John Edward's comments over the top.

[DawnCt1]

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

Apparently by story with regard to John Edwards wasn't quite so ridiculous now, was it? I also told you the source for the discussion for the Reeve's phone call. It is also not the first discussion I have heard about this.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by 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.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Apparently by story with regard to John Edwards wasn't quite so ridiculous now, was it? I also told you the source for the discussion for the Reeve's phone call. It is also not the first discussion I have heard about this.

Yes, it most certainly is. Saying you heard something somewhere isn't providing a link. You did that with the mis-quoted Edwards thread and look how accurate that was.

Don Imus or one of his employees making a comment is hardly a factual source. While I enjoy listening to him (and btw, he's supporting Kerry), he's not a credible source for information.

That would be the reason for me looking for a link I could cite on the Edwards story rather than just leaving it at...hey, I heard this one...think it's true???

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by richiebaseball

Oh no, Rich, wake up. Are you all right, buddy? Rich, answer me, please.

I promise to be good, I'll put out a warning first.

You there, Rich?

*just kidding*

 

[Chicago526]

Originally posted by Laura
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.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[beattyfamily]

Originally posted by Laura
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.

I'm against both.

 

[Galahad]

FTR, I too am against the practice of creating and implanting "too many" embryos in a effort to be sure that one or more "takes". It is one of the ethical issues with the way IVF is done now, IMO. I am in fact more against that practice than embryonic stem cell research.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Yes, it most certainly is. Saying you heard something somewhere isn't providing a link. You did that with the mis-quoted Edwards thread and look how accurate that was.

With regard to the phone call, I made it quite clear that it was a discussion that I heard, that in fact, you also heard.
With regard to the quote, it was essentially accurate and the meaning and intent remains the same. I know you are trying to spin this to make your guy look good because he isn't looking that good at this moment. Concede that it was a dumb thing for Edwards to say instead of attacking the messenger.

 

[Geoff_M]

Dawn,

If "fake, but accurate" is an acceptable standard for Bush-haters, then what problem should they have with your accurate paraphrasing of the Edwards quote???

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by peachgirl
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?

Grasping for straws???

Let's just stick with the original topic if you don't mind.

So if John Kerry is elected he (the Feds) will provide funding for new ESCR and a people who are stricken with spinal cord injuries like Reeves will walk again. Of course we don't know WHEN that will happen but he is leading people to believe that it is inevitable.

Lets clear this point up first. Is this what you believe he meant?


When Dawn (paraphrased) Edwards with ""if John Kerry is elected president, people like Chris Reeves will walk again",

the outcome is exactly identical to what Edwards said.

Again, I see little difference. In no way was that a lie.

What is a lie is that the Kerry camp is telling people that Bush has banned stem cell research. What is a partial lie is that he's not funding it.

You're really having a tough time with this.

 

[peachgirl]

I know you are trying to spin this to make your guy look good because he isn't looking that good at this moment.

And you're spinning as hard as you can because your guy is in a very tough race and you're getting desperate for things to pin on Kerry or Edwards.

 

[peachgirl]

Let's just stick with the original topic if you don't mind.

Ah yes, the standard answer for when you can't answer the question that was put to you.

We should stick to the original topic even when it's a distortion and is highly inaccurate???? Nah.....

You're really having a tough time with this.

No, I'm having a pretty good time actually. It's always satisfying to point out gross distortions of the facts.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by DisneyMomx7
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.

Be that as it may, relative to Edwards comments, there is no evidence that embryonic stem cells can help with curing paralysis. There is research going on in the area of adult stem cells in this area. Edwards we deliberately misrepresenting the current stem cell funding/research issue. Either that or he is ignorant of what is actually the state of stem cell research. It's likely a little of both.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Ah yes, the standard answer for when you can't answer the question that was put to you.

We should stick to the original topic even when it's a distortion and is highly inaccurate???? Nah.....



No, I'm having a pretty good time actually. It's always satisfying to point out gross distortions of the facts.

Did he say "MAY", or did he say "WILL"? That's really the point. Moreover, his point is irrelevant given that there is no evidence that embryonic stem cells can help with curing paralysis. So, he's also deliberately misrepresenting the entire issue.

 

[dmadman43]

Don Imus or one of his employees making a comment is hardly a factual source. While I enjoy listening to him (and btw, he's supporting Kerry), he's not a credible source for information.

Is the because even though he supports Kerry he doesn't think he will win?

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,713181,00.html

 

[Pete's Mom]

Edwards comment did not surprise me. When I first learned that Christopher Reeve had passed the first thought that went through my mind was how long it was going to be before someone tried to use this in the election.

RIP Superman!

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Is the because even though he supports Kerry he doesn't think he will win?

[/url]

Yeah, that's exactly my reasoning. Gee, if Don Imus would only say that he thinks Kerry will win, he'd be a credible source.

Hey, believing what you hear only when you agree with it seems to work for the right!

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by peachgirl
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, how can you-- in good conscience use this to prove your point. Dawn's paraphrasing of Edwards' statement did not change the meaning of his original statement in the least. Conversely, your example changed the meaning to be the opposite of the original statement.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Pete's Mom
Edwards comment did not surprise me. When I first learned that Christopher Reeve had passed the first thought that went through my mind was how long it was going to be before someone tried to use this in the election.

RIP Superman!

Kerry had just mentioned (namedropped--to be more accurate) Reeve as a good friend at the debate, so I expected a follow up comment from him, as well.

I hadn't heard anything about this phone call, though. . .did someone provide a link to this story, and did I miss it?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by peachgirl
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?

Ok, I'm in a good mood. I'll play along.

That would be out of context now wouldn't it?


"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 will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again," Edwards said.


In it's full context, what exactly does this mean to you?