John Edward's comments over the top.

[Galahad]

Originally posted by peachgirl
He's also an right wing ultra conservative. What was posted was his personal opinion and nothing more.

I did a quick search for some of his writings and frankly, he's a nut.

He is also a a physician, FWIW.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by peachgirl
I finally found the actual quote and from a site that even the most conservative Republicans surely can't disagree with...Rush...





As I said, seven pages for something that was a lie.

How is this (from Dawn)

"if John Kerry is elected president, people like Chris Reeves will walk again".

that much different that this (the actual quote)

"Well, if we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."


The only "if" part is John Kerry being President.

The first part of Edwards actual statement only qualifies the rest of it.

It certainly does lead anyone with a logical thought process to what Kerry will do if elected President. He will provide government funding for ESCR which will create a treatment that will allow people like Reeves to walk again.

Of course there was no mention of a time line as to when that will happen. But it sounded pretty clear what he was saying.

Even if you take away the comments that people are making about Bush keeping people like Reeves in their WCs because he's not providing funding for NEW E. stem cells, it's a pretty bold statement. He might as well have said it will cure cancer as well.

IMHO, he was providing false hope and then used it for political gains. Not very nice.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by peachgirl
If you heard the entire section of his speech then you know full well that what the OP said is not anywhere near "precisely" what Edwards said.

I just now got to see and hear Edwards statement and just as I suspected the original claim on this thread was a distortion and the comments WERE taken out of context.

What Edwards said was that "IF" we do the work we need to do, the work we will do if Kerry is elected President, people like Christopher Reeves will walk again.

Seven pages on this thread and the entire thread is based on something that, as usual, is not true.

Nope, just heard it and read it again. It is what he said. Adding more parsing to it doesn't change it.

Do you think that the President said, few weeks ago, that we couldn't win the War on Terror? Or was that taken out of context?

 

[DisneyMomx7]

Originally posted by Laura
My husband is also a diabetic; he feels the opposite. If all these frozen embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them to save and improve lives? It's not as though they're being "farmed" for this purpose.

What strikes me as odd is that I don't hear anyone who is against using these embryos for research also railing against the fertility process that produces the surplus embryos in the first place. I think that's hypocritical.

Laura - that is my point exactly. If you are against the frozen embryos from fertility clinics being used for stem cell research but you are not against them being destroyed than that's hypocritical. If you believe that destroying frozen embryos is murder than you should be against invitro fertilization altogether. Talk about flip flopping! Be consistent.

 

[Galahad]

If Edwards had said people like Reeves "may" get up and walk it would be entirely reasonable. He didn't say that. He said "will".

 

[mikeymars]

Where does it stop?

At least one company, the Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Norfolk, Virginia, is now fertilizing embryos in the laboratory using donated sperm and eggs specifically for the purpose of potentially (if the law changes) harvesting these embryos for stem cells.

Actually, the term "donated" needs to be qualified. Women were paid $1200 to $2000 for their eggs. It isn't clear what if anything the men were paid for their sperm.

In other words, human beings are ALREADY being conceived for the express purpose of being killed and their body parts harvested for the benefit of others.

Yes, right now it's "just embryos". Apparently, that doesn't disturb some people. After all, embryos are very small, don't look particularly human, and don't appear to feel pain or have any consciousness.

But ... If it becomes accepted that an embryo can be freely killed and harvested for parts, how long before a more developed baby in the womb can likewise be killed and harvested?

And if unborn babies can be killed and harvested, why not newborns?

Or if killing embryos is acceptable because they are unconscious or have no feelings, what about people in comas?

And if that's okay, then what about people who are paralyzed?

For that matter, what about anyone who I think is less important or less valuable to society than me? Who decides which human beings can be killed, and for whose benefit?

Where does it STOP?

 

[peachgirl]

The only "if" part is John Kerry being President.

You did read the quote, right?

The "if" part had nothing to do with Kerry being elected.

if we do the work

The "if" was in regards to the "work" or in other words, the research.

Adding more parsing

More parsing? Is that what the right calls including the entire quote? You're right, it is what it is and Edwards never said that people like Reeves will walk again "if Kerry is elected President". He said it will happen "if we do the work". The "work" won't get done with Bush in office.

Do you think that the President said, few weeks ago, that we couldn't win the War on Terror? Or was that taken out of context?

No, I don't believe it was taken out of context. In that case, the President actually said the words that were attributed to him and they were posted exactly as he said them. In this case, you won't be able to find an actual quote of Edwards saying that "people like Reeves will walk if Kerry is elected" because he didn't say it.

That said, I believe everyone knows what the President "meant" to say. While I had a little fun with his poor choice of words, I knew full well what he was trying to say.

There's a difference between using words poorly and having your comments taken out of context. Actually, what Dawn did was indeed a classic example of taking comments out of context in order to make a point you want to make when the facts aren't there.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by mikeymars
Where does it stop?

At least one company, the Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Norfolk, Virginia, is now fertilizing embryos in the laboratory using donated sperm and eggs specifically for the purpose of potentially (if the law changes) harvesting these embryos for stem cells.

Actually, the term "donated" needs to be qualified. Women were paid $1200 to $2000 for their eggs. It isn't clear what if anything the men were paid for their sperm.

In other words, human beings are ALREADY being conceived for the express purpose of being killed and their body parts harvested for the benefit of others.

Yes, right now it's "just embryos". Apparently, that doesn't disturb some people. After all, embryos are very small, don't look particularly human, and don't appear to feel pain or have any consciousness.

But ... If it becomes accepted that an embryo can be freely killed and harvested for parts, how long before a more developed baby in the womb can likewise be killed and harvested?

And if unborn babies can be killed and harvested, why not newborns?

Or if killing embryos is acceptable because they are unconscious or have no feelings, what about people in comas?

And if that's okay, then what about people who are paralyzed?

For that matter, what about anyone who I think is less important or less valuable to society than me? Who decides which human beings can be killed, and for whose benefit?

Where does it STOP?

Everything you wrote is a completely valid question. Where does it stop?

We, as a society, have to decide where the boundaries are. I think we have a better chance of setting, and enforcing, those boundaries, if the our government was involved. If we just let the free market govern stem-cell research, we will lose control.

 

[ThAnswr]

Kerry supporter here.

I think Edwards comment was over the top and I cringed (and still cringe) when I hear it. It was tasteless and gratuituous and, IMO, has no business in a political campaign.

It would be so nice to hear Edwards say "I made a remark in the heat of the campaign moment, and I apologize".

Yeah, good luck.

I just wish this entire election was over and I'm a political junkie. It seems llike everyday we're reminded just how low politics has sunk and just how sub-standard the candidates, on either side, really are.

 

[Galahad]

I believe everyone knows what the President "meant" to say

Fair enough. What do you think Senator Edwards meant? It appears he wants folks to believe:

1) That Senator Kerry has more concern for the sick and disabled that President Bush,
2) That progress toward cures is not now taking place and will not take place if the President is re-elected and
3) That in fact all of these cures will (he said will) come about as a result of what Kerry will do if elected.

Now it may be reasonable to try to make those claims. The are provocative, but I have no doubt that many reasonable people believe them.

Why then is it outrageous for Vice President Cheney to want folks to believe that if Kerry is elected we would be less safe? It seems that claim is no more or less outrageous than Senator Edwards'.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by ThAnswr

I just wish this entire election was over and I'm a political junkie.

I'm with you there. I need to get on some sort of political methadone program.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Galahad
Fair enough. What do you think Senator Edwards meant? It appears he wants folks to believe:

1) That Senator Kerry has more concern for the sick and disabled that President Bush,
2) That progress toward cures is not now taking place and will not take place if the President is re-elected and
3) That in fact all of these cure will (he said will) come about as a result of what Kerry will do if elected.

Now it may be reasonable to try to make those claims. The are provocative, but I have no doubt that many reasonable people believe them.

Why then is it outrageous for Vice President Cheney to want folks to believe that if Kerry is elected we would be less safe? It seems that claim is no more or less outrageous than Senator Edwards'.

It is NOT reasonable to make the claims that Sen. Edwards is making because research IS taking place. Stem cell research IS being funded and there is no evidence to believe that President Bush is less concerned or compassionate than Sen. Kerry. When Vice President Cheney speculates that America will be "less safe" perhaps he is looking at Sen. Kerry's record of voting to slash defense spending since he has been in the Senate, he looked at his vote to slash intelligence by milions of dollars and has heard his rhetoric on terrorism as a criminal/law enforcement activity rather than a military one. Past performance is often a good predictor of future behavior.

 

[Galahad]

Also, FWIW (I know, not much ), I listened to the speech and read the transcrption on CNN's cite. CNN was charitable in their placements of punctuation compared to the actual delivery. If the original quote was transcribed from hearing it, it makes sense to report it the way it has been reported.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Galahad
I'm with you there. I need to get on some sort of political methadone program.

Are there group rates?

 

[peachgirl]

Galahad.....

The entire point of my last couple of posts was simply to show that Dawn, once again, has chosen to be less than honest in what she's posting.

Had she posted what Edward's actually said then we could have debated the merits of the truth instead of a lie.

If what he said was so horribly wrong to say, why edit and twist the words? Why not just tell the truth?

Why? Because it didn't prove the point as well. It wasn't as outrageous as she wanted it to be and I'm tired of that kind of garbage.

FWIW also....I got my information from Rush Limbaugh's site and I seriously doubt he was generous to Edwards in any form or fashion. I also heard the audio on Imus this morning. Edwards indeed paused when he was speaking at each point you see a comma in the text.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by peachgirl
taken out of context.

What Edwards said was that "IF" we do the work we need to do, the work we will do if Kerry is elected President, people like Christopher Reeves will walk again.

Seven pages on this thread and the entire thread is based on something that, as usual, is not true.

Excuse me Peachgirl, but I made it quite clear in the OP that I was quoting from memory which is why I said, "he effectively said'. Your providing the exact quote does in no way, shape or form change the intent of his speech. If we do the work WE need to do, the work we WILL DO, if Kerry is elected president, people like Christopher Reeves WILL walk again". I certainly wasn't the only one in the world who thought it was arrogant and misguided to say the least. So, no, what I quoted is not a lie, nor is it selective editing. it is essentially what he said, and what you quoted him as saying. Kery and Edwards are about the biggest phonies to hit Washington. Since you listened to Imus this morning, you must have heard the discussion about the call John Kerry received from Christopher Reeves on Saturday. Well now it appears that the good Senator may have been lying about that. Considering that Reeves was probably critically ill at the time he supposedly made the call. Perhaps you could do some critical research into that and report back to us....with exact quotes of course.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Galahad.....

The entire point of my last couple of posts was simply to show that Dawn, once again, has chosen to be less than honest in what she's posting.

Had she posted what Edward's actually said then we could have debated the merits of the truth instead of a lie.

If what he said was so horribly wrong to say, why edit and twist the words? Why not just tell the truth?

Why? Because it didn't prove the point as well. It wasn't as outrageous as she wanted it to be and I'm tired of that kind of garbage.

FWIW also....I got my information from Rush Limbaugh's site and I seriously doubt he was generous to Edwards in any form or fashion.

Believe what you want to but you never addressed my question as to how much difference there was in what Dawn posted and what Edwards actually said.

"Well, if we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again. "

How is the part I hightlighted that much different that this?

"if John Kerry is elected president, people like Chris Reeves will walk again"

Where is the lie?

The ONLY difference is that Edwards qualifies the second part of his statement with the first part.

Even if you take Edwards statement out of context, he still says that people like Reeves will walk again if the research is funded by the Federal Govt.

But in all reality, it's a moot point because there is Federal funding right now. The is NO ban on PRIVATE research.

Why do you continue to skip over those important details?

 

[Nancy]

No matter which way it was said or not said, using Christopher Reeves name after he just died and then stating that people like him "will" walk was just wrong. I don't care where the "if" was placed. Gees, the man just died and he was using his name in a political speech....polictics have gotten so low...on both sides. I am sick of all the mudslinging and he said/she said stuff...it just starts boarding on absurd after awhile. No wonder alot of people are turned off to politics. They have even turned my DH off to politics, and I never would have thought that would happen.
My husband used to work for one of the parties and now he is so turned off by this whole election garbage that he won't watch the debates and thinks this election and how both sides are campaigning so nastily has turned the election process into a joke. (his thoughts, not mine)

 

[peachgirl]

How is the part I hightlighted that much different that this?

For example...

If we don't get tough on criminals, tough the way we will be if I'm elected, millions will die.


I guess it would be accurate, in your opinion, to say that I stated:

"if I'm elected, millions will die"...

Right?

 

[peachgirl]

Perhaps you could do some critical research into that and report back to us....with exact quotes of course.

No, Dawn, you do the research. You're the one who continues to post ridiculous stories without bothering to list sources.