MMFA likes to twist words

On a recent item here, MMFA showed exactly why they are completely biased and unreliable. Read the following section from that article:

"During the discussion, Powers claimed that "there actually are some substantive problems with the Michael J. Fox ad that I think are fair criticisms, such as claiming his opponent doesn't support stem cell research. Not true. Doesn't support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, which are really two completely different things." In fact, as Media Matters documented, in his McCaskill ad, Fox stated that McCaskill's Republican opponent, Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), "opposes expanding stem cell research," and Talent has indeed opposed expanding some forms of stem cell research. As Media Matters has noted, while Talent supports adult stem cell research, he is opposed to stem cell research that involves "destroying a human embryo." Talent has also opposed a proposed Missouri constitutional amendment to legalize stem cell research in the state and has voted against easing the restrictions President Bush imposed on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research."

Now, the word twist happens here: "Fox stated that McCaskill's Republican opponent, Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), "opposes expanding stem cell research," and Talent has indeed opposed expanding some forms of stem cell research."

Notice how MMFA joins those 2 statements together in that the second affirms the first ("has indeed") but that the 2nd statement has the words "some forms of" inserted whereas the first statement says "opposes expanding" withougt any clarifiers. Thus, it would appear that the first statement means to ALL types of stem cell research whereas the 2nd statement makes it clear that Talent only opposes expanding SOME forms of stem cell research; not stem cell research in general. They're tricky. But not too slick for us..