NEWS: Does Michael Moore Represent the Democratic Party?

Some great points, and very true. Though I personally like Micheal Moore, but that isn't the point.

You voted for Bush? You get a stem cell ban...

In what parallel universe, Reprobate?

By "ban," do you mean the criminalization of stem cell research? Bush didn't do that.

The reality is that the President has actually allowed federal funding for research into embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created before August 9, 2001 (22 are currently available according to the National Institutes of Health Embryonic Stem Cell Registry). Furthermore, privately-funded research can be conducted without restrictions in the United States. The only "ban" is on federal funding for new stem cell lines that were not included in Bush's original group...

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_08_15_archive.html

Also, I hardly think opposing gay marriage constitutes a "war on homosexuals."

And while I have no patience for the so-called War on Drugs, what EXACTLY was John Kerry going to do about shutting that fiasco down, if elected?

But s5, that's how laws work, regardless of who's writing them or what they say.

Are you actually claiming that those on the extremes of the Left - if they had the chance - would NOT avail themselves of the power of high legislative or law enforcement positions to get what they want?

Sure.

Beg pardon? Go ahead and try to tell me Bush hasn't crippled medicine to pander to religious zealots. I dare you, but you're gonna have to bring more than spinsanity.

And this, is why spinsanity is a joke. Like it or not its a ban. It is deliberately crippling the most promising new field of medical science in decades and don't try to pretend its not by playing semantic games. Seven of those 22 lines are functionally not available, and by choking off federal funding development of new lines in the US has stalled an entire branch of medicine, and the State department isn't exactly breaking any land speed records making it possible to import foreign lines with what little private money there is. There are approaching 200 lines today. Thats 178 lines that we cant use the most powerful facilities and funding sources on the planet to develop and God knows how many more that simply weren't developed at all without the availability of those resources.

Thats what a vote for Bush buys you. Fundamentalism over medicine.

And I hardly think thats a remotely genuous depiction of their policy or rhetoric.

Some gay people think that, some don't. I personally know many who, while saddened and offended by the current state of affairs, understand that opposition to legally-recognized gay marriage and actually hating gay people are two different things.

I'm quite cool with gay marriage - hell, they could hardly do a worse job than heteros have done - but I can also see how people could oppose it without being gay-bashing reactionary monsters.

Also, pace Bush and Kerry, it's worth pointing out that Kerry himself went on record as OPPOSING gay marriages having equal legal status to straight ones. Bush went further (and dumber) with that loathesome Amendment of his, but the fact is that the difference between Kerry and Bush was one of degree.

So if Bush's position is tantamount to a "war" on gays, then Kerry's is... a police action? Carpet bombing? Commando raid?

So now it's "playing semantic games" to quote what you actually wrote?

Repro, you are a smart fellow and you know what words mean. You wrote "Stem cell ban."

Not "halting funding by the federal govt."

Ban. B-A-N.

Don't get cross with me for calling you on YOUR language.

Re the stem cells themselves, here's an interesting take from Charles Krauthammer, a (gasp) conservative who's also an MD, and paralyzed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34167-2004Oct14.html

And thats what it is. Pretending that its not is semantics. The president by executive order has banned funding 92% of the research. All you're saying is "Well, its not a total ban on all research into the field", pretending that that was the implication of my statement while ignoring wholesale the devastating setback to medicine. Semantics is concerning oneself with the verbiage often to the exclusion of the meaning. Given that you've declined my dare, which is substantive, you've operationally conceded my point.

left "wing nuts" talk about:
peace
universal health care
responsible spending
environmental responsibility

right "wing nuts" talk about:
an invisible entity
killing 'the other'
pro-corporate agenda (anti-labor/anti-enviro)

i'm a left wing kook. yep. hell, i'm even vegan. but instead of rambling on about what a god might want us to do, i'm talking about living lifestyles that the earth can actually support.

only in a world this fucked up does that make me a kook. well, that and being a talking ferret, but whatever.

while I think michael moore is entertaining, and a boat rocker worthy of his proverbial "cred" the democrats should neither support nor attack him. I was pissed off when I found out that the college democrats where showing Farenheit, because while it does expose some interesting material about George Bush, it does not support the position of the democrats...And I'm sure Moore would agree, He has often said the Democrats need to grow a pair (That...um...paraphrasing) and I would hardly call bullying the opposing party the right way to prove the democrat's "Manhood"

Oh and as for Krauthammer, sorry but doctor or not, this is more of the same partisan talking points crap. Its misleading, distorted and medically inaccurate. He trots out the whole laundry list. "Bush is the first president to fund stem cell research" Compete crap, the process in question was developed in 1998 with federal funding signed by Clinton. All bush did was make it a line item by name because it didn't freaking exist to be funded prior to the FY 2000 Budget. "the inability of the human spinal cord to regenerate is one of the great mysteries of biology. " Its a mystery all right, but news flach Chuck, the spinal cord does regenerate, just not well. Maybe we ought to, you know explore that. He says that calling the ban an impediment to curing alzheimer's a "lie". Why? because someone else has a "promisng" theory. That doesn't make pointing out that another line of research has been all but halted a "lie". Hey here's another thought, lets do the fucking research on all the known options. As he notes and awful lot of "promising" therapies turn out to be "snake oil".

None of this is terribly surprising however because as you failed to note Krauthammer, is in addition to being a Doctor and paralyzed, also the guy to wrote the Bush policy and its talking points. How terribly strange that he agrees with them.

You've seen signs like that? None of them showed up at any of the rallies/protests I've been to lately...

when terry mcauliffe and al gore are out promoting moore's film the line is definitely blurred - would moveon.org be supporting democrats or michael moore or both as well? have to admit it was adopted into the democratic presidential campaign and not play it off as some sort of independent nonpartisan film.

Since I may not have made this clear enough in the story, I should emphasize that I don't think the argument that Moore cost Kerry the election are plausible, and even if they were true anybody who thought a vote for Kerry is a vote for Moore is a fucking moron. (I should also say that while I'm not a huge fan, I don't think Moore is remotely equivalent to an Ann Coulter or Michael Savage; he's not a bigot. But that's the comparison--I'm not going to compare Moore to people who have real influence in the Republican Party.)

Yes. This is exactly the point.

If you want a good laugh, readRoger Simon express shock, shock that the Republicans would actually try to govern based on the platform they ran on. You mean a President who claimed a sweeping right-wing mandate after an election in which he lost the popular vote and was appointed via an indefensible Supreme Court decision would not govern as a bipartisan moderate? You don't say!

I mean, if you have grown conservative over the years, that's your privelege. But this "George W. Bush is the real defender of my consistent liberal principles" crap--Christ, it's just embarassing.

EvanX said:

That Ann Coulter is one scary bitch. I read the inside of the dust jacket of her new book and threw it down as quick as I could, I was so disgusted. She supports taking over other countrys and converting them to christianity. That's truely scary that anyone could support this woman and her lunacy.

...

agreed! she's absolutely insane. like some little hopped up evangelist with moderately nice legs. i was staying at my parents house for a few days and ended up reading 'treason.' stupifying. really. my dad hearts her.

[Edited on Nov 12, 2004 by whirlyknives]

Yeah, and even if it wasn't a lie the whole argument is mind-bogglingly stupid. Since it's a new line of research, the credit Bush would be entitlted to for being first would be pretty minimal. Abraham Lincoln didn't fund AIDS research! What a monster!

Not a total ban...? It's not ANY kind of ban. That's the point.

Ask 100 randomly-chosen people what the word "ban" means. If even ONE of them answers "refuse to pay for," I will send a $100 check to MoveOn.org

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the Bush administration is not willing to buy me a car. If I want one, I'll have to use my own money. Yet another "ban...?"

You misrepresent Bush's position as a "ban" for the same reason you call his opposition to gay marriage a "war" on gay people: such extremist language is emotionally satisfying to you and those in your camp. It's not accurate, but you don't care because accuracy was not the reason for saying it.

NOW you elaborate and say, "Well, what I meant was the larger issue of federally-funded medical research, etc." Fine. Point taken. I actually agree with you on that.

But it's still not a "ban."