the tremors. Maybe over time they make them worse, but not initially.
I apologize. Thank you for telling me what is “simply not true”, and what happens “maybe over time.”
Did you watch that video I linked to? MJ Fox talks in it, about understanding his disease, and his medication. It also, interestingly, shows that Fox did these ads in 04 but nobody got mad. Also, did you look up dyskinesia?
Lemme get this straight:
Not long ago, Rush Limbaugh, in an attempt to achieve a specific purpose (alleviate the symptoms of his medical condition) he – on his own authority – manipulated the dosage of his prescribed edication.
He abused drugs.
For that, he was castigated by the MSM, ridiculed by the political left in general, and even had his medical records seized by a small time prosecutor in an attempt to find criminal activity.
Going back to 1999, Michael J. Fox has acknowledged that, in an effort to achieve a specific purpose (exacerbate the symptoms of his medical condition) he – on his own authority – manipulated the dosage of his medication.
He, too, abused drugs.
For that, Rush Limbaugh has been castigated by the MSM, mocked by the political left in general…
Michael J. Fox has, however, been held up as some sort of hero.
Since Claire McCaskill approved that ad, isn’t she also approving of drug abuse for political gain?
Stoo, your desperation is showing.
Don’t apologize when you don’t mean it, brad. You continue to be dishonest, and it’s disappointing to see.
“Also, did you look up dyskinesia? ”
No I didn’t. My involvement in the discussing the Fox ad is not to debate the merits of stem cell research but the Fox ad’s misleading statements and the Democrat’s trumpeting once again of the victim card.
I didn’t see the 04 ads, and I’m not sure why you brought them up.
Brad, Here’s Michael J. Fox’s words:
And:
Brad, I feel for Michael J. Fox. I hope cures are found and there is a breakthrough with research. The demagoging of this “embryonic” stem cell research is what is at issue.
Just like the 9/11 widows. There were 9/11 widows that are conservative. There were some that were liberal. There were some that are libertarian I’m sure as well as non-political. The press acted like the 4 Democratic ones were the only ones who’se voice mattered and as if they had the moral authority only to speak. There were others who were clamoring to be a balanced voice and could not be heard.
Dean Barnett is a reasoned person who I agree with who has cystic fybrosis and is a “caring” person who disagree with making the government throw money at embryonic stem cell research. As a conservative I understand that the government can spend 2 times as much on just about everything and still not please people. It is NOT an indication that a conservative DOESN’T ‘care’ when they are not for the government spending money on something.
The longer you act that way the more liberals will lose elections. YOu don’t have a monopoly on the media anymore. While we might suffer a temporary loss of an election (or maybe not) it’d behoove you liberals to change your debate tactics and come from the angle of understanding that we are all “caring” and “well intentioned” people…. not just liberals.
I apologize again: I didn’t make clear that dyskinesia isn’t about the merits of stem cell research. It’s about how medication causes spastic movements.
I brought up the 04 ads because they were in the video i linked to. Check it out, if you want to know what Fox has been up to in the last few years. And how he feels about people who don’t understand his disease or his medication.
I really recommend you watch the 04 ad, in the video, if you’re concerned about democrats trumpeting of the victim card. Personally I think sick people are entitled to have and share their political opinion, specially when politics affects them. Personally I think the way to retort is by discussing the merits of the science, rather than attacking a person.
Bak: I linked to a video where fox talks about his disease and medication. Watch it.
Also, you know its a degenerative disease right? You know that what was true about his condition years ago is not true now.
Well that’s a bold statement, because the conservatives arguing about the ad have argued that sick people aren’t allowed to share their political opinion. Get freaking real! It’s not about the “right” to anaything here but whether or not what was said was correct.
The merits (or lack thereof) ARE being discussed – here, a forum I frequented today and spent time battling in, and elsewhere. And people are attacking Fox’s statements. Sure you have some people making nasty comments about Fox, but the vast majority are attacking what he said and that is perfectly legit to do. Yet Democrats are acting like ANY criticism of Fox’s comments equates to picking on a sick person. Sorry, but the “absolute moral authority card” has been worn out by you guys, and Republicans simply aren’t going to play by your hypocritical rules anymore.
The merits may be discussed. But at 8:03 said you weren’t.
You should watch the video, and the 04 ad, if you’re interested in Democrats vs. Republicans playing by hypocritical rules. Or if you want, i’ll just tell you the surprise. You want that?
What criticism of fox’s comments has been called out by democrats? We have a jerk like Limbaugh. We have jerks like Stoo. Which criticism do you think is proper, and yet was picked on?
“The merits may be discussed. But at 8:03 said you weren’t.”
I didn’t say “I” was discussing them, I said “there is a discussion going on about them.” This issue isn’t about me, so quit trying to make it that way.
“You should watch the video, and the 04 ad, if you’re interested in Democrats vs. Republicans playing by hypocritical rules. Or if you want, i’ll just tell you the surprise. You want that?”
I really don’t care about the 04 ads. I care about the this month’s ads, how they were misleading, and the Democrats latest attempt at throwing the victim card.
“What criticism of fox’s comments has been called out by democrats?”
Um, just about all of it? Take a look around you at a few lefty blogs, brad!
“We have a jerk like Limbaugh. We have jerks like Stoo. Which criticism do you think is proper, and yet was picked on? ”
stoo isn’t a jerk, first of all, and I resent your insult of him as he has he has not attacked you at all. I’d suggest you apologize, but I already know your apology is meaningless, so don’t bother.
“Personally I think the way to retort is by discussing the merits of the science, rather than attacking a person. ”
Which must have been why you turned around and attacked stoo, rather than the merits of his argument.
Gotcha.
Anyone who says that Fox is a drug abuser equally deserving of the same treatment that the drug abusing limbaugh got is a jerk. Sorry. Thats what I think of the merits of stoos argument.
Oh, the surprise? Fox’s 04 ads were for a republican.
People have been saying that hte government should not spend money on stem cell research. No problem with that criticism — some people don’t think the government should be involved in science. The problem is when they say that Fox’s ad is unassailable because Fox is sick. Thats not true at all. Thats a criticism right there that has nothing to do with Fox’s disease.
“Anyone who says that Fox is a drug abuser equally deserving of the same treatment that the drug abusing limbaugh got is a jerk. Sorry. Thats what I think of the merits of stoos argument. ”
No, you’re not sorry. You’re just a hypocrite who tells people to debate the merits of arguments you happen to agree with rather than attack the person, yet you don’t apply the same standard to yourself. That doesn’t fly with me. If you don’t want to apply the same standard to yourself, don’t criticize others when they supposedly don’t.
“Oh, the surprise? Fox’s 04 ads were for a republican.”
OMG! You mean like Arlen Specter? BFD. Specter is a RINO and everyone knows it. Fox, BTW, supported and endorsed Senator John Kerry for president. There’s no hypocrisy here on the Republican end, and your attempts to spin it into such are humorous.
“The problem is when they say that Fox’s ad is unassailable because Fox is sick. Thats not true at all. Thats a criticism right there that has nothing to do with Fox’s disease.”
So what? Exceptions don’t prove the rule. Again, look around you at what lefty blogs are saying. If you still think after that they the left isn’t milking the “victim” angle for all it’s worth in an attempt to shut down the debate, then I’ve got beachfront in the Tennessee to sell you.
If people think MJ fox is a jerk, they should say so. But he’s not, so they’d be wrong. Just because its wrong to call MJ fox a jerk doens’t mean that its wrong to call people who pull jerk moves jerks. MJ fox did not pull a jerk move. But stoo and limbaugh? Those are jerk, desperate moves.
I don’t think its hypocrisy on either end. I think Fox is out there supporting candidates that help him find a cure. And hes bipartisan about it. I don’t believe this science should be a partisan issue. I believe it should be scientific issue.
A lot of lefty blogs are picking on limbaugh, on the people not criticising the merits. Find me one that you think is attacking a good criticim. I’ve read lots of the lefty blogs. Thats how i’ve heard of hte jerks out there. But I have yet to read one picking on a good criticism.
“If people think MJ fox is a jerk, they should say so. But he’s not, so they’d be wrong. Just because its wrong to call MJ fox a jerk doens’t mean that its wrong to call people who pull jerk moves jerks. MJ fox did not pull a jerk move. But stoo and limbaugh? Those are jerk, desperate moves. ”
Um, if stoo thought MJF was a jerk, he’d say so. Once again you demonstrate your hypocrisy.
“I don’t think its hypocrisy on either end. I think Fox is out there supporting candidates that help him find a cure. And hes bipartisan about it. I don’t believe this science should be a partisan issue. I believe it should be scientific issue.”
Which must be why you supported the ad he ran against Talent, right? Because you don’t believe this should be a partisan issue. Uh huh.
“A lot of lefty blogs are picking on limbaugh, on the people not criticising the merits.”
BS. They’re picking on people who ARE criticizing the merits and lumping them in with people who aren’t.
“Find me one that you think is attacking a good criticim. I’ve read lots of the lefty blogs. Thats how i’ve heard of hte jerks out there. But I have yet to read one picking on a good criticism.”
Of course you haven’t. There are none so blind as those who will not see, or however the quote goes. I’m really not interested in playing this “was it a legit criticism or not” game with you. I frankly don’t trust you to be honest on the issue, considering how dishonest you’ve been in this thread regarding what I’ve said, as well as your double standard on attacks.
“Drug abuser” is an emotionally loaded term, but in point of fact, without emotional baggage, not taking your medication in the prescribed and approved manner is exactly the same thing that Fox and Limbaugh did, for whatever reasons. Logically, it’s the same thing, disregarding the dosage prescribed for a reason decided on by the patient. Societally, we make a distinction between someone who gets loaded for fun and someone treating a disease, but with chronic and severe pain, often people make this decision, and it is treating a disease or medical condition, not for grins and fun, that most chronic pain sufferers wind up like Rush. I am still rolling Fox’s not taking the medication over in my mind as to how I feel about that. I can understand, and sympathize with, showing your condition in order for the impact of the disease to be more fully recognized by people. Too often people can be shallow or superficial, and I can see people saying of his testimony “well, it can’t be that bad, he looked fine to me” and why he would want to nip that in the bud.
My problem comes, really, from the dishonest position the add put forth, and the cynical use of an ill person in the manner he was used, which is all too common for the left and Democrats recently. It’s part and parcel of the left’s constant attempts to stop discussion or dissent for their positions, whether it’s rushing the stage to silence the Minutemen, or putting forth widows, orphans, cripples, whatever people who have been hurt and then claiming that no one should be able to rebut them, calling anyone who wants to take issue with what was said callous and insensitive and shameful. It’s intellectually dishonest, and it really is shameful. I think the left does this because they realize that, most often, when logic is used instead of emotionalism, they don’t have answers and can’t support their positions.
If EBS’s had only not produced many promising results, I’d still not be in favor of funding them, because we have limited resources and should focus on the most potentially beneficial ones. I would not support a total ban on EBS research, as someday, who knows, it’s just not shown enough benefit to be worth dumping tons of money on it. The thing that really turns me off to it is that it’s not just ineffective, the results can be horrifically bad. Tumors, cancers, hair cells growing in animals brains, etc. Hideous things. That makes it all particularly ill suited to just throwing money at, at least until such time as someone manages to show better results.
And as I said in other posts, there are plenty of resarch institutes and trusts, like the Ford Foundation, the Heinz Foundation, Gates, etc. that have huge sums of money to fund such research, and colleges and independent research labs that are more than qualified to do the research. They are in a better position to fund this kind of basic, very high risk/low potential reward research than government.
And while I don’t have the ethical problems some do with EBS research, I am not completely comfortable with it, or with the deliberate production of potential human beings just to do research on disease. I view those who do have religious or ethical problems as the conscience of society, which all too often does things without thinking of the ramifications. They are like a canary in a mine, we may choose to not take their advice, but we should stop and think about what they bring to our attention. We may just usher in a brave new world that none of us want to live in without careful thought and consideration.
The only person to blame for the ad brad is Claire. Her team must vet the ad and approve all of the content.
brad laughingly wrote, “I don’t believe this science should be a partisan issue. I believe it should be scientific issue.”
Game. Set. Match. Checkmate. Then ask Claire to pull the ad so that it will no longer be a polical weapon/issue.
The private industry is doing JUST fine with the science of adult stem cells and even embryonic stem cells.
Here’s a legitimate question for you Brad. What dollar amount must be spent to make you happy enough? Would it be ok if that money was spent with non -public funds? Or does it have to be public funds?
If people think MJ fox is a jerk, they should say so. But he’s not, so they’d be wrong. Just because its wrong to call MJ fox a jerk doens’t mean that its wrong to call people who pull jerk moves jerks. MJ fox did not pull a jerk move.
Well, that’s a convoluted piece of work there for sure.
It’s your opinion that Fox isn’t a jerk. There’s no absolute standard for what is a subjective perception, and your stating the opposite doesn’t hold a lot of weight. There are people who are deluded enough to think John Kerry is a war hero, so much for human judgement.
St: No, stoo just thinks he’s a drug abuser like limbaugh. Very nice.
Oh, and sev, logically, its not the same thing. One is logically a criminal. The other is not. Guess which?
I “support” the ad because its for the position which allows the scientists to decide how to make the science.
“They’re picking on people who ARE criticizing the merits and lumping them in with people who aren’t.”
Then it should be very easy for you to find me one. The left blogs I read haven’t been doing this.
“I’m really not interested in playing this “was it a legit criticism or not” game with you.”
Its not a game. I gave you legit criticisms: Severian at 9:58 am had a post about private industry. Thats a fair, though I think incorrect, criticism. I’m able to tell the difference. I’m asking you to do the same.
“as well as your double standard on attacks.”
Double standard? I have pretty simple one: people who pull jerk moves get to be called jerks. It’s that simple.
“Double standard? I have pretty simple one: people who pull jerk moves get to be called jerks. It’s that simple.”
I agree. You’re a jerk. Goodbye.
Then brad, I say you’re a jerk. There, that was easy!
This has been some great reading after a long day at work. Thanks guys
BTW, everyone, I’m in the middle of composing a new post on all this, so don’t think I’m slacking off on blogging tonight
Severian at 9:58 am had a post about private industry. Thats a fair, though I think incorrect, criticism.
Yeah, never let the individual or the private sector do something that government can do less efficiently and worse, eh?
You shall have no god other than government…sheese.
FYI – I deleted an earlier comment made by stoo at his request. I don’t want anyone who saw it thinking I deleted it for no reason.
Sister Toldjah deleted my last comment at my request, as I was in the process of typing my question to Brad while he was being told to go away. It would be unfair to ask a question in those circumstances — and appear cowardly. I was doing chores away from my computer while all this back and forth was going on, and missed my chance.
I would like to thank Sister Toldjah, and all of you commentors that took up my side of the argument while I was away from the computer.
I was typing my explanation of that, ST.
I obviously type too s l o w.
Severian, you’ve missed a key point in these debates. The reason why the private sector is not investing in stem cell related research is because the law prevents them – Michael J Fox is not asking for the public to bear all the costs of stem cell research – he’s asking that the Missouri law be consistent with, not more stringent than, the Federal laws in allowing this research at all.” Please everyone, for truth’s sake, understand the issue.
Severian, again.
Rush Limbaugh violated laws when he illegally purchased prescription drugs – and deceived those that cared. Michael J. Fox did not violate any laws when he reduced his medication, and did not attempt to deceive anyone.
This is an easy distinction to make. The more difficult question is whether garnering sympathy to influence a voter is ethically acceptable, even if it’s certainly legal. Even if we can’t answer that question, doesn’t everyone know much more about Parkinson’s and stell research than you did a week ago? Doesn’t this only further inform your vote?
Well, Sue, I do believe you’re wrong, there is no law preventing stem cell research. Can you give me a citation or link proving that there is a law preventing embryonic stem cell research? And what, this research can only take place in Missouri? My understanding of states rights is that the people of the state can set certain laws to reflect the character of the state’s populace, and they need honest information, not BS and lies, in order to be able to do that. And actually, I knew plenty about Parkinson’s and stem cells a week or month ago, not all of us have our heads in the sand all the time, some of us actually have an interest in the world and what’s happening in it.
And if Rush violated laws, why did the Florida DA’s office not press charges and take him to court? Guilty even if proven innocent since he’s a conservative commentator, is that the story you’re telling?
Sue incorrectly stated, “The reason why the private sector is not investing in stem cell related research is because the law prevents them”
This is factually false. We understand that you believe it. Maybe it’s time you change your source of info. Do the due diligence of finding out if your accusation is true.
Sue asked, “Doesn’t this only further inform your vote?”
Not if false assertions of Talent and Steele’s positions are made.