I am glad the old time religionist reactionary–as opposed to true conservatives– racist “White Primary”, KKK, White Citizen Council Dems left my party & went where “birds of that [sorry] feather could flock together”. It gave the South to the Repubs for awhile but that was better for the Dem Party in the long run. The ones you call “retread” Repubs who finally joined the Dem Party to get away from the stink of religionist bigotry & racism, found a home with us. And, no, the Repubs who stayed Repubs also were & are the same bunch who went along with William Howard Taft and his oligarchic Robber Baron “price fixing” & “monopoly” crowd who tried with all their might to kill and bury “child labor, sweat shop labor and pure food and drugs acts”. The Dems eventually
got the best of the Repubs–the LaFollette, Beveridge and Teddy Roosevelt Progressives–who could not stand the anti human, anti environment & anti intellectual attitude of the old and still the “property & obscene profit before people” Repub Party.

In which case you should have no trouble refuting it with truthful facts. But sorry, “it's wrong because CATO said it” is still an ad hominem.

And yes, CATO, Heritage and the AEI are tainted sources. There's not one person in those organizations who wouldn't place ideology ahead of everything else. No lie is too big or too small to tell. They have eliminated the fallacy of ad hominem from the modern political scene because the fact that it does come from them makes any statement, paper, book or press release questionable. Just search on “Achieving A Leninist Strategy” for a perfect example.

There's no reason that stem cell research shouldn't bypass the moral issue and go ahead full force with iPSC's instead of embryonic cells, especially since there's plenty of evidence that direct therapies are resulting from that research faster than anything from the ESC lines (since the problems of tumorgenicity haven't been overcome there.)

I think jwest goes too far in criticism of Fox, but there is in fact reason to criticize the general rhetoric that surrounded the stem cell debate. Proponents never bothered to clarify and inform the public that cures were coming from adult stem cell research, which virtually no one opposes. It's actually a lot like when people on your side of the aisle criticized the Bush administration rhetoric on WMD and links between Iraq and al Qaeda. When pointed out that Bush himself never said there were direct links (beyond the few trivial links that were real), Dems pointed out that he also never bothered to correct other people who did assert more linkage (and quoted poll numbers of percent of the population who believed there was a connection.) Similarly, poll numbers show that the American public still doesn't really know the facts in the stem cell debate, and proponents like Fox added to the confusion because it conveniently helped build public support for their preferred policy.

First, MJF said nothing remotely similar to a promise that quadraplegics would walk if America voted for Dems instead of Reps. He endorsed *one* candidate in *one* election, and he did so because that one candidate supported stem cell research while the other did not. Stem cell research, he said, gives him “hope”. What in that even resembles a lie? It appeals to emotion, sure, but since when is that off limits? People with Parkinsons might actually have some emotion about the subject. Shocking, I know. Have you ever even met a person with Parkinsons?

Second, your assertion that the statement doesn't matter, only the impression it left — that you could see that commercial and read his statement as “I promise all quadraplegics will walk if you vote for Democrats instead of Republicans” is evidence of a deep-seated problem with *you*. How in the name of all things holy can that be the “impression” you got?

Third: regarding your factoid about GWB and his funding of stem cell research. Are you saying that Republicans and people on the right DO want stem cell research to go ahead full force? Great! Because most lefties also want the same thing, so it must be happening, right? No? Something about “snowflake babies” you say? Huh. Of course, jwest, in the context of the MJF issue, which was, again, a person giving an endorsment to a single candidate, he was simply supporting the one that supported stem cell research, and that person happened to have been a Democrat.

Basically, your whole argument makes zero sense. So lying about dead grandmas isn't bad, because this dude is a liar because he gave you an impression, but he wants all Dems to win and Reps to lose, even though Reps are just as awesome with this one person's pet issue as Dems, but George Bush is the BEST! Also Delorians and Teen Wolf sux! Or something.

Actually, not so much, Kathy, except that the second case does involve a hot button term, “euthanasia” and that term probably does go too far, especially in describing the current plan as it will be enacted right now. The plan does, though, contain provisions which will limit certain treatments for the elderly and over time, there's a structure being put in place which can do that more and more (and will have to do it more and more) as the costs become more prohibitive for the standard of care that our elder citizens currently enjoy.

And in the case of the demonization of the GOP for opposing SCHIP expansion, there was also the hot button emotional ploy of using children as anecdotes for how they'd be harmed, even though many of the examples were not even accurate.

Both forms of attack rely on stretching the truth based on projections of what MIGHT happen if legislation either passes or fails to pass. Both rely on the false dichotomy which says that ONLY this particular plan can solve the particular problem at hand (the Dem's frequent use of dishonest argument that the only choices are the status quo or the plan they favor.) Both rely on demonization of the opponents motives (Either “the Dems don't really care enough, they just want to get credit for passing legislation even though it will have this disastrous result” or “The GOP is a bunch of heartless corporate bastards who care only about protecting their own interests and private industry profits, rather than helping the poor get health care for their kids.”) And both rely on emotional tugs at our natural inclination to protect grandma and the kids.

On the flip side, liberal progressive politicians push policies that often don't solve the problem they are intended to solve, and even if there is some improvement or resolution there are often other harmful unintended consequences.

And liberal progressive voters rationalize their unwillingness to consider these possible consequences by saying that at least the progressive politician cares so we should give him a chance- actual consequences be damned.

For some reason some people seem to have a hard time grasping that all change is not good, and that sometimes conservatives have reasons for asking you to back up your belief that a particular change will result in positive results rather than a net negative, before we can consider supporting it.

So let me get this right.

You made an outright, bald-faced lie. Someone called you out on it, asking you to back it up. You couldn't, so instead, you say the actual words don't matter, it's your incorrect interpretation that really counts.

Ah. I see why no one takes you seriously.

You should know that the actual statement doesn’t matter – it’s the impression left by the message.

Fox was lying on behalf of Democrats across the country, he knew exactly what he was doing and so did the Soros financed scum who paid for the commercials.

If it’s facts you like, you should avoid statements like this: “I don't have any major diseases, but I'd still like to see that work continue, and I think it's stupid that righties won't let it happen.”

George Bush was a “righty” and he was the first President to overturn Clinton’s ban on government funding of embryonic stem cell research. Bush allowed federal funds to be used on existing lines, something that Democrats were too scared to do.

What? Michael J. Fox didn’t tell you that?

Do modern conservatives want the poor to die? Not necessarily. Would they leave in place policies that have that result if the only way to help doesn't fit into their ideology. Of course. They would rationalize it. They would make excuses for why nothing can change in any meaningful way. But in the end ideology trumps all for them.

A lot of Obama's statements are contradicted, notably these days when it comes to federal health care.

I wonder just why the statements are being made and how much they really are meant to be believed.

Lefties on this Web site are frequently outraged or alarmed illogically or for no valid reason whatsoever.

The Left has been in support of actual euthenasia for a long time now. It would be no surprise to see not only more federal action on this matter someday for its own sake, but (along with gun control and other bogus measures, but for more real reasons) as a “health care” and “quality of life and care” issue in the future. Only fools cannot already recognize that.

As to withholding of treatment, we already have ethics boards at some hospitals doing this in the name of futility (expect the word “futility” to be more widely used in this regard in the future, in case you haven't realized that already), and we will see this done more and more eventually in the name of cost controls or their rationalization — this is not only obvious, but predictable.

Add to that various preferences on the Left for this or that program and you can easily see a future where liver transplants are no longer paid for (i.e., provided), and the money redirected instead to drug rehab and other drug abuse programs, for example. There's nothing surprising about anything so obvious like this.

Christine. There is a difference between saying that Republican opposition to the expansion of SCHIP would result in real harm to real children, and saying that the Democratic health care reform proposal promotes euthanasia. The first is an opinion that is strongly supportable by facts, and the second is a flat-out lie.

I read the article. I don't understand why you're so outraged.

“Nor is there any reasonable basis for believing that these consultations, if chosen, would do anything to promote euthanasia”

Obama stated that there would be no consultations. This report seems to contradict his statement. The euthanasia part is referring to the fact that most socialized health care systems deny prostate cancer treatments.

jwest wrote: “The all-time, lowest, most despicable lie ever told by any individual or political party was Michael J. Fox promising quadriplegics that they would walk again if only people voted against Republicans.”

jwest that's a lie. It's people like you that continue pushing intentional lies that are flushing the toilet on the republicans… As I've said before, Keep up the good work.