@ TylerNull; There's a difference between wanting "limited government" and wanting "limited government where I like".
When it comes down to it, both political party only want to reduce government in areas they personally don't like; similarly both parties want to expand government in different areas.
As far as I can tell, there's only 1 person who genuinely wants to limit government, namely Ron Paul- I'm not a Ron Paul fan boy, I just acknowledge the rest merely wants selective limitations.
Politicians/parties suck, but let's not get mushy about the concept of limited government.
The US Constitution enumerates 17 activities for which the fed's are granted authority to tax and spend. They're all about waging war and establishing and borrowing money to wage war. That's what the Conservative movement seeks. Ironically, that's what Paul most complains about, though he claims to be both a constitutionalist and a conservative. Liberals are socialist who seek limitless gov't authority.
And frankly I don't think those limitations should be upheld (and I really don't see why people are so persistent when it comes to wanting to follow guidelines written for an entirely different world).
On topic; I don't see why MJ Fox shouldn't attend things like this, the truth is that celebrities function as role models- I don't see why role models shouldn't use this role when it comes to topics that actually matter.
Same world, same species, same human nature. So, the same form of government works best. And ours includes a specific method for amending the rules.
What you now reveal, unlike your first post, is the desire to govern by momentary whim; limitless authority. That is totalitarianism.
One of the methods used by Liberals to tax and spend beyond the scope of their authorities is to make emotional appeals for lawless spending, which is the topic here about MJ Fox; the human shield ploy.
I'm not at all in favor of limitless government; I am (mostly) in favor of democracy. In a functional democracy "the people" prevents governments from doing whatever they wish. Unfortunately America has a poorly functioning democracy by only having 2 actual political parties.
I said "mostly" in favor of democracy; because I do have some doubts. My doubts in democracy stem from acknowledgement of how many people are incapable of thinking for themselves (Not referring to yourself).
If you follow your premise to its logical conclusion, you'll reach that of all the world's most genocidal governments.
People forget, or are never taught in their socialist-run schools, that "holocaust" was NOT a bad word originally. It was thought that specific classes must to be killed to socially engineer a Utopian state -- the "birth of the new man" -- a new evolutionary form of man who will think, look & act ... smarter, i.e., one who agrees with their politics.
I know all of this about the holocaust. Mind you, most people were not aware of how the jews were being done away with, merely that they were. Most of them chose not to think about it beyond that.
As for your argument, If I'm following you correctly you're saying that government will lose ethical values when not tied by something like the constitution. But what is it that holds coorporations to ethics?
Government can be chosen democratically, corporations are not like that.
As for holocausts, those of the Soviet socialists were ten times more murderous than those of the German socialists, according to the "Black Book of Communism". The post-war treaty simply absolved the Soviets of theirs.
It's creepy how modern Europe is so politically aligned with, and defensive of, the vastly more murderous left-wing socialism whilst feigning outrage over right-wing socialism.
Cells harvested from Post IVF or other methods, by any Libertarian/Republican/Conservative standpoint its not the role of Government to prevent such research; as funding is arbitrary, the real question is why anyone who would want to reduce the role of Government would expect the same Government to impose sanctions on scientific research? Based on subjective notions of "morality" no less? If Government is so ineffectual, why imbue it with morals?
If you don't want to "prevent research", then stop shilling for political hustlers who take research capital from medical researchers and shovel it into politically sponsored "research".
(And there's nothing "arbitrary" about that.)
Imbue? Reducing the role of government has nothing to do with stripping morality out of laws. Upon what did you think laws are based?
Your muddled confusion of notions isn't anyone else's . . . "paradox", or anything else for that matter.
Do you mean shilling for "political hustlers" and media whores such as David Prentice? Or perhaps we should weigh politically sponsored research versus politically motivated obstuction of said research? The notion that public funding of one form or research damages or takes from other research is facile: if the market demands it/sees potential, the private sector would fill in any imbalances. Paradox: promoting active, govt'l obstruction of research, while calling for limited govt.
"The notion that ... takes from other research is facile"
Contrary to your socialist dogma, government revenues come from us. There's nothing "facile" about that cold hard fact, except that there's noting difficult about understanding it.
"gov't obstruction of research" -- I already exposed your socialist lie. Repeating your lie a second time makes it no less a lie. And there is no "paradox" between limiting gov't and limiting lawless gov't spending.
"I think its funny" how so many L-word-ers who respond to this video are unable to address ANY point.
Particularly hilarious are those (e.g., JFranzicles) who, while avoiding the point, also reveal their inability to grasp ANY concept underpinning our liberties, AND reveal their desire to silence dissent. So severe are their demonstrated political perversions in fact, they PERFECTLY interchange gov't authority with individual liberty, going so far as to refer to the LATTER as "persecution".
What did deregulations from Reagan or Bush jr, do for the consumer? Nothing...it did not effect any aspect of a product....who did it help? Bank could buy a stock exchange business and send their crapy "bundled to a ready buyer" themself...
Why did the Republican work so hard to make the rich, richer? That is the sole purpose of tax breaks and deregulations....but when they need help, they sure turn into Socialist!...
Fannie Mayhem isn't "deregulation", & Dem's FEROCIOUSLY protected it and STILL grow it. But consider industries where there HAS been dereg., e.g.,
telecom's - phone rates were dollars per min., and phones weighed more than toasters and were about as big.
And compare any of those less regulated to Fannie Mayhem and such. Also, 18M jobs were created under Reagan. 7M created under GWB. (Obama's killed 7M already; almost 2M most recently.)
The demonization of Socialism....is Capitalism with half the population making min. wage. Who gained financially by stating Soialism is bad...only the cats on wall street. Who would skin their own mothers if it made a profit.
How do be break the cycle of ME? Citizen who think they deserve a greater share of the benefits of America by denying other.
@TylerNull Nice job with the Hannity point. Why not start speaking for yourself or start paying Hannity is royalties. It's funny how conservatives don't want to pay for services yet when trouble comes they are the first to hold out their hands.
"the Hannity point" -- the first article is from the Washington Post. Though I don't recall the source of the others, it's clear you're going to have to spew derision at a MUCH wider array of news sources to defend your secular messiah.
"conservatives . . . they are the first to hold out their hands" -- example please ?
@TylerNull "Your kind is are only generous with other people's money." Does not matter that most of "our kind" pay just as much if not more than "your kind." I know many conservatives that ended up getting fafsa for college then when they finished they cried when they had to pay the tax for it. Or they are also the ones that file for Medicare when they are 65 as well. You wan't the services you pay the bill.
You certainly scattered your baseless claims across enough topics -- well done. Pointing to victims of a federal Ponzi scheme was a nice touch too.
"
Bleeding Heart Tightwads
... households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
@TylerNull That just means that conservatives are 30 percent more likely to register their charity than households headed by liberals. But let use your logic of this matter. You are saying that when scouts do their eagle project they are more generous with other peoples time than their oun.
@TylerNull Means conservatives like their tax write offs. I have donated my time as well as money to charity. I have been a little broke so it's mostly my time. I have signed to help with this oil spill and no I probable wont add it as a tax write off and no one will do a study on me. Now tell me if you think that a scout doing his eagle projects is more generous with other peoples time than his oun.
If tax "write offs" are evidence of greed, then paying what one owes in taxes is greedy. That's a bizarre measure, but even if we use it, your claim remains baseless because you offer not a shred of evidence to suggest Liberals use tax "write offs" any less often.
Your personal life doesn't change the published reports that Liberals are extremely greedy people relative to Conservatives.
But keep proselytizing your mythology and dismissing reality.
@TylerNull So what your saying is that someone who gives $1 to a church gives more than a person who helps clean it? There is a lot more ways to donate to charity. But what you are saying is when I started and lead a charity drive for the battered women's shelter yet didn't give any cloths myself that I was more generous with other peoples money than my own?
All you did was compare one person who donated many hours to another who donated $1.00, while again squeezing in the wonderfulness of yourself.
You are welcome to try a time-donation metric, but work on your arithmetic, reasoning & narcissism.
E.g., determine the equivalent net-take-home hourly wages over a set of charitable time-donation activities, per skill required, multiply by the hours so donated, and use THAT to COMPARE time-donations by Liberals & Conservatives.
@TylerNull So a child going to a nursing home to keep the elderly company is not worth as much as a skilled adult? Wow thats some messed up way of thinking. I never did any of those things because of miss diagnosed case of narcissism. I did all those things because it feels good doing things for others. It's selflessness not narcissism.
But you never answered this question because I know it scares you and it proves my point.
Do you think an eagle scout is more generous with other peoples time?
Talk about "messed up thinking", you have yet to offer ANY hint of ANY evidence that ANY time-donation measure would show Liberals to be ANY less greedy than was revealed by the published report that you tried to dismiss.
So, use ANY measure you like; however, you need to actually APPLY it.
Instead, you keep posting anecdotes of your claimed personal life to convince the reader how marvelous you are, which only "proves" that you're creepily self-absorbed.
@TylerNull Again your avoiding the question. You you still believe that "liberals are more generous with other peoples money?" Which you are saying that taking the time to rally people together to contribute to the rest of the community is being generous with other peoples money. And for that matter how much is the presidents time worth?
Again, your inability to distinguish between belief & objective fact continues to impress. I referenced a PUBLISHED REPORT OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS -- "Bleeding Heart Tightwads".
You have yet to offer ANY COMPARISON with your time-donation measure. You offer NOTHING to suggest that Liberals donate more time "to the rest of the community" than do Conservatives. NOTHING.
Hunting down the bizarre irrelevancy you keep referencing, "Do you think an eagle scout is more generous with other peoples time?"
The only thing I know of "eagle scouts", as in the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), is that merciless, narcissistic Liberals have been on a Jihad against the BSA ever since they altered their policy to protect themselves from homosexual rapist troop leaders, i.e., Jonathan Ralton, former Eagle Scout.
@TylerNull When doing an eagle project you are not allowed to do it yourself. In fact your not suppose to do any of the labor. So let's say you decide you want to repaint the park benches at your local park. You are not allowed to do any of the actual painting. You must get your fellow troop members to do it for you.
Pointing to an exercise for adolescents that is obviously designed to build leadership skills fails to address the big fat hole in your implied claim regarding Liberal charity.
Contrarily, we have EVIDENCE of the exact opposite:
"Bleeding Heart Tightwads".
"... when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates. ... conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals."
@TylerNull No it proves my point that taking a stand and asking people to donate their time and money is an act of leadership which punches a hole in your claims.
But hay I think Glen Beck has it right when he says we need another George Washington as a president. We need someone to stand up to the whiskey parties oh I mean tea parties and say shut up pay your taxes or your going to jail. We are going to pay off this dept and be done with it. No more free conservative rides.
Leadership isn't charity. Nor are homo's who infiltrate the "eagle scouts" to rape boys.
Further, your notions remain DEVOID of ANY comparative charity measure. Though my reference to where Liberals side WITH the rapists', and against the Scouts, is insightful.
You have a great capacity to jumble & topic-hop. Enter your newest attempt to invert reality; "free conservative rides". Does the detailed absence of cogency from your prior notions not give you ANY reason to pause?
@TylerNull I haven't gone far enough back in the comments to find out where exactly the "homo" and "boyscout" issue entered the conversation. However, as someone who lives with Parkinsons I can safely say that people like Ann Coulter who defend the mocking of an extremely sick man is deplorable. However, if I were capable, I would fight and/or die to defend her right to do so. The issue many times is "taste" not politics, and in my opinion, people like Rush and Ann possess niether quality
Much like your admitted laziness on one topic, you didn't bother to learn of the other before mindlessly reciting the stale Leftist idiocy regarding Coulter outing yet another wad of Liberal lies regarding Limbaugh, who outed yet another Liberal who was shilling for socialized medicine.
Given that your politics are such a lazy and merciless joke against humanity, it is particularly obnoxious of you to claim you can reasonably measure "taste".
there are certain people in this conversation who like placing labels onto other people, and then saying "that is why we can't have a discussion".......how about the label "american"
i hope someone cuts open ann coulters stomach and takes out her heart and smashes it with a hammer, oh yeah she doesnt have a heart. so i hope they take out her other organs and smash them, the nslit her throat to kill her
I'm happy you Americans don't do stem-cell research, because now all the US government billions are used here in Europe. Even the US army have stem cell research programs running here. So thank you all Americans.
In fact, America invented Stem Cell research (Joseph Altman) and are the world's leaders in it.
The Stem Cell Hoax perpetrated by the Democrat party is a purposeful confusion between stem cell research, and the taxpayer funding of human embryo harvesting as the SOURCE of the stem cells.
Article: "The Unconscionable Claims of Michael J. Fox"
So.....the American tax money still go the research here in Europe. The NIH funds several projects here in Sweden. Your loss, our gain. And here we don't have any religiously motivated laws against it.
So, ones again, thank you for the American tax dollars.
By the way, why did Bush let US money be used outside America under the same circumstances he forbade in the US? Is that not double standards?
America is where the next "hitler" will come from......1% of our entire population is in jails and prisons....and the people are willing pawns, it makes me sick, my response is that I'll never vote again, and that is a decision I stand behind every time there is an election and the problems we've been dealing with are actually .....you know what, this is a waste of time since it seems that the majority of america is willing to be a stat # to make somebody $, and don't care about originality
Examining your political prophesy, the "next hitler" was Stalin, and then Mao. Each of those socialists improved on Hitler's brand to kill over ten times the number of their own innocent civilians. Then "next hitler" after those socialists was the Green wing of socialism that used the scientific hoax of "Silent Spring" to prevent African nations from using DDT, which killed tens of millions there. The "next hitler" was the abortion crowd, torturing over 50 million US babies to death.
OK...MJF wants stem cell research to be funded. Most democrats did too. So because they were in agreement with something they made a commercial together. So what? Celebrities are on both sides of the fence as far as political parties and fight for their respective views. What's wrong with that? Some do commercials. Some do talk shows. Some do fund raisers. No matter they it's a game played by both sides. So, really, what's the crime here?
You recite several specious claims. The most blatant is stem cell research. What Democrats want, and what Obama federally enforced by a White House decree, is taxpayer funding of human embryo harvesting as the SOURCE for stem cells.
Stem cells are available from a growing variety of sources, and most of civilized man, including many in the scientific research community, has ethical problems with, and has enacted laws and policies against, the harvesting of human embryos as the source.
Now you're reaching. No one has enacted any law for the harvesting of human embroyos for stem cell research. You're now starting to go down the propaganda path and you're dead wrong. If you were right, the right wing would SLAM Obama for doing so and you know this.
Obama supports the use of human embryonic stem cells that are left over from in vitro fertilization attempts. These stem cells would otherwise be destroyed, so why not use them for research?
That is the way that MJ Fox will EVENTUALLY end up EVEN if he takes medication. You do realise what a degenerative illness is, right?
He will eventually get to that state EVEN if he is medicated. So, why the hell shouldn't he show it to you? Because you don't want to see it? Because you want to pretend that he's always going to be absolutely fine when he's on medication since that helps your argument?
If you give a rats ass about curing diseases, then you should join Coulter and Limbaugh in helping humanity limit the amount of money that greedy bureaucrats suck from medical research companies to fund their happy-sounding programs, whereof the politicians get to reward their donors and take more control over medical industries.
Medical research companies know best what and how to research; not government functionaries. Sending out a sympathetic figure to shill for them is despicable.
I bet you can't give any good examples of "greedy bureaucrats" sucking money from "medical research companies to fund their happy-sounding programs, whereof the politicians get to reward their donors and take more control over medical industries."
Your immaculate ignorance isn't evidence of anyone else's bullshit. As for your racism and crotch-talk, I'm not a Democrat, so it too fails to impress.
"purposefully skipped his medication so as to exacerbate the visible effects of his disease" <---- THIS IS NOT ACTING. Why can't you get that through your thick skull?
Acting would've been if he was relatively fine on the drugs, and, while he was on drugs, he starting jerking his body around to look worse than he actually was.
That wasn't what happened. He couldn't control his body, he wasn't acting.
Reciting your lie after this video debunked it, and after I explained it to you again, repeatedlly, doesn't make your lie any less a lie.
"
As explained to you in this video, Michael J. Fox admitted in his AUTOBIOGRAPHY that which Rush surmised; that which Coulter explains AGAIN, and upon which she elaborates and points to in her discussion of the Democrat's Human Shield ploy.
MJ Fox ADMITTED that he purposefully skipped his medication so as to exacerbate the visible effects of his disease over the interval of time the camera would be recording his interview.
FIVE posts now, and you're still denying reality.
FIVE POSTS.
FIVE.
5.
Evidently, Liberalism is an inoculation from reality.
"purposefully skipped his medication so as to exacerbate the visible effects of his disease"
Even though I've watched videos and read articles where MJ Fox has stated that he WAS on medication, I'm ENTERTAINING your suggestion that he wasn't on medication.
So, what? That IS NOT acting.
I'm not denying reality - you're obtusing using words to assign negative connotations to his actions.
The more you discuss the topic the more violently you reject reality.
As explained to you in this video, Michael J. Fox admitted in his AUTOBIOGRAPHY that which Rush surmised; that which Coulter explains AGAIN, and upon which she elaborates and points to in her discussion of the Democrat's Human Shield ploy.
Your recitation of the word "acting" as ga-zillion times doesn't undo reality. It's not a magical word. Do attempt to grasp a point instead of reciting a mantra.
Is this woman serious? Use rationality and reason to win an argument, don't resort to emotional blackmail (which MJ Fox didn't even do).
Is showing people pictures of aborted foetuses using emotional blackmail? Is postulating absurd creations by mad-men scientists not using a sort of emotional blackmail?
People like this idiot Coulter make me frustrated with the concept of freedmon of conscience.
He admitted to not using his medication NOT to "acting" like someone with advanced Parkinsons. The guy's comments, which Coulter was referring to, were out of line.
He admitted to it but didn't admit to it -- have you ANYTHING but gibberish to offer?
Your fist post suggested your baseless complaint was founded on a mix of ignorance and a mindless recitation of whatever deceptions were planted on your servile mind.
Your second post reveals the stubbornness with which your kind will cling to such dogma, even after it's been debunked.
Where did I admit that he admitted to it? You do realise that just because someone doesn't take medication doesn't mean that when their symptoms occur that it constitutes acting?
He didn't take his medication, and people saw the TRUE symptoms of Parkinsons unmedicated.
You're not even interested in debating substantively. You've tried (and failed) twice to discredit me by suggesting ridiculous things e.g. by claiming I agreed that he said he was acting
If you consider a person who has Parkinsons but doesn't take his medication, and who then shows you his unmedicated state, an actor, then you should be ashamed of yourself.
If you don't consider MJ Fox's admission to be an admission then you can't possibly grasp the concepts such as shame.
FOUR posts now trying to wiggle your way through some minutiae as if it can undo Coulter's point. We both know you have the residual brain power to grasp the point.
You are just an angry knee-jerk reactionary looking for a fight. What makes you think I am a socialist? Maybe you just enjoy judging people before you get the facts. Why do you consider me the opposition? What do you oppose about me?
You avoid the topic by smear socialist Nazi stink on your opposition, like a socialist.
You try distancing yourself from your political bent, like a socialist.
You can't even respond to my rebuttal of YOUR topic, like a socialist.
You have no ability to address any relevant point, like a socialist, while demonstrating boundless energy to complain about the manner in which others notice, like socialist.
What rebuttal? I read some rambling diatribe about your hatred for people who don't agree with you. I honestly could not make anything out of it. I can't argue with a crazy person. Take your Zanax and get a hooker. You need it.
You came here to whine of censorship. I pointed to the fact that you scum have an effective gag order against your opposition; controlling 99% of all media. I even cited a reference to educate you on the matter.
Posing as an imbecile isn't much of an answer, and it certainly doesn't make our previous posts invisible to the reader.
As much as you would like me to block you now to humor your fantasies and end your public humiliation, do attempt a cogent rebuttal.
You think calling you out on the censorship that you (and I) so oppose is whining? Well then I hope the whining continues. Posing as an imbecile? Why would I want any of my posts invisible? You make a lot of assumptions about people. The more anger you spit out the easier it is for your detractors to dismiss you as some kind of a delusional and paranoid nut. Is it you that wants to be dismissed? At least try the Zanax. Your buddy Rush would back me up on that one.
Now that you finally acknowledge my original rebuttal -- congrat's, it only took you 3 posts -- you now attempt to pretend you don't grasp its implications.
Clearly, your kind does NOT oppose censorship. Quite the opposite.
As for you personally, you have contributed ZERO videos so your claim, even in that context, is hollow at best. As for the rest of your flurry of questions, your bouts of stupor far exceed my interest in spoon feeding you.
Liberals tolerate anyone who marches in lock-step agreement with their political dogma, and they have infinite compassion for whatever side will maximally exterminate innocent life, on any given issue.
Liberal fascists are much like their new Muslim buddies, only more timid and less honest.
If you want to watch a liberal's mind slam shut on the spot and hear the most rotten garbage imaginable come out of their mouths, all you have to do is disagree with them on ANYTHING. Then they turn around and brag about how open-minded and tolerant they think they are. It is the most bizarre thing. How is it even possible for people to miss their own extreme hypocrisy like that?
It's not accidental. Books are written on the topic.
The first thing America's socialists did after defeating McCarthy was to solidify their absolute control over all forms of mass communication and education. Basically, they inoculate their subjects from reality.
99% Democrat media. Even the so-called conservative Fox News is 80% Democrat, by political donations. Think about that.
"Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor DEMs 100-1"
Note how the Democrat dolt tries to paste McLiberal's loss on Conservatives, to imply -- using sarcasm -- that Republicans should follow the loser and reject the Conservatives.
Michael J Fox in that campaign ad was actually exhibiting what is known as Dyskinesia, a state where the patient will make certain involuntary movements as a response to years of taking LevDopa. I dont give a shit about the politics of it, but Rush and Coulters statements just show that they dont know anything about Neurology.
Thanks to Democrats, EVERYTHING is about politics -- even medicine.
What Rush's statement showed is that he read MJ's book. And, as Coulter explained, MJ Fox ADMITTED doing precisely what they discussed AND for the reasons they stated.
It really doesn't matter how many times the facts are explained to Democrats, their politics prohibit them from learning ... ANYTHING.
TylerNull - watch Michael J Fox's interview with Katie Couric and pay attention to what he says on the subject of debate at the end of the video. Compare his tone with Coulter's and tell me what you think.
Yes, the tone of a Liberal interviewing a Liberal to willfully deceive America into sucking more money OUT of medical research companies to feed government agents who pay back their donors with government "research" grants is much, much nicer than that of Ms. Deutch, who poses a question and then steps on every other word out of Ann Coutler's mouth.
I asked you to do something which you then took the time to do. I had no point, other than to find out how you would compare the two styles. You've concentrated on attacking liberals, much like coulter concentrated on attacking the Dems, telling them not to let those afflicted with a problem to ask for help. Didn't you think that the point Fox made about respecting other people's honestly, thoughtfully arrived at conclusions on the subject of stem-cell research was a good one?
That's mine. Specifically, that you avoid substance by focusing on style, just as you now avoid the political point of my post, which is also related to Coulter's, only to label it an "attack".
Given the reliability of such tactics, I conclude that Liberals are keenly aware of just how indefensible their politics are.
No, there's nothing respectful, even of yourselves, in that regard.
You've lost me entirely. I'm a conservative who is tired of the way politics is conducted. I didn't see any politics in what you said as your post concentrates on funding, not stem-cell research period.
Almost all politicians enter public office intent on benefiting their community and their country - not on making money. I have faith in that. You don't seem to.
Am I wrong? Weren't you attacking liberals? 'Liberal interviewing a Liberal to willfully deceive America' etc.
Instead of feigning bouts of stupor, posing as a member of those to whom you're directing your admittedly pointless complaints, and otherwise debasing yourself, consider doing something more productive, like rethinking your politics whereof government agents are above the greed of the lowly earners from whom they suck.
"Am I wrong" -- obviously, and entirely lost as well, though not in the manner you claimed.
You have failed to address anything I have said and have assumed I am what you consider 'a liberal'. You have replied only in paranoid invective. It's OK, Tyler, I'm not attacking anybody. I'm not a threat to you, or to your America. I just want a heightened discourse. You see I work at diplomatic functions and I'm always charmed by the civility of the Americans we entertain. Why is it that the public discourse is so different from the private?
Again, your fits of stupor fail to mask the political bent from which you attemptted to distance yourself, even as you belittle the very act of noticing it. Oddly, you simultaneously term my political observations "assumptions", not bothering to notice your contradicting claims expose your own fake stupor in the process.
Yours is neither diplomatic, nor "heightened", and doesn't rise to the level of "discourse".
You haven't made any points. You've just made scathing remarks based on no data. I'm not a diplomat, I'm not a liberal (certainly not an American liberal) - I am, however, a graduate in Philosophy and well-read enough to know what qualifies as discourse and what as mudslinging.
I can do both, but I just don't get it. Is having intellectual curiosity enough to ask reasonable questions a known 'liberal' activity? If so, what do Conservatives do? (here they play cricket and discuss novels).
That statement is nonsensical; however, releasing violent felons to victimize more people IS substantive. It's also depraved.
Virtually ALL "criminals = democrats" -- all skin tones, as documented by bestselling author J. Lott in "Freedomnomics". And stop trying to smear your racist Democrat stink on others.
"swift-boated" -- 264 US combat veterans vs. 1 famously treasonous politician. Guess which side Democrats take. (A real nail-biter, aye?)
Have your parents sue the teachers' labor union that defrauded them. (It's their civic duty.) Present the court filing to me, and I will reward you with instruction on proper nouns and their usage.
Why do people even bother watching the news anymore? Doesn't it pain you people to have everything reduced to a "take your side and stick with it" shouting match?
As a moderate I lean more to the right than the left, however I find this logic faulty since Rush (or any other Rep for that matter) didn't seem to have a problem when Michael J. Fox did a similar ad for Republican candidate Arlen Spector in the 2004 Senate campaign.
The faulty logic is to equivocate campaigining for a candidate and campaigning for a gov't cure to your disease.
The point here is the human shield ploy. Using sympathetic figures to shield your politics from inspection, e.g., MJ Fox to advocate for more government research money, CIndy Sheehan & Jersey Girls on surrender in Iraq.
There is no symmetry there.. You can't name any of the THOUSANDS of widows and orphans of 911 who are diametrically opposed to the 4 Jersey Girls.
All you Dems and Republicans...bashing each other....its funny. Till some Independent candidate comes in and makes you all look like fools. Ventura 2012!
Democrats INVENTED the bloodsport of attacking innocent homosexuals for political gain. They engage in the activity so often, and with such pride and gaiety that they even gave it a name -- "OUTing".
As for killing Jews, Democrats & Hamas are Life Partners. Hamas even ran a Gaza telethon for Obama bin Liberal.
Democrats are always trying to smear their toxic stench on those who notice.
you know there are honorable and trustworhty conservatives, and then there are you people. people who want to infuse the bible with politics and ostrisize any non-christains. Face it. I would be honestly shocked if you said you were anything but a white guYand a christain. AND LOOK AT THE RNC!!!! ALL WHITE, ALL OLD AND ALL STUCK IN THE FUCKING RUTT
i can't believe she graduated from law school, every argument she has ever used is either based on incorrect information, leading, or plain old false logic.
Always remember that Rush Limbaugh openly rooted for Riots and for Denver to burn down during the Dem Convention. He didn't care about the citizens of Denver, or about what Riots would do to hard working business owners in that area. He was rooting for innoccent people to get caught in the cross fire. Rush doesn't care about you or your family, and he certainly doesn't Love America. Nobody who loves their country, would root for Riots, no matter what city it took place in!!
What did Zarqawi have to do with 911? He didnt have a problem with us before we invaded Iraq. Bush should have spent the time and money getting to the bottom of 911, not ignoring and manufacturing facts. the diference between him and you is he and 'his' profited from Iraq, while you and the rest of us get stuck with the bill. Are you so desperate to follow that you would make shit up to defend the ones who betrayed you and knock down those tring to make us great again.
Did you ever stop and think that the people who want you to believe that there is a crusade against all mankind are the same people who profit from fear. It is called devide and conquer.
No such thing as a conservative Democrat. Go get him Ann!!!!
joanneWashingtonCros 1 month ago
Get em Ann..
SanEverett 9 months ago
Maybe Liberals can list the rules in PDF, that apply to Republicans and don't apply to them. It seems like they're morality is on a sliding scale!
kanukster 11 months ago
@ TylerNull; There's a difference between wanting "limited government" and wanting "limited government where I like".
When it comes down to it, both political party only want to reduce government in areas they personally don't like; similarly both parties want to expand government in different areas.
As far as I can tell, there's only 1 person who genuinely wants to limit government, namely Ron Paul- I'm not a Ron Paul fan boy, I just acknowledge the rest merely wants selective limitations.
TheUnknownFactor 1 year ago
Politicians/parties suck, but let's not get mushy about the concept of limited government.
The US Constitution enumerates 17 activities for which the fed's are granted authority to tax and spend. They're all about waging war and establishing and borrowing money to wage war. That's what the Conservative movement seeks. Ironically, that's what Paul most complains about, though he claims to be both a constitutionalist and a conservative. Liberals are socialist who seek limitless gov't authority.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull
And frankly I don't think those limitations should be upheld (and I really don't see why people are so persistent when it comes to wanting to follow guidelines written for an entirely different world).
On topic; I don't see why MJ Fox shouldn't attend things like this, the truth is that celebrities function as role models- I don't see why role models shouldn't use this role when it comes to topics that actually matter.
TheUnknownFactor 1 year ago
@TheUnkn
Same world, same species, same human nature. So, the same form of government works best. And ours includes a specific method for amending the rules.
What you now reveal, unlike your first post, is the desire to govern by momentary whim; limitless authority. That is totalitarianism.
One of the methods used by Liberals to tax and spend beyond the scope of their authorities is to make emotional appeals for lawless spending, which is the topic here about MJ Fox; the human shield ploy.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull
I'm not at all in favor of limitless government; I am (mostly) in favor of democracy. In a functional democracy "the people" prevents governments from doing whatever they wish. Unfortunately America has a poorly functioning democracy by only having 2 actual political parties.
I said "mostly" in favor of democracy; because I do have some doubts. My doubts in democracy stem from acknowledgement of how many people are incapable of thinking for themselves (Not referring to yourself).
TheUnknownFactor 1 year ago
@TheUnknownFactor
If you follow your premise to its logical conclusion, you'll reach that of all the world's most genocidal governments.
People forget, or are never taught in their socialist-run schools, that "holocaust" was NOT a bad word originally. It was thought that specific classes must to be killed to socially engineer a Utopian state -- the "birth of the new man" -- a new evolutionary form of man who will think, look & act ... smarter, i.e., one who agrees with their politics.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull
I know all of this about the holocaust. Mind you, most people were not aware of how the jews were being done away with, merely that they were. Most of them chose not to think about it beyond that.
As for your argument, If I'm following you correctly you're saying that government will lose ethical values when not tied by something like the constitution. But what is it that holds coorporations to ethics?
Government can be chosen democratically, corporations are not like that.
TheUnknownFactor 1 year ago
@
Bernie Madoff is in prison. Barny Frank isn't.
Lehman no longer exists. Fannie Mae still exists.
As for holocausts, those of the Soviet socialists were ten times more murderous than those of the German socialists, according to the "Black Book of Communism". The post-war treaty simply absolved the Soviets of theirs.
It's creepy how modern Europe is so politically aligned with, and defensive of, the vastly more murderous left-wing socialism whilst feigning outrage over right-wing socialism.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TheUnknownFactor
corporations can be chosen democratically.
it is simple, dont buy from corps you dont like
ObamaIsAMarxistTowel 1 year ago
Cells harvested from Post IVF or other methods, by any Libertarian/Republican/Conservative standpoint its not the role of Government to prevent such research; as funding is arbitrary, the real question is why anyone who would want to reduce the role of Government would expect the same Government to impose sanctions on scientific research? Based on subjective notions of "morality" no less? If Government is so ineffectual, why imbue it with morals?
The Republican Paradox.
gogomigub 1 year ago
@gogomigub
If you don't want to "prevent research", then stop shilling for political hustlers who take research capital from medical researchers and shovel it into politically sponsored "research".
(And there's nothing "arbitrary" about that.)
Imbue? Reducing the role of government has nothing to do with stripping morality out of laws. Upon what did you think laws are based?
Your muddled confusion of notions isn't anyone else's . . . "paradox", or anything else for that matter.
TylerNull 1 year ago
Do you mean shilling for "political hustlers" and media whores such as David Prentice? Or perhaps we should weigh politically sponsored research versus politically motivated obstuction of said research? The notion that public funding of one form or research damages or takes from other research is facile: if the market demands it/sees potential, the private sector would fill in any imbalances. Paradox: promoting active, govt'l obstruction of research, while calling for limited govt.
gogomigub 1 year ago
@gogomigub
"The notion that ... takes from other research is facile"
Contrary to your socialist dogma, government revenues come from us. There's nothing "facile" about that cold hard fact, except that there's noting difficult about understanding it.
"gov't obstruction of research" -- I already exposed your socialist lie. Repeating your lie a second time makes it no less a lie. And there is no "paradox" between limiting gov't and limiting lawless gov't spending.
TylerNull 1 year ago
Comment removed
JFranzicles 1 year ago
"I think its funny" how so many L-word-ers who respond to this video are unable to address ANY point.
Particularly hilarious are those (e.g., JFranzicles) who, while avoiding the point, also reveal their inability to grasp ANY concept underpinning our liberties, AND reveal their desire to silence dissent. So severe are their demonstrated political perversions in fact, they PERFECTLY interchange gov't authority with individual liberty, going so far as to refer to the LATTER as "persecution".
TylerNull 1 year ago
Rush is a nigger!
Vetwolf13 1 year ago
Settle the fu*k down Deutche. You can say it calmly and without all your obvious liberal defensiveness.
Either your clueless to what you are because you live in a ridiculous bubble called New York Media, or you are an idiot. Pump the brakes you hack.
jujamb89 1 year ago
What did deregulations from Reagan or Bush jr, do for the consumer? Nothing...it did not effect any aspect of a product....who did it help? Bank could buy a stock exchange business and send their crapy "bundled to a ready buyer" themself...
Why did the Republican work so hard to make the rich, richer? That is the sole purpose of tax breaks and deregulations....but when they need help, they sure turn into Socialist!...
joraejean 1 year ago
@jora
"What did deregulations ... do for the consumer?"
Fannie Mayhem isn't "deregulation", & Dem's FEROCIOUSLY protected it and STILL grow it. But consider industries where there HAS been dereg., e.g.,
telecom's - phone rates were dollars per min., and phones weighed more than toasters and were about as big.
And compare any of those less regulated to Fannie Mayhem and such. Also, 18M jobs were created under Reagan. 7M created under GWB. (Obama's killed 7M already; almost 2M most recently.)
TylerNull 1 year ago
The demonization of Socialism....is Capitalism with half the population making min. wage. Who gained financially by stating Soialism is bad...only the cats on wall street. Who would skin their own mothers if it made a profit.
How do be break the cycle of ME? Citizen who think they deserve a greater share of the benefits of America by denying other.
joraejean 1 year ago
@joraejean
Your socialist agitprop dates back to the Cold War. Update it, at least.
Wall Street? Here' s just a few news headlines on the matter . . .
"Obama Top Fundraiser on Wall Street"
"Battered Wall St tops Obama inaugural donors: study"
"Wall Street Is Big Donor to Inauguration"
"Clinton, Obama are Wall Street darlings"
"Contributions to Obama Campaign Track Bailout Money"
Socialists keep PUNKing America. Your kind are only generous with other people's money.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull Nice job with the Hannity point. Why not start speaking for yourself or start paying Hannity is royalties. It's funny how conservatives don't want to pay for services yet when trouble comes they are the first to hold out their hands.
soulhunter59 1 year ago
@soulhunter59
"the Hannity point" -- the first article is from the Washington Post. Though I don't recall the source of the others, it's clear you're going to have to spew derision at a MUCH wider array of news sources to defend your secular messiah.
"conservatives . . . they are the first to hold out their hands" -- example please ?
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull "Your kind is are only generous with other people's money." Does not matter that most of "our kind" pay just as much if not more than "your kind." I know many conservatives that ended up getting fafsa for college then when they finished they cried when they had to pay the tax for it. Or they are also the ones that file for Medicare when they are 65 as well. You wan't the services you pay the bill.
soulhunter59 1 year ago
@soulhunter59
You certainly scattered your baseless claims across enough topics -- well done. Pointing to victims of a federal Ponzi scheme was a nice touch too.
"
Bleeding Heart Tightwads
... households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
"
-- The New York Times
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull That just means that conservatives are 30 percent more likely to register their charity than households headed by liberals. But let use your logic of this matter. You are saying that when scouts do their eagle project they are more generous with other peoples time than their oun.
soulhunter59 1 year ago
@soulhunter59
It's never a question of "if" Liberals will reject reality, but of "how".
Thankfully, they help us chronicle that too.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull Means conservatives like their tax write offs. I have donated my time as well as money to charity. I have been a little broke so it's mostly my time. I have signed to help with this oil spill and no I probable wont add it as a tax write off and no one will do a study on me. Now tell me if you think that a scout doing his eagle projects is more generous with other peoples time than his oun.
soulhunter59 1 year ago
@soulhunter59
If tax "write offs" are evidence of greed, then paying what one owes in taxes is greedy. That's a bizarre measure, but even if we use it, your claim remains baseless because you offer not a shred of evidence to suggest Liberals use tax "write offs" any less often.
Your personal life doesn't change the published reports that Liberals are extremely greedy people relative to Conservatives.
But keep proselytizing your mythology and dismissing reality.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull Ok I'll give in to your logic. In this study by how much more time does a conservative give than a liberal.
soulhunter59 1 year ago
@soulhunter59
"...more time ..."
When a person donates THEIR OWN MONEY, from whence do you think it came? Conservatives actually spend their time WORKING for a living.
It's not just a general ignorance powering socialist mythology, but a bizarre sort of mysticism regarding fundamental concepts too.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull So what your saying is that someone who gives $1 to a church gives more than a person who helps clean it? There is a lot more ways to donate to charity. But what you are saying is when I started and lead a charity drive for the battered women's shelter yet didn't give any cloths myself that I was more generous with other peoples money than my own?
soulhunter59 1 year ago
@soulhunter59
All you did was compare one person who donated many hours to another who donated $1.00, while again squeezing in the wonderfulness of yourself.
You are welcome to try a time-donation metric, but work on your arithmetic, reasoning & narcissism.
E.g., determine the equivalent net-take-home hourly wages over a set of charitable time-donation activities, per skill required, multiply by the hours so donated, and use THAT to COMPARE time-donations by Liberals & Conservatives.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull So a child going to a nursing home to keep the elderly company is not worth as much as a skilled adult? Wow thats some messed up way of thinking. I never did any of those things because of miss diagnosed case of narcissism. I did all those things because it feels good doing things for others. It's selflessness not narcissism.
But you never answered this question because I know it scares you and it proves my point.
Do you think an eagle scout is more generous with other peoples time?
soulhunter59 1 year ago
@soulhunter59
Talk about "messed up thinking", you have yet to offer ANY hint of ANY evidence that ANY time-donation measure would show Liberals to be ANY less greedy than was revealed by the published report that you tried to dismiss.
So, use ANY measure you like; however, you need to actually APPLY it.
Instead, you keep posting anecdotes of your claimed personal life to convince the reader how marvelous you are, which only "proves" that you're creepily self-absorbed.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull Again your avoiding the question. You you still believe that "liberals are more generous with other peoples money?" Which you are saying that taking the time to rally people together to contribute to the rest of the community is being generous with other peoples money. And for that matter how much is the presidents time worth?
soulhunter59 1 year ago
@soulhunter59
"you still believe"
Again, your inability to distinguish between belief & objective fact continues to impress. I referenced a PUBLISHED REPORT OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS -- "Bleeding Heart Tightwads".
You have yet to offer ANY COMPARISON with your time-donation measure. You offer NOTHING to suggest that Liberals donate more time "to the rest of the community" than do Conservatives. NOTHING.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull And again you fail to answer my question. Answer it or don't bother posting.
soulhunter59 1 year ago
@soulhunt
Now we can add "shameless" to your narcissism.
Hunting down the bizarre irrelevancy you keep referencing, "Do you think an eagle scout is more generous with other peoples time?"
The only thing I know of "eagle scouts", as in the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), is that merciless, narcissistic Liberals have been on a Jihad against the BSA ever since they altered their policy to protect themselves from homosexual rapist troop leaders, i.e., Jonathan Ralton, former Eagle Scout.
Happy now?
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull When doing an eagle project you are not allowed to do it yourself. In fact your not suppose to do any of the labor. So let's say you decide you want to repaint the park benches at your local park. You are not allowed to do any of the actual painting. You must get your fellow troop members to do it for you.
soulhunter59 1 year ago
@soulhunter59
. . . and therefore . . . WHAT?
Pointing to an exercise for adolescents that is obviously designed to build leadership skills fails to address the big fat hole in your implied claim regarding Liberal charity.
Contrarily, we have EVIDENCE of the exact opposite:
"Bleeding Heart Tightwads".
"... when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates. ... conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals."
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull No it proves my point that taking a stand and asking people to donate their time and money is an act of leadership which punches a hole in your claims.
But hay I think Glen Beck has it right when he says we need another George Washington as a president. We need someone to stand up to the whiskey parties oh I mean tea parties and say shut up pay your taxes or your going to jail. We are going to pay off this dept and be done with it. No more free conservative rides.
soulhunter59 1 year ago
@soulhunter59
Leadership isn't charity. Nor are homo's who infiltrate the "eagle scouts" to rape boys.
Further, your notions remain DEVOID of ANY comparative charity measure. Though my reference to where Liberals side WITH the rapists', and against the Scouts, is insightful.
You have a great capacity to jumble & topic-hop. Enter your newest attempt to invert reality; "free conservative rides". Does the detailed absence of cogency from your prior notions not give you ANY reason to pause?
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull I haven't gone far enough back in the comments to find out where exactly the "homo" and "boyscout" issue entered the conversation. However, as someone who lives with Parkinsons I can safely say that people like Ann Coulter who defend the mocking of an extremely sick man is deplorable. However, if I were capable, I would fight and/or die to defend her right to do so. The issue many times is "taste" not politics, and in my opinion, people like Rush and Ann possess niether quality
klingchad 1 year ago
@klingchad
"...defended the mocking..."
Much like your admitted laziness on one topic, you didn't bother to learn of the other before mindlessly reciting the stale Leftist idiocy regarding Coulter outing yet another wad of Liberal lies regarding Limbaugh, who outed yet another Liberal who was shilling for socialized medicine.
Given that your politics are such a lazy and merciless joke against humanity, it is particularly obnoxious of you to claim you can reasonably measure "taste".
TylerNull 1 year ago
there are certain people in this conversation who like placing labels onto other people, and then saying "that is why we can't have a discussion".......how about the label "american"
sr038 1 year ago
i hope someone cuts open ann coulters stomach and takes out her heart and smashes it with a hammer, oh yeah she doesnt have a heart. so i hope they take out her other organs and smash them, the nslit her throat to kill her
masterkemp 2 years ago
i hope she gets pussy cancer
judas380 2 years ago
What is pussy cancer, you stupid reject?
Grow a brain, I hope you get dick cancer.
ItsChillyBrrr 2 years ago
I'm happy you Americans don't do stem-cell research, because now all the US government billions are used here in Europe. Even the US army have stem cell research programs running here. So thank you all Americans.
ostbagen 2 years ago
In fact, America invented Stem Cell research (Joseph Altman) and are the world's leaders in it.
The Stem Cell Hoax perpetrated by the Democrat party is a purposeful confusion between stem cell research, and the taxpayer funding of human embryo harvesting as the SOURCE of the stem cells.
Article: "The Unconscionable Claims of Michael J. Fox"
TylerNull 2 years ago
So.....the American tax money still go the research here in Europe. The NIH funds several projects here in Sweden. Your loss, our gain. And here we don't have any religiously motivated laws against it.
So, ones again, thank you for the American tax dollars.
By the way, why did Bush let US money be used outside America under the same circumstances he forbade in the US? Is that not double standards?
ostbagen 2 years ago
You would be surprised at how many STILL reject your Nazi ethics of human harvesting. Calling it your "gain" doesn't make it any less a loss.
By the way, how are you socialist Swedes enjoying your transition to Sharia Law?
TylerNull 2 years ago
You are rather ignorant about the world outside USA, right?
Well you are welcome over to see the devils work being dun.
You know most people here belive in evulotion to.
ostbagen 2 years ago
No. And I have.
Your Nazi ethics are as impressive as your adoption of Sharia Law, and your criminalization of anyone who dares to notice.
None of which has anything to do with anyone else's ignorance, and everything to do with your atheist-socialist political theology.
Socialists, Muslims -- 2 Fascisms, 1 Goal.
TylerNull 2 years ago
America is where the next "hitler" will come from......1% of our entire population is in jails and prisons....and the people are willing pawns, it makes me sick, my response is that I'll never vote again, and that is a decision I stand behind every time there is an election and the problems we've been dealing with are actually .....you know what, this is a waste of time since it seems that the majority of america is willing to be a stat # to make somebody $, and don't care about originality
sr038 1 year ago
Examining your political prophesy, the "next hitler" was Stalin, and then Mao. Each of those socialists improved on Hitler's brand to kill over ten times the number of their own innocent civilians. Then "next hitler" after those socialists was the Green wing of socialism that used the scientific hoax of "Silent Spring" to prevent African nations from using DDT, which killed tens of millions there. The "next hitler" was the abortion crowd, torturing over 50 million US babies to death.
TylerNull 1 year ago
Atta baby ann :]
U owned on this one.
GirlHeartsGuitar 2 years ago
OK...MJF wants stem cell research to be funded. Most democrats did too. So because they were in agreement with something they made a commercial together. So what? Celebrities are on both sides of the fence as far as political parties and fight for their respective views. What's wrong with that? Some do commercials. Some do talk shows. Some do fund raisers. No matter they it's a game played by both sides. So, really, what's the crime here?
ceeillz 2 years ago
You recite several specious claims. The most blatant is stem cell research. What Democrats want, and what Obama federally enforced by a White House decree, is taxpayer funding of human embryo harvesting as the SOURCE for stem cells.
Stem cells are available from a growing variety of sources, and most of civilized man, including many in the scientific research community, has ethical problems with, and has enacted laws and policies against, the harvesting of human embryos as the source.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Now you're reaching. No one has enacted any law for the harvesting of human embroyos for stem cell research. You're now starting to go down the propaganda path and you're dead wrong. If you were right, the right wing would SLAM Obama for doing so and you know this.
ceeillz 2 years ago
"...would SLAM Obama for doing so..." -- you mean like these online articles ...
"Obama: destroying human life for the 'greater good'"
"Embryo-killing order latest in assault on life"
"States Consider Harder Line on Stem Cell Research"
?
TylerNull 2 years ago
Obama supports the use of human embryonic stem cells that are left over from in vitro fertilization attempts. These stem cells would otherwise be destroyed, so why not use them for research?
ziziva 2 years ago
Ask the medical research companies that question. There was no regulation prohibiting it.
What Obama did was only to force taxpayers to FUND that dead end, Nazi era path.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Ann Coulter hits another one out of the ballpark !
TheGayConservative 2 years ago
I want to marry Ann Coulter. Think she could marry a 23 year old?
celFuror 2 years ago
You'll have some competition... lol, I wouldn't mind marrying that woman either... Beauty AND brains...
WeAreSoScrewed 2 years ago
Do we agree that the abridged transcript, I have created, contains, more-or-less, the thrust of her argument?
sameel3 2 years ago
Do we AGREE that this is a good paraphrased transcript of their conversation?
Inter: He wasnt acting.
AC: In his autobiography, he says he doesnt take his medication to make his symptoms more obvious.
Inter: To show his symptoms
AC: fine. But dont get angry when someone says he didnt take his medication.
Inter: Yeah, but youre saying hes acting.
AC: ... but the point is, as I made with everyone else, if you have a point to make dont send out a beloved actor.
sameel3 2 years ago
Btw Tyler -
That is the way that MJ Fox will EVENTUALLY end up EVEN if he takes medication. You do realise what a degenerative illness is, right?
He will eventually get to that state EVEN if he is medicated. So, why the hell shouldn't he show it to you? Because you don't want to see it? Because you want to pretend that he's always going to be absolutely fine when he's on medication since that helps your argument?
sameel3 2 years ago
If you give a rats ass about curing diseases, then you should join Coulter and Limbaugh in helping humanity limit the amount of money that greedy bureaucrats suck from medical research companies to fund their happy-sounding programs, whereof the politicians get to reward their donors and take more control over medical industries.
Medical research companies know best what and how to research; not government functionaries. Sending out a sympathetic figure to shill for them is despicable.
TylerNull 2 years ago
I bet you can't give any good examples of "greedy bureaucrats" sucking money from "medical research companies to fund their happy-sounding programs, whereof the politicians get to reward their donors and take more control over medical industries."
ziziva 2 years ago
One of Obama's first executive orders was to force taxpayers to fund fetal harvesting for stem cells. (You lost the bet.)
Video: "Stem Cell" Hoax
See description section thereof for references.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Everything you say is bullshit, honky. Go fuck your mom like you normally do. And fuck this long nosed cracker bitch too.
brothamandap 2 years ago
Your immaculate ignorance isn't evidence of anyone else's bullshit. As for your racism and crotch-talk, I'm not a Democrat, so it too fails to impress.
Democrats & Racism -- Life Partners
TylerNull 2 years ago
"purposefully skipped his medication so as to exacerbate the visible effects of his disease" <---- THIS IS NOT ACTING. Why can't you get that through your thick skull?
Acting would've been if he was relatively fine on the drugs, and, while he was on drugs, he starting jerking his body around to look worse than he actually was.
That wasn't what happened. He couldn't control his body, he wasn't acting.
sameel3 2 years ago
Reciting your lie after this video debunked it, and after I explained it to you again, repeatedlly, doesn't make your lie any less a lie.
"
As explained to you in this video, Michael J. Fox admitted in his AUTOBIOGRAPHY that which Rush surmised; that which Coulter explains AGAIN, and upon which she elaborates and points to in her discussion of the Democrat's Human Shield ploy.
"
TylerNull 2 years ago
i really want to bash ann coulter's head in, but i can't deny her on this one. she made a solid point...
mattymacg09 2 years ago
Great, my point wasn't posted yesterday.
a) LEARN SYNTAX if you want to call someone else out for having 'residual brain power' (FAIL you).
b) If you watch videos with MJ Fox he DOESN'T ADMIT to taking no medication. In fact he says he was on medication at the time.
But this is besides the point:
... you think that a person who does not use medication to reveal their true symptoms is acting?
sameel3 2 years ago
FIVE posts now, and you're still denying reality.
MJ Fox ADMITTED that he purposefully skipped his medication so as to exacerbate the visible effects of his disease over the interval of time the camera would be recording his interview.
FIVE posts now, and you're still denying reality.
FIVE POSTS.
FIVE.
5.
Evidently, Liberalism is an inoculation from reality.
TylerNull 2 years ago
"purposefully skipped his medication so as to exacerbate the visible effects of his disease"
Even though I've watched videos and read articles where MJ Fox has stated that he WAS on medication, I'm ENTERTAINING your suggestion that he wasn't on medication.
So, what? That IS NOT acting.
I'm not denying reality - you're obtusing using words to assign negative connotations to his actions.
sameel3 2 years ago
The more you discuss the topic the more violently you reject reality.
As explained to you in this video, Michael J. Fox admitted in his AUTOBIOGRAPHY that which Rush surmised; that which Coulter explains AGAIN, and upon which she elaborates and points to in her discussion of the Democrat's Human Shield ploy.
Your recitation of the word "acting" as ga-zillion times doesn't undo reality. It's not a magical word. Do attempt to grasp a point instead of reciting a mantra.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Is this woman serious? Use rationality and reason to win an argument, don't resort to emotional blackmail (which MJ Fox didn't even do).
Is showing people pictures of aborted foetuses using emotional blackmail? Is postulating absurd creations by mad-men scientists not using a sort of emotional blackmail?
People like this idiot Coulter make me frustrated with the concept of freedmon of conscience.
sameel3 2 years ago
Are you serious? Use truthful statements to complain about the manner in which Coulter exposes the Democrat's Human Shield ploy.
Your term, "emotional blackmail", is nothing but the target's perspective of the Human Shield ploy. That which Coulter so eloquently discussed.
As for MJ Fox, he admitted to it, as explained again by Coulter in this video.
It really doesn't matter how many times Democrats are outed, they merely recite their stale mythology over and over and over yet again.
TylerNull 2 years ago
He admitted to not using his medication NOT to "acting" like someone with advanced Parkinsons. The guy's comments, which Coulter was referring to, were out of line.
sameel3 2 years ago
He admitted to it but didn't admit to it -- have you ANYTHING but gibberish to offer?
Your fist post suggested your baseless complaint was founded on a mix of ignorance and a mindless recitation of whatever deceptions were planted on your servile mind.
Your second post reveals the stubbornness with which your kind will cling to such dogma, even after it's been debunked.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Where did I admit that he admitted to it? You do realise that just because someone doesn't take medication doesn't mean that when their symptoms occur that it constitutes acting?
He didn't take his medication, and people saw the TRUE symptoms of Parkinsons unmedicated.
You're not even interested in debating substantively. You've tried (and failed) twice to discredit me by suggesting ridiculous things e.g. by claiming I agreed that he said he was acting
sameel3 2 years ago
If you consider a person who has Parkinsons but doesn't take his medication, and who then shows you his unmedicated state, an actor, then you should be ashamed of yourself.
sameel3 2 years ago
If you don't consider MJ Fox's admission to be an admission then you can't possibly grasp the concepts such as shame.
FOUR posts now trying to wiggle your way through some minutiae as if it can undo Coulter's point. We both know you have the residual brain power to grasp the point.
TylerNull 2 years ago
What Nazi fuck is deleting every post he or she doesn't agree with?
elguapostino 2 years ago
Why do you socialists keep trying to smear your Nazi stink on the opposition?
Democrats have an effective gag order on free speech and yet they're always squealing like stuck pigs as if they are the victim.
"Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor DEMs 100-1"
-- Investors Business Daily, 23 July 2008
TylerNull 2 years ago
You are just an angry knee-jerk reactionary looking for a fight. What makes you think I am a socialist? Maybe you just enjoy judging people before you get the facts. Why do you consider me the opposition? What do you oppose about me?
elguapostino 2 years ago
"What makes you think I am a socialist?"
You avoid the topic by smear socialist Nazi stink on your opposition, like a socialist.
You try distancing yourself from your political bent, like a socialist.
You can't even respond to my rebuttal of YOUR topic, like a socialist.
You have no ability to address any relevant point, like a socialist, while demonstrating boundless energy to complain about the manner in which others notice, like socialist.
That's what.
TylerNull 2 years ago
What rebuttal? I read some rambling diatribe about your hatred for people who don't agree with you. I honestly could not make anything out of it. I can't argue with a crazy person. Take your Zanax and get a hooker. You need it.
elguapostino 2 years ago
"What rebuttal?"
You came here to whine of censorship. I pointed to the fact that you scum have an effective gag order against your opposition; controlling 99% of all media. I even cited a reference to educate you on the matter.
Posing as an imbecile isn't much of an answer, and it certainly doesn't make our previous posts invisible to the reader.
As much as you would like me to block you now to humor your fantasies and end your public humiliation, do attempt a cogent rebuttal.
TylerNull 2 years ago
You think calling you out on the censorship that you (and I) so oppose is whining? Well then I hope the whining continues. Posing as an imbecile? Why would I want any of my posts invisible? You make a lot of assumptions about people. The more anger you spit out the easier it is for your detractors to dismiss you as some kind of a delusional and paranoid nut. Is it you that wants to be dismissed? At least try the Zanax. Your buddy Rush would back me up on that one.
elguapostino 2 years ago
Now that you finally acknowledge my original rebuttal -- congrat's, it only took you 3 posts -- you now attempt to pretend you don't grasp its implications.
Clearly, your kind does NOT oppose censorship. Quite the opposite.
As for you personally, you have contributed ZERO videos so your claim, even in that context, is hollow at best. As for the rest of your flurry of questions, your bouts of stupor far exceed my interest in spoon feeding you.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Someone in her family may get sick
Then she may change her tune, but probably not because her political view is her bread and butter.
GreenEnergy2112 2 years ago
Comment removed
universalflowster 2 years ago
i dont always agree with ann coulter but i respect that she never backs down and doesnt take shit from anyone
I also find her very sexy
wurlitzer78 2 years ago
i hope you and ann coulter die in a plane crash, your both fucking scum
Syphillest 2 years ago
umm...wow. That's certainly the best way to win an argument...
TiJayEve 2 years ago
Liberal compassion and tolerance?
thimoneus 2 years ago
Liberals tolerate anyone who marches in lock-step agreement with their political dogma, and they have infinite compassion for whatever side will maximally exterminate innocent life, on any given issue.
Liberal fascists are much like their new Muslim buddies, only more timid and less honest.
2 FASCISMS, 1 GOAL
TylerNull 2 years ago
If you want to watch a liberal's mind slam shut on the spot and hear the most rotten garbage imaginable come out of their mouths, all you have to do is disagree with them on ANYTHING. Then they turn around and brag about how open-minded and tolerant they think they are. It is the most bizarre thing. How is it even possible for people to miss their own extreme hypocrisy like that?
thimoneus 2 years ago
It's not accidental. Books are written on the topic.
The first thing America's socialists did after defeating McCarthy was to solidify their absolute control over all forms of mass communication and education. Basically, they inoculate their subjects from reality.
99% Democrat media. Even the so-called conservative Fox News is 80% Democrat, by political donations. Think about that.
"Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor DEMs 100-1"
-- Investors Business Daily, 23 July 2008
TylerNull 2 years ago
Republican hacks have killed the party.
Two crushing election defeats proves that. But, keep showcasing Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, and their minions!
They're the democrat's greatest allies!
3soccerstars 2 years ago
Note how the Democrat dolt tries to paste McLiberal's loss on Conservatives, to imply -- using sarcasm -- that Republicans should follow the loser and reject the Conservatives.
Democrats -- America's Toxic Farce
TylerNull 2 years ago
Michael J Fox in that campaign ad was actually exhibiting what is known as Dyskinesia, a state where the patient will make certain involuntary movements as a response to years of taking LevDopa. I dont give a shit about the politics of it, but Rush and Coulters statements just show that they dont know anything about Neurology.
saladin245 2 years ago
Thanks to Democrats, EVERYTHING is about politics -- even medicine.
What Rush's statement showed is that he read MJ's book. And, as Coulter explained, MJ Fox ADMITTED doing precisely what they discussed AND for the reasons they stated.
It really doesn't matter how many times the facts are explained to Democrats, their politics prohibit them from learning ... ANYTHING.
TylerNull 2 years ago
TylerNull - watch Michael J Fox's interview with Katie Couric and pay attention to what he says on the subject of debate at the end of the video. Compare his tone with Coulter's and tell me what you think.
MadDogOfist 2 years ago
Tone?
Yes, the tone of a Liberal interviewing a Liberal to willfully deceive America into sucking more money OUT of medical research companies to feed government agents who pay back their donors with government "research" grants is much, much nicer than that of Ms. Deutch, who poses a question and then steps on every other word out of Ann Coutler's mouth.
What's your point?
TylerNull 2 years ago
I asked you to do something which you then took the time to do. I had no point, other than to find out how you would compare the two styles. You've concentrated on attacking liberals, much like coulter concentrated on attacking the Dems, telling them not to let those afflicted with a problem to ask for help. Didn't you think that the point Fox made about respecting other people's honestly, thoughtfully arrived at conclusions on the subject of stem-cell research was a good one?
MadDogOfist 2 years ago
"I had no point"
That's mine. Specifically, that you avoid substance by focusing on style, just as you now avoid the political point of my post, which is also related to Coulter's, only to label it an "attack".
Given the reliability of such tactics, I conclude that Liberals are keenly aware of just how indefensible their politics are.
No, there's nothing respectful, even of yourselves, in that regard.
TylerNull 2 years ago
You've lost me entirely. I'm a conservative who is tired of the way politics is conducted. I didn't see any politics in what you said as your post concentrates on funding, not stem-cell research period.
Almost all politicians enter public office intent on benefiting their community and their country - not on making money. I have faith in that. You don't seem to.
Am I wrong? Weren't you attacking liberals? 'Liberal interviewing a Liberal to willfully deceive America' etc.
MadDogOfist 2 years ago
"You've lost me entirely." I'm a Liberal who ...
(See, I can do it too.)
Instead of feigning bouts of stupor, posing as a member of those to whom you're directing your admittedly pointless complaints, and otherwise debasing yourself, consider doing something more productive, like rethinking your politics whereof government agents are above the greed of the lowly earners from whom they suck.
"Am I wrong" -- obviously, and entirely lost as well, though not in the manner you claimed.
TylerNull 2 years ago
You have failed to address anything I have said and have assumed I am what you consider 'a liberal'. You have replied only in paranoid invective. It's OK, Tyler, I'm not attacking anybody. I'm not a threat to you, or to your America. I just want a heightened discourse. You see I work at diplomatic functions and I'm always charmed by the civility of the Americans we entertain. Why is it that the public discourse is so different from the private?
MadDogOfist 2 years ago
"You have failed to address anything I have said"
Again, your fits of stupor fail to mask the political bent from which you attemptted to distance yourself, even as you belittle the very act of noticing it. Oddly, you simultaneously term my political observations "assumptions", not bothering to notice your contradicting claims expose your own fake stupor in the process.
Yours is neither diplomatic, nor "heightened", and doesn't rise to the level of "discourse".
TylerNull 2 years ago
You haven't made any points. You've just made scathing remarks based on no data. I'm not a diplomat, I'm not a liberal (certainly not an American liberal) - I am, however, a graduate in Philosophy and well-read enough to know what qualifies as discourse and what as mudslinging.
I can do both, but I just don't get it. Is having intellectual curiosity enough to ask reasonable questions a known 'liberal' activity? If so, what do Conservatives do? (here they play cricket and discuss novels).
MadDogOfist 2 years ago
"You haven't made any points."
Your political ilk ...
1. avoids substance (the point) by complaining about style (tone).
2. calls the act of noticing that an "attack", WHILE pretending it didn't happen by calling observations "assumption".
3. poses government agents as if they are above greed; above earners from whom greedy agents take.
4. pretends that point, too, wasn't made, so as to ignore that political observation too, to again claim no point was made.
Yes, you're a rabid Liberal.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Comment removed
lunac666 2 years ago
"by marginalizing opponents, not on substance"
That statement is nonsensical; however, releasing violent felons to victimize more people IS substantive. It's also depraved.
Virtually ALL "criminals = democrats" -- all skin tones, as documented by bestselling author J. Lott in "Freedomnomics". And stop trying to smear your racist Democrat stink on others.
"swift-boated" -- 264 US combat veterans vs. 1 famously treasonous politician. Guess which side Democrats take. (A real nail-biter, aye?)
TylerNull 2 years ago
Ann Coulter used to be a man. True fact.
PennyLane298 2 years ago
Ann Coulter is certainly more of a man than any Liberal. True fact.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Liberal doesn't get capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence. Morons don't know this. True fact.
JonMGilbertson 2 years ago
Have your parents sue the teachers' labor union that defrauded them. (It's their civic duty.) Present the court filing to me, and I will reward you with instruction on proper nouns and their usage.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Why do people even bother watching the news anymore? Doesn't it pain you people to have everything reduced to a "take your side and stick with it" shouting match?
paroonjoos 2 years ago
i hope this cunt has her head chopped off
toolkills 2 years ago
Behold their "new tone". The Hopey-Changey crowd has worked themselves up into a lather lately.
Democrats & Murderous Rage -- Life Partners
TylerNull 2 years ago
women are stupid
califraia 2 years ago
Swedish Muslims & Misogyny -- Life Partners
TylerNull 2 years ago
fking whore,... she need get her asshole fuck
superwhiz88 2 years ago
Democrats & Rape Fantasies -- Life Partners
TylerNull 2 years ago
TylerNull and Hot Man-on-Man Action--Internet Partners
JonMGilbertson 2 years ago
You forgot to post the link ...
ZOMBIETIME . COM
TylerNull 2 years ago
"Its a MAN baby"
Kemruss 2 years ago
Democrats & Infantile Rage -- Life Partners
TylerNull 2 years ago
Republicans & Complete Fabrications of the Truth -- Life Partners
harrisonbensongerard 2 years ago
Ever attempting to ape civilized man, the Democrat never quite rises to the challenge, do they?
TylerNull 2 years ago
Conservatives railed against Bush, from his amnesty for illegals to his growing the entitlement programs and teachers unions.
Your mythologies may help your self-image, but that doesn't mean they're any less false.
TylerNull 3 years ago
Comment removed
MysticSpiritZ 3 years ago
He's a Liberal! Burn him! I'm convinced America's heading for civil war.
arseymcpherson 3 years ago
As a moderate I lean more to the right than the left, however I find this logic faulty since Rush (or any other Rep for that matter) didn't seem to have a problem when Michael J. Fox did a similar ad for Republican candidate Arlen Spector in the 2004 Senate campaign.
cigar420 3 years ago
The faulty logic is to equivocate campaigining for a candidate and campaigning for a gov't cure to your disease.
The point here is the human shield ploy. Using sympathetic figures to shield your politics from inspection, e.g., MJ Fox to advocate for more government research money, CIndy Sheehan & Jersey Girls on surrender in Iraq.
There is no symmetry there.. You can't name any of the THOUSANDS of widows and orphans of 911 who are diametrically opposed to the 4 Jersey Girls.
TylerNull 3 years ago
All you Dems and Republicans...bashing each other....its funny. Till some Independent candidate comes in and makes you all look like fools. Ventura 2012!
mju1482 3 years ago
All you independents ... posing as if you're above the fray, while reciting mostly Liberal dogma ... are a bad joke.
TylerNull 3 years ago
i really hope she dies
sauceyboy 3 years ago
Behold the Hope & Change crowd.
TylerNull 3 years ago
Behold the "kill all the fags and jews' crowd
alesko99 3 years ago
Democrats INVENTED the bloodsport of attacking innocent homosexuals for political gain. They engage in the activity so often, and with such pride and gaiety that they even gave it a name -- "OUTing".
As for killing Jews, Democrats & Hamas are Life Partners. Hamas even ran a Gaza telethon for Obama bin Liberal.
Democrats are always trying to smear their toxic stench on those who notice.
TylerNull 3 years ago
you know there are honorable and trustworhty conservatives, and then there are you people. people who want to infuse the bible with politics and ostrisize any non-christains. Face it. I would be honestly shocked if you said you were anything but a white guYand a christain. AND LOOK AT THE RNC!!!! ALL WHITE, ALL OLD AND ALL STUCK IN THE FUCKING RUTT
alesko99 3 years ago
Debunk one load of Democrat mythology, and the devotee shamelessly spews another.
Here's an infamous example of those who REALLY "infuse the bible with politics" -- the Ayers-Wright wing of the Democrat party:
"God Damn the US of KKKA. That's in the Bible!"
-- Rev. Wright; Obama's pastor
Again, Democrats always try to smear their vile ways on those who notice.
TylerNull 3 years ago
i can't believe she graduated from law school, every argument she has ever used is either based on incorrect information, leading, or plain old false logic.
kinalickyourass 3 years ago
How so?
TylerNull 3 years ago
Comment removed
chriscarnaroli 3 years ago
Always remember that Rush Limbaugh openly rooted for Riots and for Denver to burn down during the Dem Convention. He didn't care about the citizens of Denver, or about what Riots would do to hard working business owners in that area. He was rooting for innoccent people to get caught in the cross fire. Rush doesn't care about you or your family, and he certainly doesn't Love America. Nobody who loves their country, would root for Riots, no matter what city it took place in!!
burbonboy 3 years ago
Nobody who loves America would want Obama to succeed in destroying America.
Beyond that, proselytize your slanderous mythology elsewhere.
TylerNull 3 years ago
What did Zarqawi have to do with 911? He didnt have a problem with us before we invaded Iraq. Bush should have spent the time and money getting to the bottom of 911, not ignoring and manufacturing facts. the diference between him and you is he and 'his' profited from Iraq, while you and the rest of us get stuck with the bill. Are you so desperate to follow that you would make shit up to defend the ones who betrayed you and knock down those tring to make us great again.
piplemeter 3 years ago
What did 911 NOT have to do with any other bit of Muslim bloodsport?
Islam is a 1,400+ yr long -- ongoing -- crusade against all mankind.
As Muslims wage war against EVERYONE, they and their Western Liberal buddies blame the victim.
The only difference between Muslims & Liberals is the former are more honest & less timid about their goal to destroy Western civilization.
Murderous Muslims & Liberals -- Life Partners
TylerNull 3 years ago
Did you ever stop and think that the people who want you to believe that there is a crusade against all mankind are the same people who profit from fear. It is called devide and conquer.
piplemeter 3 years ago
Reality isn't about "believe".
* "2,974 killed, 6,291 wounded in 9/11 attacks"
* "Muslim proudly admits to murder of Theo Van Gogh"
* "Teens Executed for homosexuality in Iran"
* "Christian Girls Beheaded in Indonesia"
* "334 people including 186 children massacred in Beslan"
* "191 Killed, 1,755 wounded in Madrid Bombings"
* "52 Killed, 700 wounded in London Bombings"
* "Mohammed Cartoon riots result in over 100 deaths"
Proselytize your gospel of denials elsewhere.
TylerNull 3 years ago
you call putting american soldiers in a situaution that