- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 9,349
- Reaction score
- 3,947
- Location
- Montana
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Let me preface this by pointing out I'm hardly a big TD fan in regards to many of the ways he presents his stances, that said.
How is mimicing something mocking it? The video is even there because Limbaugh provides a webcam feed for subscribers to his site to be able to see his broadcast. If he said someone was waving as they left on a boat, and he mimiced waving, would he be "mocking" them? Because your original argument was that he was mocking Fox.
As far as the video you posted, I'm at work so can't view it. However I'd be interested to know if it was the one that was spread around on the broadcast networks that was purposefully sped up to increase the speed and then looped to make it appear to go on longer then it did.
Which again, mimicking does not equal mocking.
Now, I don't agree TD with you trying to play on emotional hysterics. HOWEVER, I actaully DO agree with Rush. I've watched Fox on Boston Legal numerous times and on the previews for Rescue Me. He is no where NEAR as fidgety and shaky as he was in the video.
So my question to you, would be WHY would he purposefully take lengths not to be that way when on television shows, but was doing it while in his commercial? Its obvious that he COULD'VE been FAR more composed in his commercial than he was, but he wasn't. Why was that?
My guess would be, trying to view it from his side, he wanted to the most raw look into parkinsons that he could provide in the commercial, and thus didn't want to take steps to make himself seem "better" than he really was. And you know what, I don't blame him for that. But to say that the reason you'd want to do that is for any reason OTHER than to hope that it still strike an emotional cord with people is simply dishonest in my opinion. The REASON you'd want to show it at its worst for him is specifically so people feel more emotionally disgusted at not helping such a horrible illness than if he just seemed like a perfectly fine person up there talking on the screen.
Which is exactly the point Rush was trying to make; albiet in his normal verbose, over the top, rather idiotic way.
Which I read as mockery. Maybe I'm wrong because I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh all the time and I'm not aware of his nuances. Regardless, he is obviously quite ignorant on the subject of Parkinson's Disease.
Oh come on! If it was simply mimicking then it was extremely exaggerated which I would categorize under mocking. I could totally see Rush's point if he would have attacked the message rather than the messenger. It was a lowest common denominator attack which I felt was aimed at mocking Michael J. Fox rather than addressing the issues that he took with the message itself.
The one I saw didn't appear sped up at all.
I agree. However, I wouldn't categorize what he did as mere mimicking.
They probably don't film him for tv shows while he is fidgety and shaky. It's a result of the medication and Rush made the claim that he was under-medicated and did so on purpose. I just think that's absurd to assume that he would put on a show of being fidgety just for the purpose of garnering sympathy. I've seen him in plenty of interviews where he is just as or even more shaky.
Well, regardless I think it's silly to just assume that's what he was doing. Obviously Rush needed to do more research on Parkinson's because he thought that he was under-medicated which makes no sense.
Which I read as mockery. Maybe I'm wrong because I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh all the time and I'm not aware of his nuances. Regardless, he is obviously quite ignorant on the subject of Parkinson's Disease.
I think we are. I know I am when it comes to the US. I hate to admit it but I get caught up in the nationalism at times. So yes I think we are at heart.
The fact that people are failing to admit that the U.S. is arrogant ... is arrogance itself.
Conservatives ... :roll:
The fact that people are failing to admit that the U.S. is arrogant ... is arrogance itself.
Conservatives ... :roll:
Then you obviously have a fantastically confused idea about the definition of arrogance.
Perhaps it is because your goal here is just to put down Conservatives? :2wave:
We're the World Police. We feel it is our duty to monitor all of the world's activities. We feel that it is our place to tell countries that they are not allowed to create weapons. That is arrogance.Are you? Are we? Perhaps what is needed here is a dictionary definition:
Main Entry: arrogance !ar-u-gun(t)s
Pronunciation: \ ˈer-ə-gən(t)s, ˈa-rə- \
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
Results
14th century an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions
I am not sure I would label you as being arrogant from what I have seen on the forum.
I am not sure I can label America as being arrogant in context of global events.
It would be easy placing someone like Castro or Hugo Chavez into that category, but US Presidents in modern history? I don’t believe so.
Gotta take issue with that, hear me out. It is our government that intervenes in that manner, with much dissention from either side of the aisle depending on the reasoning for doing so. Also we, unlike many other member countries within the U.N. uphold our end of the bargain in enforcing resolutions and NATO sanctions, it's not a good justification but a responsibility we have, which is one of the many reasons to get out of the U.N.We're the World Police. We feel it is our duty to monitor all of the world's activities.Certain countries shouldn't have weapons, those without the proper channels to launch a nuke or bio-weapon should be monitored closely, how much of that falls on our shoulders is more than fair for debate, but I don't think anyone can argue that N.Korea, Iran, formerly Iraq, and a few of the terrorist havens shouldn't have any kind of mass destruction capability.We feel that it is our place to tell countries that they are not allowed to create weapons. That is arrogance.
Your president, that you love so much TOJ, is on a world apology tour because he has a consciounce and is probably the first president in recent times to realize, that perhaps taking into consideration the thoughts and feelings of states abroad regarding certain issues without blowing things up and making a mess of everything first is the right thing to do. In the midst of the economic crises in america, its becoming more and more evident that you cant just think about yourselves and rely on yourselves only and do whatever you want. You need the support of the internation community. No good seeking support in NATO or whatever issue it may be if those countries feel American policies are just lame arse and destructive like the warlord Bush's policies.
We're the World Police. We feel it is our duty to monitor all of the world's activities. We feel that it is our place to tell countries that they are not allowed to create weapons. That is arrogance.
We're the World Police. We feel it is our duty to monitor all of the world's activities. We feel that it is our place to tell countries that they are not allowed to create weapons. That is arrogance.
Unfortunately, we're self-elected to fill a role nobody else wants us in. When we piss everyone else off and they retaliate, we suddenly act like we're the ones that have been wronged. :roll:
Once more, the notion that the US self elected itself requires willful ignorance or the willing suspension of disbelief.
Read the above comments I made to your buddy and become informed rather than spewing the nonsense that is typified by someone who is ignorant of the historic record.
You are of course welcome to debate my version of the historic record with facts and links to support your assertions that the US has somehow, without outside influences, interjected itself in global affairs.
:roll:
So when the UN went to a vote that the US invasion of Grenada was an act of aggression and the only reason it was rejected was because we vetoed it that isn't an example of the US forcefully injecting itself into other's affairs? (Vote: 122 in favor, 9 oppossed, 27 abstentions)
And when we invaded Iraq outside the confines of UN authority with a "coalition of the willing" we were once again acting as restrained constituent in global affairs as oppossed to a hegemonic dictator?
We're the World Police. We feel it is our duty to monitor all of the world's activities. We feel that it is our place to tell countries that they are not allowed to create weapons. That is arrogance.
Right... I'm not sure how that refutes anything I've said.Gotta take issue with that, hear me out. It is our government that intervenes in that manner, with much dissention from either side of the aisle depending on the reasoning for doing so. Also we, unlike many other member countries within the U.N. uphold our end of the bargain in enforcing resolutions and NATO sanctions, it's not a good justification but a responsibility we have, which is one of the many reasons to get out of the U.N.
In your opinion. They probably think we should not have weapons. So now what?Certain countries shouldn't have weapons
No one should have mass destruction capability. It's a bit late to start saying "Hey, we're America. I know we have nukes, but you can't. That may sound hypocritical, but we Americans trust ourselves and have decided that you should dismantle your weapons because we don't trust you. Thanks!" :roll:those without the proper channels to launch a nuke or bio-weapon should be monitored closely, how much of that falls on our shoulders is more than fair for debate, but I don't think anyone can argue that N.Korea, Iran, formerly Iraq, and a few of the terrorist havens shouldn't have any kind of mass destruction capability.
How would you care to support that? All of our meddling in the Middle East pissed off enough people to give them reason to fly themselves into buildings.Well, without world police, we end up with nightmares such as WWI (16 million dead) and WWII (72 million dead).
No it was not an example of US forcefully interjecting itself into other's affairs, it was an example of the US Government protecting US citizens who were being threatened by the illegitimate party led by Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard who placed the legitimate Prime Minister Bishop under house arrest, instituted military rule and eventually murdered Bishop.
The Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) appealed to the United States, Barbados, and Jamaica for assistance and many of the population of Grenada supported our ousting of an illegitimate ruler who was supported by Communists of Cuba and the Soviet Union.
Invasion of Grenada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I find it fascinating when the America haters like you think it is right for communists to take over Governments by force but it is wrong for the US to invade to re-institute the legitimate Government and Constitution of this nation and protect its citizens.
Why is that?
Once again your version of events represents the hate America mentality of Leftists who have a blatant disregard of the facts and events surrounding our legitimate invasion of Iraq to enforce resolutions defied by Saddam Hussein for over a decade.
The only thing more fascinating is that the America haters like you think that Saddam Hussein should have been left in power after invading two neighboring nations and defying agreements he had signed in order to remain in power.
America led the coalition to oust Saddam from Kuwait during the Gulf War and the US has always been the nation who provided the most aid, the most force and enforces resolutions which UN nations cannot do themselves.
Under UN resolutions, member states are given the power to enforce UN resolutions and it did not require Frances, Russia’s or China’s blessings to enforce resolutions a decade after they had been defied nor do these resolutions suggest that it requires further action from the UN to enforce those resolutions.
I suggest you read UN resolution 687 in its entirety and specifically enforcement contained item 27 and 678 in its entirety and specifically enforcement contained item #2 and the Joint resolution to go into Iraq so that you can be better informed as to what amounts to LEGAL authority.
UN Resolutions on Iraq
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s90/32
Un resolution 678
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s91/4
Un Resolution 687
UN Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq
Joint Authorization on Iraq
S. J. Res 45 Auhorizing Use of Armed Forces Against Iraq
How would you care to support that? All of our meddling in the Middle East pissed off enough people to give them reason to fly themselves into buildings.
You have yet to provide any sort of information to suggest that we have not had conflicts like the World Wars BECAUSE we have been policing the world.I didn't say our policing of the world was perfect.
What I said was, compared to the 72 million dead in WWII and the 16 million dead in WWI, the past 60 years of U.S. policing have resulted in a relatively peaceful period in world history.
I also noted that many seem to have a distorted perspective of history. Which your post seems to be confirming.
Your suggestion that we've 'pissed off' Middle Easterners is baffling to me compared to the 72 million dead in WWII and 16 million dead in WWI.
Not at all.Are you suggesting the world is a more deadly place today than it was during the first half of the 20th Century?
How would you care to support that? All of our meddling in the Middle East pissed off enough people to give them reason to fly themselves into buildings.
I never claimed that terrorist actions were justified. Nice strawman, though. I'll save myself the effort by quoting a post from earlier in this thread:The only way anyone can make the absurd comments you have is either; (1) they are ignorant about US history and involvement in the ME; (2) they have swallowed the terrorist rhetoric and hyperbole hook line and sinker and therefore rationalize the reasons for their murderous actions; or (3) they just hate America and will spew any vile excuse for the terrorists actions they can fabricate.
Which one is yours?
What child like naiveté’ does one have to wallow in to REALLY think it mattered what the US did in the ME to rationalize the murderous events of 9-11?
Once again the statements you make cannot be supported by any credible historical facts unless taken out of context or fabricated.
I challenge you to provide ONE case of US "meddling" in historical context that can justify terrorists flying airliners into high rise buildings and the pentagon. Good luck with that.
This is why I gave up on actually attempting to debate hyper-partisans.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?