Why doesn't Michael J Fox attack Rush (butt boils) Limbaugh

Rush has NOT made fun of Mr. Fox. He has merely pointed out that Fox has
injected himself into a political campaign and is playing up his disease in
an effort to elect Democrats who support stem cell research (and perhaps
human cloning). If democrats win on this issue, improvised women all over
America will have their eggs harvested to pay for research that benefits the
rich who can afford to pay for it. Why is Fox above reproach? Politics is
a contact sport, get over idiot.

Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Hard to believe but Limbaugh is making fun of Fox for having
Parkinson's. Well - Michael could shut up Limbaugh overnight by making
fun of Limbaugh's avoidance of military service. He got a deferrment
for anal cysts!!! True story and one that libs should bring up all
the time but never do. Liberals don't make personal attakcs - they're
the issues only party. Goddam useless cowards.

Gandalf Grey

2006-10-25 18:45:41 UTC

Post by Billary/2008
Rush has NOT made fun of Mr. Fox.

Oh Bullshit. Pull your head out of your ass, Bilious.

Mike Flannigan

2006-10-25 20:50:08 UTC

Post by Gandalf Grey

Post by Billary/2008
Rush has NOT made fun of Mr. Fox.

Oh Bullshit. Pull your head out of your ass, Bilious.

Inability to show where Rush made fun of Fox duly noted...

2800 Dead

2006-10-25 18:59:12 UTC

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:26:26 GMT, "Billary/2008"

Post by Billary/2008
Rush has NOT made fun of Mr. Fox. He has merely pointed out that Fox has
injected himself into a political campaign and is playing up his disease in
an effort to elect Democrats who support stem cell research (and perhaps
human cloning). If democrats win on this issue, improvised women all over
America will have their eggs harvested to pay for research that benefits the
rich who can afford to pay for it. Why is Fox above reproach? Politics is
a contact sport, get over idiot.

The latest from the right: "Down spinning"

--

Today's GOP: Chickenhawks in every sense of the word.

Mike Flannigan

2006-10-25 20:51:03 UTC

Post by 2800 Dead
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:26:26 GMT, "Billary/2008"

The latest from the right: "Down spinning"

The latest from the left: Lying

ouroboros rex

2006-10-25 21:06:13 UTC

Post by 2800 Dead
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:26:26 GMT, "Billary/2008"

The latest from the right: "Down spinning"

The latest from the left: Lying

rofl This, from nonstop serial liar Mike Flannigan?

Mike Flannigan

2006-10-25 21:42:25 UTC

Post by ouroboros rex

Post by 2800 Dead
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:26:26 GMT, "Billary/2008"

The latest from the right: "Down spinning"

The latest from the left: Lying

rofl This, from nonstop serial liar Mike Flannigan?

See? He did it again.

I think it's called projecting..

Billary/2008

2006-10-25 22:41:07 UTC

The truth is in your face Rex. Just open your eyes.

zzpat

2006-10-26 20:39:15 UTC

Post by Billary/2008
The truth is in your face Rex. Just open your eyes.

You're defending Limbaugh. I get that. But tell me something. He says he
supports the war, but has he ever said he'd support having his taxes
raised to pay for it?

In other words, isn't Rush about as weak as they come. If he really,
really believed we needed to do whatever it takes to win this war, taxes
would have been on the table back in 2001.

Rush, like the rest of the GOP look like cowards because they are. They
won't support a tax increase to pay for a war they say they support.
What do they really support? Nothing!

--
Pat
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.bravehost.com/

Articles of Impeachment
Center for Constitutional Rights
http://zzpat.bravehost.com/april_2006/articles_of_impeachment.html

nevermore

2006-10-26 21:48:10 UTC

Post by zzpat

Post by Billary/2008
The truth is in your face Rex. Just open your eyes.

You're defending Limbaugh. I get that. But tell me something. He says he
supports the war, but has he ever said he'd support having his taxes
raised to pay for it?
In other words, isn't Rush about as weak as they come. If he really,
really believed we needed to do whatever it takes to win this war, taxes
would have been on the table back in 2001.
Rush, like the rest of the GOP look like cowards because they are. They
won't support a tax increase to pay for a war they say they support.

....well, they would if we needed a tax increase to support the
war.... As it is, tax revenue is above expectations because of the
tax cut. Tax cuts always increase tax revenue, you moron.

zzpat

2006-10-26 22:52:39 UTC

Post by zzpat

Post by Billary/2008
The truth is in your face Rex. Just open your eyes.

You're defending Limbaugh. I get that. But tell me something. He says he
supports the war, but has he ever said he'd support having his taxes
raised to pay for it?
In other words, isn't Rush about as weak as they come. If he really,
really believed we needed to do whatever it takes to win this war, taxes
would have been on the table back in 2001.
Rush, like the rest of the GOP look like cowards because they are. They
won't support a tax increase to pay for a war they say they support.

....well, they would if we needed a tax increase to support the
war.... As it is, tax revenue is above expectations because of the
tax cut. Tax cuts always increase tax revenue, you moron.

Oh really. Then kindly explain to me why Bush and the GOP have already
created $2.8 trillion of debt which is more debt than all the presidents
from George Washington through Ronald Reagan combined (or put another
way - 3 times more debt than all the presidents from Washington through
Carter combined).

--
Pat
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.bravehost.com/

Articles of Impeachment
Center for Constitutional Rights
http://zzpat.bravehost.com/april_2006/articles_of_impeachment.html

nevermore

2006-10-27 08:01:49 UTC

Post by Billary/2008
The truth is in your face Rex. Just open your eyes.

You're defending Limbaugh. I get that. But tell me something. He says he
supports the war, but has he ever said he'd support having his taxes
raised to pay for it?
In other words, isn't Rush about as weak as they come. If he really,
really believed we needed to do whatever it takes to win this war, taxes
would have been on the table back in 2001.
Rush, like the rest of the GOP look like cowards because they are. They
won't support a tax increase to pay for a war they say they support.

....well, they would if we needed a tax increase to support the
war.... As it is, tax revenue is above expectations because of the
tax cut. Tax cuts always increase tax revenue, you moron.

Oh really.

Yes, the tax revenue increases.. It happened when JFK cut taxes,
when Reagan cut taxes, when Bush/41 cut taxes, and now when Bush/43
cut taxes....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pubpress/2006/fact_sheet_deficit.pdf

...and not only that, but the percentage of the income taxes paid by
the rich has actually gone up....

Lloyd King

2006-10-27 15:02:09 UTC

Post by Billary/2008
The truth is in your face Rex. Just open your eyes.

You're defending Limbaugh. I get that. But tell me something. He says he
supports the war, but has he ever said he'd support having his taxes
raised to pay for it?
In other words, isn't Rush about as weak as they come. If he really,
really believed we needed to do whatever it takes to win this war, taxes
would have been on the table back in 2001.
Rush, like the rest of the GOP look like cowards because they are.
They
won't support a tax increase to pay for a war they say they support.

....well, they would if we needed a tax increase to support the
war.... As it is, tax revenue is above expectations because of the
tax cut. Tax cuts always increase tax revenue, you moron.

Oh really.

That doesn't say what you apparently think it says.

Post by nevermore
...and not only that, but the percentage of the income taxes paid by
the rich has actually gone up....

LOL! Because the rich are making more and more money! Jeeze...

Anyway, read this:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm

Tax cuts do NOT increase revenues. Of COURSE they don't. Reagan's tax cuts
resulted in *decreased* revenues until he instituted the largest tax
increase in history (up to that point) in his TEFRA tax increases. THEN tax
revenues increased.

CHUCK MARTIN

2006-10-27 20:47:34 UTC

RUSH LIMPBALLS THE EL DRUGGO HAS YET FUCKED UP AGAIN WITH HIS HATE AND THE
REPUKE SCUM ARE DEFENDING HIS BEHAVIOR AGAIN.

REPUBLI CONS HATE AMERICA

Post by Billary/2008
The truth is in your face Rex. Just open your eyes.

You're defending Limbaugh. I get that. But tell me something. He says he
supports the war, but has he ever said he'd support having his taxes
raised to pay for it?
In other words, isn't Rush about as weak as they come. If he really,
really believed we needed to do whatever it takes to win this war, taxes
would have been on the table back in 2001.
Rush, like the rest of the GOP look like cowards because they are.
They
won't support a tax increase to pay for a war they say they support.

....well, they would if we needed a tax increase to support the
war.... As it is, tax revenue is above expectations because of the
tax cut. Tax cuts always increase tax revenue, you moron.

Oh really.

That doesn't say what you apparently think it says.

Post by nevermore
...and not only that, but the percentage of the income taxes paid by
the rich has actually gone up....

LOL! Because the rich are making more and more money! Jeeze...
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm
Tax cuts do NOT increase revenues. Of COURSE they don't. Reagan's tax
cuts resulted in *decreased* revenues until he instituted the largest tax
increase in history (up to that point) in his TEFRA tax increases. THEN
tax revenues increased.

nevermore

2006-10-28 01:24:42 UTC

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:02:09 -0500, "Lloyd King"

Post by Billary/2008
The truth is in your face Rex. Just open your eyes.

You're defending Limbaugh. I get that. But tell me something. He says he
supports the war, but has he ever said he'd support having his taxes
raised to pay for it?
In other words, isn't Rush about as weak as they come. If he really,
really believed we needed to do whatever it takes to win this war, taxes
would have been on the table back in 2001.
Rush, like the rest of the GOP look like cowards because they are.
They
won't support a tax increase to pay for a war they say they support.

....well, they would if we needed a tax increase to support the
war.... As it is, tax revenue is above expectations because of the
tax cut. Tax cuts always increase tax revenue, you moron.

Oh really.

That doesn't say what you apparently think it says.

"Tax relief is spurring economic growth"

"A strong economy has led to historic revenue growth"

That's from the OMB

Post by nevermore
...and not only that, but the percentage of the income taxes paid by
the rich has actually gone up....

LOL! Because the rich are making more and more money! Jeeze...

I don't read leftist nonsense....

Post by Lloyd King
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm
Tax cuts do NOT increase revenues. Of COURSE they don't. Reagan's tax cuts
resulted in *decreased* revenues until he instituted the largest tax
increase in history (up to that point) in his TEFRA tax increases. THEN tax
revenues increased.

g***@comcast.net

2006-10-28 09:16:03 UTC

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:01:49 -0400, nevermore

Post by nevermore
Yes, the tax revenue increases.. It happened when JFK cut taxes,
when Reagan cut taxes, when Bush/41 cut taxes, and now when Bush/43
cut taxes....

Actually it didn't happen when Reagan cut taxes. It happened after he
increased taxes the next year.

Swill

nevermore

2006-10-28 11:19:29 UTC

Post by g***@comcast.net
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:01:49 -0400, nevermore

Post by nevermore
Yes, the tax revenue increases.. It happened when JFK cut taxes,
when Reagan cut taxes, when Bush/41 cut taxes, and now when Bush/43
cut taxes....

Actually it didn't happen when Reagan cut taxes. It happened after he
increased taxes the next year.
Swill

<LOL> Keep up the leftist spin... Not that it matters...

g***@comcast.net

2006-10-29 10:33:26 UTC

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 07:19:29 -0400, nevermore

Post by g***@comcast.net
Actually it didn't happen when Reagan cut taxes. It happened after he
increased taxes the next year.

<LOL> Keep up the leftist spin... Not that it matters...

Reagan's 1981 tax cut (Kemp-Roth) was the largest tax cut in the
period between 1967 and 2005. The 1982 tax increase was the largest
increase for that same period. Maybe you weren't paying attention at
the time, but I remember not getting those bigger paychecks for very
long. If you don't like my link, look it up yourself. Start anywhere
you like.

Reagan's 1982 tax increase was the largest single tax increase between
1968 and the present.
http://www.factcheck.org/article173.html

This one is an excellent read and a recent overview of the Reagan
Presidency.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html

Swill

--
It's about the oil, stupid.

nevermore

2006-10-29 13:05:45 UTC

Post by g***@comcast.net
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 07:19:29 -0400, nevermore

Post by g***@comcast.net
Actually it didn't happen when Reagan cut taxes. It happened after he
increased taxes the next year.

<LOL> Keep up the leftist spin... Not that it matters...

Reagan's 1981 tax cut (Kemp-Roth) was the largest tax cut in the
period between 1967 and 2005. The 1982 tax increase was the largest
increase for that same period. Maybe you weren't paying attention at
the time, but I remember not getting those bigger paychecks for very
long. If you don't like my link, look it up yourself. Start anywhere
you like.
Reagan's 1982 tax increase was the largest single tax increase between
1968 and the present.
http://www.factcheck.org/article173.html

Not even a good spin...

Post by g***@comcast.net
This one is an excellent read and a recent overview of the Reagan
Presidency.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html
Swill

g***@comcast.net

2006-10-29 23:28:53 UTC

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:05:45 -0500, nevermore

Post by g***@comcast.net
Reagan's 1982 tax increase was the largest single tax increase between
1968 and the present.
http://www.factcheck.org/article173.html

Not even a good spin...

What spin? It reduced Reagan's 81 tax cuts by a third or more and as
such was the largest single tax increase between FY1967 and now. How
is that fact spin?

Swill

--
It's about the oil, stupid.

nevermore

2006-10-30 00:06:29 UTC

Post by g***@comcast.net
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:05:45 -0500, nevermore

Post by g***@comcast.net
Reagan's 1982 tax increase was the largest single tax increase between
1968 and the present.
http://www.factcheck.org/article173.html

Not even a good spin...

What spin? It reduced Reagan's 81 tax cuts by a third or more and as
such was the largest single tax increase between FY1967 and now. How
is that fact spin?

I understand how desperate you lefties are to diminish the impressive
successes of the Reagan presidency and to deny that over the years,
tax cuts have actually increased the tax revenues, but spinning the
facts won't do it....

The net effect was still a very significant tax cut.... and that's
the fact, Jack.

Post by g***@comcast.net
Swill

g***@comcast.net

2006-10-30 04:44:06 UTC

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:06:29 -0500, nevermore

Post by g***@comcast.net
What spin? It reduced Reagan's 81 tax cuts by a third or more and as
such was the largest single tax increase between FY1967 and now. How
is that fact spin?

I understand how desperate you lefties are to diminish the impressive
successes of the Reagan presidency and to deny that over the years,
tax cuts have actually increased the tax revenues, but spinning the
facts won't do it....
The net effect was still a very significant tax cut.... and that's
the fact, Jack.

Did I not say Reagan passed the largest tax cut in the period between
1967 and today? Didn't I? Where do you get off accusing me of
spinning? I stated a pair of interesting facts, both true, both
qualified. both confirmable from multiple sources. What's your
problem with that, boy?

Swill

--
It's about the oil, stupid.

nevermore

2006-10-30 10:19:54 UTC

Post by g***@comcast.net
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:06:29 -0500, nevermore

Post by g***@comcast.net
What spin? It reduced Reagan's 81 tax cuts by a third or more and as
such was the largest single tax increase between FY1967 and now. How
is that fact spin?

I understand how desperate you lefties are to diminish the impressive
successes of the Reagan presidency and to deny that over the years,
tax cuts have actually increased the tax revenues, but spinning the
facts won't do it....
The net effect was still a very significant tax cut.... and that's
the fact, Jack.

Good attempt to try to deny your earlier bad attempt at spinning... A
further fact is that tax cuts produce higher revenue and history
proves it. Your dismissed.

g***@comcast.net

2006-10-30 20:32:12 UTC

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 05:19:54 -0500, nevermore

Post by g***@comcast.net
Did I not say Reagan passed the largest tax cut in the period between
1967 and today? Didn't I? Where do you get off accusing me of
spinning? I stated a pair of interesting facts, both true, both
qualified. both confirmable from multiple sources. What's your
problem with that, boy?

Good attempt to try to deny your earlier bad attempt at spinning... A
further fact is that tax cuts produce higher revenue and history
proves it. Your dismissed.

You might want to point out that spin rather than simply claiming
endlessly that it exists. Oops, you can't, I never posted it!

Swill

--
It's about the oil, stupid.

nevermore

2006-10-30 22:32:16 UTC

Post by g***@comcast.net
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 05:19:54 -0500, nevermore

Good attempt to try to deny your earlier bad attempt at spinning... A
further fact is that tax cuts produce higher revenue and history
proves it. Your dismissed.

You might want to point out that spin rather than simply claiming
endlessly that it exists. Oops, you can't, I never posted it!
Swill

Your spin was that the revenue increases were due to the tax increases
rather than th tax cuts.. But since the overall effect was a tax cut,
that wouldn't have been the case...

g***@comcast.net

2006-10-31 08:25:40 UTC

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:32:16 -0500, nevermore

Post by g***@comcast.net
You might want to point out that spin rather than simply claiming
endlessly that it exists. Oops, you can't, I never posted it!

Your spin was that the revenue increases were due to the tax increases
rather than th tax cuts.. But since the overall effect was a tax cut,
that wouldn't have been the case...

Tax cuts cause an immediate and expected drop in revenue. If
correctly designed, they then stimulate revenue increases down the
road. The gamble is whether or not the subsequent gains will be
enough to offset the earlier losses plus incurred interest.

Reagan's cuts worked to stimulate business eventually even after he
modified them but excessive spending maintained the deficit condition.
Volcker's management of the Fed combined with the collapse of oil
prices fixed the economy and Reagan used rhetoric and the collapse of
the Soviet's oil income to finish off the USSR while borrowing and
spending with both hands.

What flies in the face of conservative tax cut philosophy is that Bush
I's tax increase and later Clinton's somehow didn't mangle the
economy. It actually went into boon despite those large tax
increases. This was the Fed working the economy. Leave taxes alone
and _let the Fed work the economy_. It's their job. We'll all make
money without the treasury going broke. Fine tuning taxes to take
advantage of private sector created booms or stimulate selected
sectors is fine, but spending has got to be got under control.

Politicians mess up everything. The meddle with the economy instead
of leaving it to the Fed. The meddle about managing wars instead of
just telling the Pentagon who they want dead. It's no wonder our
educational standards are so low with politicians running our schools.

Swill

--
It's about the oil, stupid.

nevermore

2006-10-31 09:37:35 UTC

Post by g***@comcast.net
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:32:16 -0500, nevermore

Post by g***@comcast.net
You might want to point out that spin rather than simply claiming
endlessly that it exists. Oops, you can't, I never posted it!

Your spin was that the revenue increases were due to the tax increases
rather than th tax cuts.. But since the overall effect was a tax cut,
that wouldn't have been the case...

Tax cuts cause an immediate and expected drop in revenue.

Perhaps, for a month or so...

If

Post by g***@comcast.net
correctly designed, they then stimulate revenue increases down the
road. The gamble is whether or not the subsequent gains will be
enough to offset the earlier losses plus incurred interest.
Reagan's cuts worked to stimulate business eventually even after he
modified them but excessive spending maintained the deficit condition.
Volcker's management of the Fed combined with the collapse of oil
prices fixed the economy and Reagan used rhetoric and the collapse of
the Soviet's oil income to finish off the USSR while borrowing and
spending with both hands.
What flies in the face of conservative tax cut philosophy is that Bush
I's tax increase and later Clinton's somehow didn't mangle the
economy. It actually went into boon despite those large tax
increases. This was the Fed working the economy. Leave taxes alone
and _let the Fed work the economy_. It's their job. We'll all make
money without the treasury going broke. Fine tuning taxes to take
advantage of private sector created booms or stimulate selected
sectors is fine, but spending has got to be got under control.
Politicians mess up everything. The meddle with the economy instead
of leaving it to the Fed. The meddle about managing wars instead of
just telling the Pentagon who they want dead. It's no wonder our
educational standards are so low with politicians running our schools.

You got that educational thing partly right... The school problems
exist because of the two elements that control the schools, neither of
which has the quality of education as their primary concern... The
government(s) and the teachers unions....

Post by g***@comcast.net
Swill

2810 Dead

2006-10-28 15:37:29 UTC

Post by g***@comcast.net
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:01:49 -0400, nevermore

Post by nevermore
Yes, the tax revenue increases.. It happened when JFK cut taxes,
when Reagan cut taxes, when Bush/41 cut taxes, and now when Bush/43
cut taxes....

Actually it didn't happen when Reagan cut taxes. It happened after he
increased taxes the next year.

Isn't happening under Putsch the Lesser, either.

And in no case did the revenue increase match the historic averages.

Post by g***@comcast.net
Swill

--
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson

nevermore

2006-10-28 17:08:54 UTC

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 08:37:29 -0700, 2810 Dead

Post by 2810 Dead

Post by g***@comcast.net
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:01:49 -0400, nevermore

Post by nevermore
Yes, the tax revenue increases.. It happened when JFK cut taxes,
when Reagan cut taxes, when Bush/41 cut taxes, and now when Bush/43
cut taxes....

Actually it didn't happen when Reagan cut taxes. It happened after he
increased taxes the next year.

Isn't happening under Putsch the Lesser, either.
And in no case did the revenue increase match the historic averages.

Zepp is wrong, of course... It has always worked.. every time
since JFK did it...

Frank Pittel

2006-10-26 00:42:35 UTC

In alt.politics.usa.republican Mike Flannigan <***@jam.rr.com> wrote:

: "2800 Dead" <zepp#***@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
: news:***@4ax.com...
: > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:26:26 GMT, "Billary/2008"
: > <F#%***@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote:
: >
: >>Rush has NOT made fun of Mr. Fox. He has merely pointed out that Fox has
: >>injected himself into a political campaign and is playing up his disease
: >>in
: >>an effort to elect Democrats who support stem cell research (and perhaps
: >>human cloning). If democrats win on this issue, improvised women all over
: >>America will have their eggs harvested to pay for research that benefits
: >>the
: >>rich who can afford to pay for it. Why is Fox above reproach? Politics
: >>is
: >>a contact sport, get over idiot.
: >
: > The latest from the right: "Down spinning"

: The latest from the left: Lying

The looney tune brain dead loser lib dems have been lying for decades.

--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

SHb

2006-10-26 01:20:39 UTC

The more the Dems attack Rush on the issue of asshole Mike J. Fox' sideshow
the more everyone sees how the Dems are exploiting Mike J Fox.

Forge ahead only two more weeks for tricksters.

Post by Frank Pittel
: > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:26:26 GMT, "Billary/2008"
: >
: >>Rush has NOT made fun of Mr. Fox. He has merely pointed out that Fox has
: >>injected himself into a political campaign and is playing up his disease
: >>in
: >>an effort to elect Democrats who support stem cell research (and perhaps
: >>human cloning). If democrats win on this issue, improvised women all over
: >>America will have their eggs harvested to pay for research that benefits
: >>the
: >>rich who can afford to pay for it. Why is Fox above reproach?
Politics
: >>is
: >>a contact sport, get over idiot.
: >
: > The latest from the right: "Down spinning"
: The latest from the left: Lying
The looney tune brain dead loser lib dems have been lying for decades.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

Lloyd King

2006-10-25 19:38:25 UTC

Rush is trying to argue that Michael J Fox is somehow exploiting his disease
for political purposes, and that this is somehow illegitimate. But that is
nonsense - in this case, Fox's disease is ar the very heart of the issue.
The embryonic stem cell research is an area that may hold great promise to
relieve the suffering of people like Fox, even if the research will take too
long to help him personally.

Post by Billary/2008
If democrats win on this issue, improvised women all over America will
have their eggs harvested to pay for research that benefits the rich who
can afford to pay for it.

Improvised women? What are those?

Post by Billary/2008
Why is Fox above reproach? Politics is a contact sport, get over idiot.

Fox is not above reproach, but the "reproach" that Rush has spewed is
complete BS, and it's utterly classless to claim that Fox is faking his
symptoms. There is no question that Fox has the disease, and we know what
the disease does. If he exhibits symptoms while he's campaigning for
candidates who support his cause, that's just the way it is. And Rush and
any of you other right-wing wacks can accuse him of whatever you want, but
you just look like wet turds for doing so.

Billary/2008

2006-10-25 19:46:58 UTC

Bullshit. Rush said that Fox has every legitimate right to speak his 1st
amendment rights. But that by the same token he has to be ready to accept
any criticism of the content of his free speech. Fox doesn't get a pass
just because he's a victim.

Do try and get the facts right. Do try and think for yourself sometime,
instead of regurgitating what the leftist media tells you to say.

Post by Lloyd King
Rush is trying to argue that Michael J Fox is somehow exploiting his
disease for political purposes, and that this is somehow illegitimate.

ouroboros rex

2006-10-25 19:58:33 UTC

Post by Billary/2008
Bullshit. Rush said that Fox has every legitimate right to speak his 1st
amendment rights. But that by the same token he has to be ready to accept
any criticism

read: lies

of the content of his free speech. Fox doesn't get a pass

Post by Billary/2008
just because he's a victim.

More excuses, from the party of excuses.

Mike Flannigan

2006-10-25 21:29:30 UTC

Post by ouroboros rex

Post by Billary/2008
Bullshit. Rush said that Fox has every legitimate right to speak his 1st
amendment rights. But that by the same token he has to be ready to
accept any criticism

read: lies

Truth

Post by ouroboros rex
of the content of his free speech. Fox doesn't get a pass

Post by Billary/2008
just because he's a victim.

More excuses, from the party of excuses.

More excuses for lying about what Rush said.

Frank Pittel

2006-10-26 00:41:43 UTC

In alt.politics.usa.republican ouroboros rex <c-***@nospummyitg.uiuc.edu> wrote:

: "Billary/2008" <F#%***@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote in message
: news:SaP%g.7486$***@trnddc02...
: > Bullshit. Rush said that Fox has every legitimate right to speak his 1st
: > amendment rights. But that by the same token he has to be ready to accept
: > any criticism

: read: lies

What's the lie?? Is it a lie that Fox has the first amendment right to speak
or is it a lie that Rush and others have the right to criticize what Fox said?

: of the content of his free speech. Fox doesn't get a pass
: > just because he's a victim.

: More excuses, from the party of excuses.

??

--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

2804 Dead

2006-10-26 02:05:15 UTC

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:41:43 -0500, Frank Pittel

Post by Frank Pittel
: > Bullshit. Rush said that Fox has every legitimate right to speak his 1st
: > amendment rights. But that by the same token he has to be ready to accept
: > any criticism
: read: lies
What's the lie?? Is it a lie that Fox has the first amendment right to speak
or is it a lie that Rush and others have the right to criticize what Fox said?

If Rush could work up the guts to criticize what he said instead of
just engaging in empty smears, perhaps someone besides bottom-dwelling
right wing scum might respect him.

Post by Frank Pittel
: of the content of his free speech. Fox doesn't get a pass
: > just because he's a victim.
: More excuses, from the party of excuses.
??

Starkiller©

2006-10-26 02:09:14 UTC

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:05:15 -0700, 2804 Dead

Post by 2804 Dead
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:41:43 -0500, Frank Pittel

If Rush could work up the guts to criticize what he said instead of
just engaging in empty smears, perhaps someone besides bottom-dwelling
right wing scum might respect him.

He did take issue with Fox's statements. But hell you only know what
the DNC tells you to know yes?

Post by 2804 Dead

Post by Frank Pittel
: of the content of his free speech. Fox doesn't get a pass
: > just because he's a victim.
: More excuses, from the party of excuses.

What excuses? Fox lied. Are you going to say that because someone is
afflicted with a disease they get a free pass on lying?

Regards

Starkiller©

Eta Kooram Nah Smech!

Frank Pittel

2006-10-26 04:21:47 UTC

In alt.politics.usa.republican 2804 Dead <***@finestplanet.com> wrote:
: On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:41:43 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

: >In alt.politics.usa.republican ouroboros rex <c-***@nospummyitg.uiuc.edu> wrote:
: >
: >: "Billary/2008" <F#%***@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote in message
: >: news:SaP%g.7486$***@trnddc02...
: >: > Bullshit. Rush said that Fox has every legitimate right to speak his 1st
: >: > amendment rights. But that by the same token he has to be ready to accept
: >: > any criticism
: >
: >: read: lies
: >
: >What's the lie?? Is it a lie that Fox has the first amendment right to speak
: >or is it a lie that Rush and others have the right to criticize what Fox said?

: If Rush could work up the guts to criticize what he said instead of
: just engaging in empty smears, perhaps someone besides bottom-dwelling
: right wing scum might respect him.

What empty smear did Rush engage in when pointing out the lies and stupidity
spewed forth by Fox??

--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

2800 Dead

2006-10-25 20:10:17 UTC

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:46:58 GMT, "Billary/2008"

So how is accusing him of "exploiting" his Parkinsons addressing the
content of his free speech.

Ah, but Limbaugh can't address that, can he?

Post by Billary/2008
Do try and get the facts right. Do try and think for yourself sometime,
instead of regurgitating what the leftist media tells you to say.

Post by Lloyd King
Rush is trying to argue that Michael J Fox is somehow exploiting his
disease for political purposes, and that this is somehow illegitimate.

--

Today's GOP: Chickenhawks in every sense of the word.

Mike Flannigan

2006-10-25 21:34:45 UTC

Post by 2800 Dead
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:46:58 GMT, "Billary/2008"

So how is accusing him of "exploiting" his Parkinsons addressing the
content of his free speech.

Could deliberately not taking your meds in order to look worse be
characterized as exploiting your illness?

Post by 2800 Dead
Ah, but Limbaugh can't address that, can he?

Post by Billary/2008
Do try and get the facts right. Do try and think for yourself sometime,
instead of regurgitating what the leftist media tells you to say.

Post by Lloyd King
Rush is trying to argue that Michael J Fox is somehow exploiting his
disease for political purposes, and that this is somehow illegitimate.

--
Today's GOP: Chickenhawks in every sense of the word.

The Vicar

2006-10-25 22:04:37 UTC

Post by 2800 Dead
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:46:58 GMT, "Billary/2008"

So how is accusing him of "exploiting" his Parkinsons addressing the
content of his free speech.

Could deliberately not taking your meds in order to look worse be
characterized as exploiting your illness?

proof that he did that beyond "rush said it"?

Post by 2800 Dead
Ah, but Limbaugh can't address that, can he?

Post by Billary/2008
Do try and get the facts right. Do try and think for yourself sometime,
instead of regurgitating what the leftist media tells you to say.

Post by Lloyd King
Rush is trying to argue that Michael J Fox is somehow exploiting his
disease for political purposes, and that this is somehow illegitimate.

--
Today's GOP: Chickenhawks in every sense of the word.

Mike Flannigan

2006-10-25 22:37:36 UTC

Post by 2800 Dead
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:46:58 GMT, "Billary/2008"

So how is accusing him of "exploiting" his Parkinsons addressing the
content of his free speech.

Could deliberately not taking your meds in order to look worse be
characterized as exploiting your illness?

proof that he did that beyond "rush said it"?

I'll hearken you back to my previous post in this very thread...

I saw Michael J Fox in
an interview on TV a few months ago and his symptoms were barely noticeable.
But as the interview wore on he became more and more fidgety. Finally, at
one point he stopped the interview and asked to be excused for a moment. A
few minutes later he came back and seemed almost completely normal. He
apologized and said that he had to go and take a pill that helps him control
himself.

In Fox's own book he say's that he deliberately did not take his meds when
he testified before congress so as to dramatize his condition. Rush even
said on the air that there was really nothing wrong with that. I agree, why
go on the air to talk about a disease and try to hide the effects?

The Vicar

2006-10-25 22:42:27 UTC

Post by 2800 Dead
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:46:58 GMT, "Billary/2008"

So how is accusing him of "exploiting" his Parkinsons addressing the
content of his free speech.

Could deliberately not taking your meds in order to look worse be
characterized as exploiting your illness?

proof that he did that beyond "rush said it"?

I'll hearken you back to my previous post in this very thread...

yes, i must apologize; i did not get to that post until after i sent mine.

Post by Mike Flannigan
I saw Michael J Fox in
an interview on TV a few months ago and his symptoms were barely noticeable.
But as the interview wore on he became more and more fidgety. Finally, at
one point he stopped the interview and asked to be excused for a moment. A
few minutes later he came back and seemed almost completely normal. He
apologized and said that he had to go and take a pill that helps him control
himself.
In Fox's own book he say's that he deliberately did not take his meds when
he testified before congress so as to dramatize his condition. Rush even
said on the air that there was really nothing wrong with that. I agree, why
go on the air to talk about a disease and try to hide the effects?

Starkiller©

2006-10-26 02:01:15 UTC

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:04:37 -0400, "The Vicar"

Post by 2800 Dead
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:46:58 GMT, "Billary/2008"

So how is accusing him of "exploiting" his Parkinsons addressing the
content of his free speech.

Could deliberately not taking your meds in order to look worse be
characterized as exploiting your illness?

proof that he did that beyond "rush said it"?

How about the fact that Fox himself admitted that he has done just
that in front of congress in order to show the effects of the illness
and to help put more emphasis on it?
His medication controls it. Only reason he would be showing symptoms
is of he is off of his medication or it no longer works. If it no
longer works then he would be in that state perpetually. Therefore he
was off of his meds, or he was simply acting out the symptoms. My bet
is he simply stopped the meds as he did when testifying before the
committee.
What difference does it make as Limbaugh stated at the time that he
didn't really see anything wrong with it. But as is typical just like
with Cindy Sheehan the left believes no one can question any
statements made by a perceived victim.
I suppose now the battle cry will be that Republicans are
Pro-Parkinson's. Same old DNC propaganda bullshit.

Post by 2800 Dead
Ah, but Limbaugh can't address that, can he?

Post by Billary/2008
Do try and get the facts right. Do try and think for yourself sometime,
instead of regurgitating what the leftist media tells you to say.

Post by Lloyd King
Rush is trying to argue that Michael J Fox is somehow exploiting his
disease for political purposes, and that this is somehow illegitimate.

--
Today's GOP: Chickenhawks in every sense of the word.

Regards

Starkiller©

Eta Kooram Nah Smech!

Mike Flannigan

2006-10-25 21:22:29 UTC

Post by Billary/2008
Bullshit. Rush said that Fox has every legitimate right to speak his 1st
amendment rights. But that by the same token he has to be ready to accept
any criticism of the content of his free speech. Fox doesn't get a pass
just because he's a victim.
Do try and get the facts right. Do try and think for yourself sometime,
instead of regurgitating what the leftist media tells you to say.

Do a google news search and look at all the media outlets mischaracterizing
this whole thing. Disinformation by omission of salient facts. Many of them
are saying that Rush "attacked" Fox. The irony here is that what they are
doing is attacking Rush. Then of course we get to log on here and see the
desired effects.

Another day, another brainwashed lib...

Billary/2008

2006-10-25 22:41:48 UTC

They're all just a bunch of fucking lemmings.

"Mike Flannigan" <***@jam.rr.com> wrote in message news:4wQ%g.16288$***@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

James

2006-10-25 19:50:55 UTC

Rush is trying to argue that Michael J Fox is somehow exploiting his
disease for political purposes, and that this is somehow illegitimate.
But that is nonsense - in this case, Fox's disease is ar the very heart of
the issue. The embryonic stem cell research is an area that may hold great
promise to relieve the suffering of people like Fox, even if the research
will take too long to help him personally.

Post by Billary/2008
If democrats win on this issue, improvised women all over America will
have their eggs harvested to pay for research that benefits the rich who
can afford to pay for it.

Improvised women? What are those?

Post by Billary/2008
Why is Fox above reproach? Politics is a contact sport, get over idiot.

As I understand it, it is claimed that Fox's script were lies and that he
did not take his meds puposely because he was making a commercial and wanted
his afflictions exaggerated.

2800 Dead

2006-10-25 20:07:50 UTC

Post by James

Rush is trying to argue that Michael J Fox is somehow exploiting his
disease for political purposes, and that this is somehow illegitimate.
But that is nonsense - in this case, Fox's disease is ar the very heart of
the issue. The embryonic stem cell research is an area that may hold great
promise to relieve the suffering of people like Fox, even if the research
will take too long to help him personally.

Post by Billary/2008
If democrats win on this issue, improvised women all over America will
have their eggs harvested to pay for research that benefits the rich who
can afford to pay for it.

Improvised women? What are those?

Post by Billary/2008
Why is Fox above reproach? Politics is a contact sport, get over idiot.

As I understand it, it is claimed that Fox's script were lies and that he
did not take his meds puposely because he was making a commercial and wanted
his afflictions exaggerated.

No, that's just the bullsht that loud piece of shit Limbaugh spewed.

Right wingers are such fucking disgraces, you know?
--

Today's GOP: Chickenhawks in every sense of the word.

Mike Flannigan

2006-10-25 21:40:17 UTC

Rush is trying to argue that Michael J Fox is somehow exploiting his
disease for political purposes, and that this is somehow illegitimate.
But that is nonsense - in this case, Fox's disease is ar the very heart of
the issue. The embryonic stem cell research is an area that may hold great
promise to relieve the suffering of people like Fox, even if the research
will take too long to help him personally.

Post by Billary/2008
If democrats win on this issue, improvised women all over America will
have their eggs harvested to pay for research that benefits the rich who
can afford to pay for it.

Improvised women? What are those?

Post by Billary/2008
Why is Fox above reproach? Politics is a contact sport, get over idiot.

As I understand it, it is claimed that Fox's script were lies and that he
did not take his meds puposely because he was making a commercial and wanted
his afflictions exaggerated.

No, that's just the bullsht that loud piece of shit Limbaugh spewed.

Excuse me, but he said that it is claimed, then you just reaffirmed what he
said.

Post by 2800 Dead
Right wingers are such fucking disgraces, you know?

Damn left wingers are fucking morons.

Mike Flannigan

2006-10-25 21:36:29 UTC

Post by James

Rush is trying to argue that Michael J Fox is somehow exploiting his
disease for political purposes, and that this is somehow illegitimate.
But that is nonsense - in this case, Fox's disease is ar the very heart
of the issue. The embryonic stem cell research is an area that may hold
great promise to relieve the suffering of people like Fox, even if the
research will take too long to help him personally.

Post by Billary/2008
If democrats win on this issue, improvised women all over America will
have their eggs harvested to pay for research that benefits the rich who
can afford to pay for it.

Improvised women? What are those?

Post by Billary/2008
Why is Fox above reproach? Politics is a contact sport, get over idiot.

Fox is not above reproach, but the "reproach" that Rush has spewed is
complete BS, and it's utterly classless to claim that Fox is faking his
symptoms. There is no question that Fox has the disease, and we know
what the disease does. If he exhibits symptoms while he's campaigning
for candidates who support his cause, that's just the way it is. And
Rush and any of you other right-wing wacks can accuse him of whatever you
want, but you just look like wet turds for doing so.

As I understand it, it is claimed that Fox's script were lies and that he
did not take his meds puposely because he was making a commercial and
wanted his afflictions exaggerated.

Basically, except that we don't know if he lied or was lied to when he said
that Talent was against research.

Frank Pittel

2006-10-26 00:36:12 UTC

In alt.politics.usa.republican James <***@iglou.com> wrote:

: "Lloyd King" <***@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
: news:***@corp.supernews.com...
: >
: > "Billary/2008" <F#%***@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote in
: > message news:m%N%g.5523$***@trnddc03...
: >> Rush has NOT made fun of Mr. Fox. He has merely pointed out that Fox has
: >> injected himself into a political campaign and is playing up his disease
: >> in an effort to elect Democrats who support stem cell research (and
: >> perhaps human cloning).
: >
: > Rush is trying to argue that Michael J Fox is somehow exploiting his
: > disease for political purposes, and that this is somehow illegitimate.
: > But that is nonsense - in this case, Fox's disease is ar the very heart of
: > the issue. The embryonic stem cell research is an area that may hold great
: > promise to relieve the suffering of people like Fox, even if the research
: > will take too long to help him personally.
: >
: >
: >> If democrats win on this issue, improvised women all over America will
: >> have their eggs harvested to pay for research that benefits the rich who
: >> can afford to pay for it.
: >
: > Improvised women? What are those?
: >
: >
: >> Why is Fox above reproach? Politics is a contact sport, get over idiot.
: >
: > Fox is not above reproach, but the "reproach" that Rush has spewed is
: > complete BS, and it's utterly classless to claim that Fox is faking his
: > symptoms. There is no question that Fox has the disease, and we know what
: > the disease does. If he exhibits symptoms while he's campaigning for
: > candidates who support his cause, that's just the way it is. And Rush and
: > any of you other right-wing wacks can accuse him of whatever you want, but
: > you just look like wet turds for doing so.
: >
: >
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in
: >> message news:***@4ax.com...
: >>> Hard to believe but Limbaugh is making fun of Fox for having
: >>> Parkinson's. Well - Michael could shut up Limbaugh overnight by making
: >>> fun of Limbaugh's avoidance of military service. He got a deferrment
: >>> for anal cysts!!! True story and one that libs should bring up all
: >>> the time but never do. Liberals don't make personal attakcs - they're
: >>> the issues only party. Goddam useless cowards.

: As I understand it, it is claimed that Fox's script were lies and that he
: did not take his meds puposely because he was making a commercial and wanted
: his afflictions exaggerated.

It is a fact that Fox told many untruthes in that ad. Whether or not he knew
what he was saying is untrue is unknown to the general public. It's interesting
that Fox has made no comment on whether or not he took his meds.

--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

Mike Flannigan

2006-10-25 21:17:11 UTC

Rush is trying to argue that Michael J Fox is somehow exploiting his
disease for political purposes, and that this is somehow illegitimate.
But that is nonsense - in this case, Fox's disease is ar the very heart of
the issue. The embryonic stem cell research is an area that may hold great
promise to relieve the suffering of people like Fox, even if the research
will take too long to help him personally.

Post by Billary/2008
If democrats win on this issue, improvised women all over America will
have their eggs harvested to pay for research that benefits the rich who
can afford to pay for it.

Improvised women? What are those?

Post by Billary/2008
Why is Fox above reproach? Politics is a contact sport, get over idiot.

Excuse me, but Rush said that Fox is either faking or not taking his meds so
as to dramatize. And he is 100%, absolutely correct. I saw Michael J Fox in
an interview on TV a few months ago and his symptoms were barely noticeable.
But as the interview wore on he became more and more fidgety. Finally, at
one point he stopped the interview and asked to be excused for a moment. A
few minutes later he came back and seemed almost completely normal. He
apologized and said that he had to go and take a pill that helps him control
himself.

In Fox's own book he say's that he deliberately did not take his meds when
he testified before congress so as to dramatize his condition. Rush even
said on the air that there was really nothing wrong with that. I agree, why
go on the air to talk about a disease and try to hide the effects?

Fox did say that Talent wanted to criminalize the research, which is
patently untrue. Talent is in favor of research, just not on EMBRYONIC
cells.

Lloyd King

2006-10-25 21:30:51 UTC

Post by Mike Flannigan
Excuse me, but Rush said that Fox is either faking or not taking his meds
so as to dramatize. And he is 100%, absolutely correct. I saw Michael J
Fox in an interview on TV a few months ago and his symptoms were barely
noticeable. But as the interview wore on he became more and more fidgety.
Finally, at one point he stopped the interview and asked to be excused for
a moment. A few minutes later he came back and seemed almost completely
normal. He apologized and said that he had to go and take a pill that
helps him control himself.
In Fox's own book he say's that he deliberately did not take his meds when
he testified before congress so as to dramatize his condition. Rush even
said on the air that there was really nothing wrong with that. I agree,
why go on the air to talk about a disease and try to hide the effects?

The funny part about this is that, like the republicans defending Mark
Foley, they seem to have no clue as to why their behavior and their words
are regarded as so repulsive.

"What, me?" they say, incredulous that anybody finds them repugnant.

Mike Flannigan

2006-10-25 22:32:42 UTC

Post by Mike Flannigan
Excuse me, but Rush said that Fox is either faking or not taking his meds
so as to dramatize. And he is 100%, absolutely correct. I saw Michael J
Fox in an interview on TV a few months ago and his symptoms were barely
noticeable. But as the interview wore on he became more and more fidgety.
Finally, at one point he stopped the interview and asked to be excused
for a moment. A few minutes later he came back and seemed almost
completely normal. He apologized and said that he had to go and take a
pill that helps him control himself.
In Fox's own book he say's that he deliberately did not take his meds
when he testified before congress so as to dramatize his condition. Rush
even said on the air that there was really nothing wrong with that. I
agree, why go on the air to talk about a disease and try to hide the
effects?

The funny part about this is that, like the republicans defending Mark
Foley, they seem to have no clue as to why their behavior and their words
are regarded as so repulsive.
"What, me?" they say, incredulous that anybody finds them repugnant.

I haven't heard any Republican defend what Foley did. That's why he had to
resign, while Studds remained and was reelected time and again. That's why
we find you democrats so repugnant. Along with your seeming inability to be
truthful. Like when you claim that Republicans are defending Foley because
we point out the fact that democrats are obviously exhibiting false
incredulity, as demonstrated by your reelection of Studds. You don't give a
shit about such behavior, except as how you can use it politically while you
exempt your own. Like a terrorist, you use the morals of your opponents (and
your own lack thereof) against them. That too, is why we find you so
repugnant. The stench of rancid hypocrisy galore.

The Vicar

2006-10-25 22:44:20 UTC

Post by Mike Flannigan
Excuse me, but Rush said that Fox is either faking or not taking his
meds so as to dramatize. And he is 100%, absolutely correct. I saw
Michael J Fox in an interview on TV a few months ago and his symptoms
were barely noticeable. But as the interview wore on he became more and
more fidgety. Finally, at one point he stopped the interview and asked
to be excused for a moment. A few minutes later he came back and seemed
almost completely normal. He apologized and said that he had to go and
take a pill that helps him control himself.
In Fox's own book he say's that he deliberately did not take his meds
when he testified before congress so as to dramatize his condition. Rush
even said on the air that there was really nothing wrong with that. I
agree, why go on the air to talk about a disease and try to hide the
effects?

The funny part about this is that, like the republicans defending Mark
Foley, they seem to have no clue as to why their behavior and their words
are regarded as so repulsive.
"What, me?" they say, incredulous that anybody finds them repugnant.

did Studds author anti-gay legislation? Did Studds orate on child
protection? it's the hypocrisy that gets my reaction. i never heard of
Studds until the Foley thing so i cant comment on him but i certainly didnt
defend him,

Post by Mike Flannigan
incredulity, as demonstrated by your reelection of Studds. You don't give
a shit about such behavior, except as how you can use it politically while
you exempt your own. Like a terrorist, you use the morals of your
opponents (and your own lack thereof) against them. That too, is why we
find you so repugnant. The stench of rancid hypocrisy galore.

Lloyd King

2006-10-26 15:38:09 UTC

Post by Mike Flannigan
Excuse me, but Rush said that Fox is either faking or not taking his
meds so as to dramatize. And he is 100%, absolutely correct. I saw
Michael J Fox in an interview on TV a few months ago and his symptoms
were barely noticeable. But as the interview wore on he became more and
more fidgety. Finally, at one point he stopped the interview and asked
to be excused for a moment. A few minutes later he came back and seemed
almost completely normal. He apologized and said that he had to go and
take a pill that helps him control himself.
In Fox's own book he say's that he deliberately did not take his meds
when he testified before congress so as to dramatize his condition. Rush
even said on the air that there was really nothing wrong with that. I
agree, why go on the air to talk about a disease and try to hide the
effects?

The funny part about this is that, like the republicans defending Mark
Foley, they seem to have no clue as to why their behavior and their words
are regarded as so repulsive.
"What, me?" they say, incredulous that anybody finds them repugnant.

I haven't heard any Republican defend what Foley did.

They've been all over usenet. And on TV - all sorts of right wingers making
statements like "the page was of legal age when the most offensive IM
messages were sent" and "they didn't *actually* have sexual contact, they
just wrote messages about it" and "well, the page was over the age of
consent when they actually had physical contact" and "the age of consent in
Washington DC is 16".

Plus, of course, there is all the testimony about the Republican leadership
like Hastert and Rove and others who were told about Foley's activities and
they protected him.

Post by Mike Flannigan
That's why he had to resign, while Studds remained and was reelected time
and again.

Foley didn't "have to" resign. He resigned because he knew what he had
done, and he knew it was all going to come to light, and he was too chicken
to face the music, so he scarpered off to a rehab clinic to avoid the whole
mess. And Studds was censured by the congress. Foley wasn't.

Post by Mike Flannigan
That's why we find you democrats so repugnant.

Why? Because Democrats censure their members when they misbehave, but
Republicans protect them?

Post by Mike Flannigan
Along with your seeming inability to be truthful.

ROTFL!! In light of the current administration, that has to win the Irony
of the Year award...

Post by Mike Flannigan
Like when you claim that Republicans are defending Foley because we point
out the fact that democrats are obviously exhibiting false incredulity, as
demonstrated by your reelection of Studds.

"False incredulity"? LOL! You voted for George W Bush, didn't you?
<snicker>

Post by Mike Flannigan
You don't give a shit about such behavior, except as how you can use it
politically while you exempt your own. Like a terrorist, you use the
morals of your opponents (and your own lack thereof) against them. That
too, is why we find you so repugnant. The stench of rancid hypocrisy
galore.

And the gentle wafting of irony ...

<snicker>

Hey man, the Foley mess is pure *Republican*. For you to squirm and wriggle
and try to turn it around on Democrats is comical. Or it would be if your
desperation weren't so pathetic. I guess it's actually sort of sad...

Frank Pittel

2006-10-26 17:28:12 UTC

In alt.politics.usa.republican Lloyd King <***@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:

: "Mike Flannigan" <***@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
: news:TxR%g.16401$***@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
: >
: > "Lloyd King" <***@kinglloydcom.com> wrote in message
: > news:***@corp.supernews.com...
: >>
: >> "Mike Flannigan" <***@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
: >> news:4rQ%g.16285$***@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
: >>> Excuse me, but Rush said that Fox is either faking or not taking his
: >>> meds so as to dramatize. And he is 100%, absolutely correct. I saw
: >>> Michael J Fox in an interview on TV a few months ago and his symptoms
: >>> were barely noticeable. But as the interview wore on he became more and
: >>> more fidgety. Finally, at one point he stopped the interview and asked
: >>> to be excused for a moment. A few minutes later he came back and seemed
: >>> almost completely normal. He apologized and said that he had to go and
: >>> take a pill that helps him control himself.
: >>>
: >>> In Fox's own book he say's that he deliberately did not take his meds
: >>> when he testified before congress so as to dramatize his condition. Rush
: >>> even said on the air that there was really nothing wrong with that. I
: >>> agree, why go on the air to talk about a disease and try to hide the
: >>> effects?
: >>
: >>
: >> The funny part about this is that, like the republicans defending Mark
: >> Foley, they seem to have no clue as to why their behavior and their words
: >> are regarded as so repulsive.
: >>
: >> "What, me?" they say, incredulous that anybody finds them repugnant.
: >
: > I haven't heard any Republican defend what Foley did.

: They've been all over usenet. And on TV - all sorts of right wingers making
: statements like "the page was of legal age when the most offensive IM
: messages were sent" and "they didn't *actually* have sexual contact, they
: just wrote messages about it" and "well, the page was over the age of
: consent when they actually had physical contact" and "the age of consent in
: Washington DC is 16".

They're all true. Since when is making a statement of fact defending a person??

--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

Lloyd King

2006-10-26 18:21:56 UTC

Post by Frank Pittel
: >
: >>
: >>
: >> The funny part about this is that, like the republicans defending Mark
: >> Foley, they seem to have no clue as to why their behavior and their words
: >> are regarded as so repulsive.
: >>
: >> "What, me?" they say, incredulous that anybody finds them repugnant.
: >
: > I haven't heard any Republican defend what Foley did.
: They've been all over usenet. And on TV - all sorts of right wingers making
: statements like "the page was of legal age when the most offensive IM
: messages were sent" and "they didn't *actually* have sexual contact, they
: just wrote messages about it" and "well, the page was over the age of
: consent when they actually had physical contact" and "the age of consent in
: Washington DC is 16".
They're all true. Since when is making a statement of fact defending a person??

ROTFL!!

The amazing thing with these right-wingers, whether it's not understanding
why people find Limbaugh's rant so repulsive, or why Mark Foley's predatory
behavior is repulsive even if it is marginally legal, or one of my
favorites - they vigorously deny that conservatism is based on selfishness
and greed and by way of arguing they insist that human beings never act out
of altruism but only out of self-interest, is that they just DO NOT GET IT.
They are hilariously clueless.

Starkiller©

2006-10-26 01:46:38 UTC

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:30:51 -0500, "Lloyd King"

The funny part about this is that, like the republicans defending Mark
Foley, they seem to have no clue as to why their behavior and their words
are regarded as so repulsive.
"What, me?" they say, incredulous that anybody finds them repugnant.

Yeah I guess the truth is repugnant to you all yes?

Regards

Starkiller©

Eta Kooram Nah Smech!

Lloyd King

2006-10-26 15:43:31 UTC

Post by StarkillerÂ©
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:30:51 -0500, "Lloyd King"

The funny part about this is that, like the republicans defending Mark
Foley, they seem to have no clue as to why their behavior and their words
are regarded as so repulsive.
"What, me?" they say, incredulous that anybody finds them repugnant.

Yeah I guess the truth is repugnant to you all yes?

The truth of Mark Foley's actions? Yes, that is repugnant to me. If the
Republacn leadership covered for him and protected him and encouraged him to
continue in his hypocritical role as a leader of the anti-molestation
legislators? Yes, I find that repugnant, too, if it's true.

Frank Pittel

2006-10-26 17:26:21 UTC

In alt.politics.usa.republican Lloyd King <***@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:

: "Starkiller?" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:***@4ax.com...
: > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:30:51 -0500, "Lloyd King"
: > <***@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
: >
: >>
: >>"Mike Flannigan" <***@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
: >>news:4rQ%g.16285$***@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
: >>> Excuse me, but Rush said that Fox is either faking or not taking his
: >>> meds
: >>> so as to dramatize. And he is 100%, absolutely correct. I saw Michael J
: >>> Fox in an interview on TV a few months ago and his symptoms were barely
: >>> noticeable. But as the interview wore on he became more and more
: >>> fidgety.
: >>> Finally, at one point he stopped the interview and asked to be excused
: >>> for
: >>> a moment. A few minutes later he came back and seemed almost completely
: >>> normal. He apologized and said that he had to go and take a pill that
: >>> helps him control himself.
: >>>
: >>> In Fox's own book he say's that he deliberately did not take his meds
: >>> when
: >>> he testified before congress so as to dramatize his condition. Rush even
: >>> said on the air that there was really nothing wrong with that. I agree,
: >>> why go on the air to talk about a disease and try to hide the effects?
: >>
: >>
: >>The funny part about this is that, like the republicans defending Mark
: >>Foley, they seem to have no clue as to why their behavior and their words
: >>are regarded as so repulsive.
: >>
: >>"What, me?" they say, incredulous that anybody finds them repugnant.
: >
: > Yeah I guess the truth is repugnant to you all yes?

: The truth of Mark Foley's actions? Yes, that is repugnant to me. If the
: Republacn leadership covered for him and protected him and encouraged him to
: continue in his hypocritical role as a leader of the anti-molestation
: legislators? Yes, I find that repugnant, too, if it's true.

Do all you looney tune brain dead loser lib dems have ADD?? Why is it impossible
for you losers to stick to the topic of a thread??

--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

Lloyd King

2006-10-26 18:22:44 UTC

Post by Frank Pittel
: >>The funny part about this is that, like the republicans defending Mark
: >>Foley, they seem to have no clue as to why their behavior and their words
: >>are regarded as so repulsive.
: >>
: >>"What, me?" they say, incredulous that anybody finds them repugnant.
: >
: > Yeah I guess the truth is repugnant to you all yes?
: The truth of Mark Foley's actions? Yes, that is repugnant to me. If the
: Republacn leadership covered for him and protected him and encouraged him to
: continue in his hypocritical role as a leader of the anti-molestation
: legislators? Yes, I find that repugnant, too, if it's true.
Do all you looney tune brain dead loser lib dems have ADD?? Why is it impossible
for you losers to stick to the topic of a thread??

Hmmm... new to usenet, are you?

2800 Dead

2006-10-26 20:39:37 UTC

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:22:44 -0500, "Lloyd King"

Hmmm... new to usenet, are you?

The topic here was butt boils?

I can see why some folks would want to stick to those.
--

Today's GOP: Chickenhawks in every sense of the word.

Frank Pittel

2006-10-27 00:12:41 UTC

In alt.politics.usa.republican Lloyd King <***@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:

: "Frank Pittel" <***@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
: news:***@giganews.com...
: > In alt.politics.usa.republican Lloyd King <***@kinglloydcom.com>
: > wrote:
: > : >>The funny part about this is that, like the republicans defending Mark
: > : >>Foley, they seem to have no clue as to why their behavior and their
: > words
: > : >>are regarded as so repulsive.
: > : >>
: > : >>"What, me?" they say, incredulous that anybody finds them repugnant.
: > : >
: > : > Yeah I guess the truth is repugnant to you all yes?
: >
: > : The truth of Mark Foley's actions? Yes, that is repugnant to me. If
: > the
: > : Republacn leadership covered for him and protected him and encouraged
: > him to
: > : continue in his hypocritical role as a leader of the anti-molestation
: > : legislators? Yes, I find that repugnant, too, if it's true.
: >
: > Do all you looney tune brain dead loser lib dems have ADD?? Why is it
: > impossible
: > for you losers to stick to the topic of a thread??

: Hmmm... new to usenet, are you?

:-) We got a newbie to the group.

--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

John Brockbank

2006-10-26 17:13:34 UTC

< Rush said that Fox is either faking or not taking his meds
so as to dramatize. And he is 100%, absolutely correct.>

I am afraid that there are so many messages in this thread that I am unable
to say who wrote the above sentences.

Listen brain. If a man says either this, or that, it is impossible for him
to be 100% correct. The most he can possibly be right is 50%, and notice
carefully, that also makes him 50% wrong.

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend

2006-10-26 00:35:51 UTC

That's my point. Libs should attack Rush just like he attacks them.

Frank Pittel

2006-10-26 02:06:51 UTC

In alt.politics.usa.republican Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

: Billary/2008 wrote:
: > Rush has NOT made fun of Mr. Fox. He has merely pointed out that Fox has
: > injected himself into a political campaign and is playing up his disease in
: > an effort to elect Democrats who support stem cell research (and perhaps
: > human cloning). If democrats win on this issue, improvised women all over
: > America will have their eggs harvested to pay for research that benefits the
: > rich who can afford to pay for it. Why is Fox above reproach? Politics is
: > a contact sport, get over idiot.

: That's my point. Libs should attack Rush just like he attacks them.

For that to happen the looney tune brain dead loser lib dems would have to start
telling the truth about Rush. I don't think they're capable of it.

--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

Rich Travsky

2006-10-29 04:42:30 UTC

Post by Frank Pittel
: > Rush has NOT made fun of Mr. Fox. He has merely pointed out that Fox has
: > injected himself into a political campaign and is playing up his disease in
: > an effort to elect Democrats who support stem cell research (and perhaps
: > human cloning). If democrats win on this issue, improvised women all over
: > America will have their eggs harvested to pay for research that benefits the
: > rich who can afford to pay for it. Why is Fox above reproach? Politics is
: > a contact sport, get over idiot.
: That's my point. Libs should attack Rush just like he attacks them.
For that to happen the looney tune brain dead loser lib dems would have to start
telling the truth about Rush. I don't think they're capable of it.

"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back," he once snapped at
a black caller.

"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse
Jackson?"

"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice
robberies."

zzpat

2006-10-26 20:35:27 UTC

Aren't you making a lot of assumptions here? First, if there are
republicans who support stem cell research (most republicans do), why
doesn't the party support it also? Second, why not get Fox to do an ad
for pro stem cell republicans?

You "my party first" boys need to look at the bigger picture.

--
Pat
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.bravehost.com/

Articles of Impeachment
Center for Constitutional Rights
http://zzpat.bravehost.com/april_2006/articles_of_impeachment.html

The Vicar

2006-10-29 23:30:31 UTC

Post by Billary/2008
Rush has NOT made fun of Mr. Fox. He has merely pointed out that Fox has
injected himself into a political campaign and is playing up his disease
in an effort to elect Democrats who support stem cell research (and
perhaps human cloning). If democrats win on this issue, improvised women
all over America will have their eggs harvested to pay for research that
benefits the rich who can afford to pay for it. Why is Fox above
reproach? Politics is a contact sport, get over idiot.

i finally saw the commercial everyone is so upset about i dont think Fox
looks any worse in it than he did in the series of Scrubs episodes he was
in. Let's face it; he has the disease.

Mike Flannigan

2006-10-25 20:33:11 UTC

Yeah, that must be why you are lying and claiming that Rush made fun of
Michael J Fox.

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend

2006-10-26 00:37:47 UTC

Yeah, that must be why you are lying and claiming that Rush made fun of
Michael J Fox.

That's what the coward limbaugh is doing and Fox should have the brains
to fight fire with fire.

A***@anon.com

2006-10-25 21:17:22 UTC

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:14:48 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are

Simply Because Michael J. Fox is a Democrat and will not reply to
whatever insult his own neo-commies Democrats/Liberals masters would
say against him.
As it happens with any Democratic supporter=slave they would even
allow their leaders to kill them and wouldn't rebel against it. They
are happy slaves.

Mike Flannigan

2006-10-25 22:40:23 UTC

Well, you did manage to pull it out right at the end. You're right, liberals
are goddamn useless cowards.

Frank Pittel

2006-10-26 00:29:14 UTC

In alt.politics.usa.republican Mike Flannigan <***@jam.rr.com> wrote:

: "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in
: message news:***@4ax.com...
: > Hard to believe but Limbaugh is making fun of Fox for having
: > Parkinson's. Well - Michael could shut up Limbaugh overnight by making
: > fun of Limbaugh's avoidance of military service. He got a deferrment
: > for anal cysts!!! True story and one that libs should bring up all
: > the time but never do. Liberals don't make personal attakcs - they're
: > the issues only party. Goddam useless cowards.

: Well, you did manage to pull it out right at the end. You're right, liberals
: are goddamn useless cowards.

They're also liars.

--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend

2006-10-26 00:39:49 UTC

Post by Frank Pittel
: > Hard to believe but Limbaugh is making fun of Fox for having
: > Parkinson's. Well - Michael could shut up Limbaugh overnight by making
: > fun of Limbaugh's avoidance of military service. He got a deferrment
: > for anal cysts!!! True story and one that libs should bring up all
: > the time but never do. Liberals don't make personal attakcs - they're
: > the issues only party. Goddam useless cowards.
: Well, you did manage to pull it out right at the end. You're right, liberals
: are goddamn useless cowards.
They're also liars.

It's the conservatives who lied us into a war!!!!!!!!!

Frank Pittel

2006-10-26 04:20:15 UTC

In alt.politics.usa.republican Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

: Frank Pittel wrote:
: > In alt.politics.usa.republican Mike Flannigan <***@jam.rr.com> wrote:
: >
: > : "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in
: > : message news:***@4ax.com...
: > : > Hard to believe but Limbaugh is making fun of Fox for having
: > : > Parkinson's. Well - Michael could shut up Limbaugh overnight by making
: > : > fun of Limbaugh's avoidance of military service. He got a deferrment
: > : > for anal cysts!!! True story and one that libs should bring up all
: > : > the time but never do. Liberals don't make personal attakcs - they're
: > : > the issues only party. Goddam useless cowards.
: >
: > : Well, you did manage to pull it out right at the end. You're right, liberals
: > : are goddamn useless cowards.
: >
: > They're also liars.

: It's the conservatives who lied us into a war!!!!!!!!!

Prove that a single lie was told and then get back to the subject of the thread. Of
course as a brainless liberal you can't do that.

--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend

2006-10-26 16:12:00 UTC

Post by Frank Pittel
: It's the conservatives who lied us into a war!!!!!!!!!
Prove that a single lie was told and then get back to the subject of the thread.

I can prove that a million lies were told by you hatefilled repugs.

Billary/2008

2006-10-26 19:23:18 UTC

Okay, we're waiting asshole. Tell us. AND PLEASE do NOT point to any of the
crap on the paranoid left wing websites. Please use mainstream sources to
prove there was a lie.

Post by Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
I can prove that a million lies were told by you hatefilled repugs.

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS

2006-10-26 22:26:53 UTC

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:23:18 GMT, "Billary/2008"

Post by Billary/2008
Okay, we're waiting asshole. Tell us. AND PLEASE do NOT point to any of the
crap on the paranoid left wing websites. Please use mainstream sources to
prove there was a lie.

WTF are you talking about? Is your mind so drugged out you really
don't remember Bush's guarantee that iraq had WMD. And it wasn't just
bush. Cheney and rice and powell and a host of others told us the
same lie. Case closed.

Billary/2008

2006-10-26 23:45:35 UTC

So did Klintoon & the UN fool. What's your point? Or did you have one?

Post by Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
WTF are you talking about? Is your mind so drugged out you really
don't remember Bush's guarantee that iraq had WMD. And it wasn't just
bush. Cheney and rice and powell and a host of others told us the
same lie. Case closed.

The Vicar

2006-10-27 00:12:20 UTC

Post by Billary/2008
So did Klintoon & the UN fool. What's your point? Or did you have one?

President Clinton and the UN never proposed an invasion and interminable
occupation. Saddam was contained and no threat to anyone. The region is now
so destabilized that Iraq will surely become a theocracy and haven for
terrorists 10 seconds after we leave. Things are worse, your brave hero
screwed it up. Admit it.

Kurt Nicklas

2006-10-27 02:03:18 UTC

Post by Billary/2008
So did Klintoon & the UN fool. What's your point? Or did you have one?

We're not leaving. We'll need bases in Iraq for an eventual attack on
Iran.

Like it or not, it's inevitable

2804 Dead

2006-10-27 01:42:14 UTC

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:45:35 GMT, "Billary/2008"

Post by Billary/2008
So did Klintoon & the UN fool. What's your point? Or did you have one?

Did Clinton attack, invade and occupy Iraq, costing hundreds of
billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives? Oh, he
didn't, you say....?

The UN did -not- make such a claim. Only damned fool American
politicians.

A***@anon.com

2006-11-05 19:10:29 UTC

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:42:14 -0700, 2804 Dead

Post by 2804 Dead
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:45:35 GMT, "Billary/2008"

Post by Billary/2008
So did Klintoon & the UN fool. What's your point? Or did you have one?

Did Clinton attack, invade and occupy Iraq, costing hundreds of
billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives? Oh, he
didn't, you say....?
The UN did -not- make such a claim. Only damned fool American
politicians.

Clinton did his best to ensure muslim terrorist could get read to
strike on 9/11, he did nothing in the previous years to stop them.

Frank Pittel

2006-10-27 00:12:01 UTC

In alt.politics.usa.republican Billary/2008 <F#%***@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote:
: Okay, we're waiting asshole. Tell us. AND PLEASE do NOT point to any of the
: crap on the paranoid left wing websites. Please use mainstream sources to
: prove there was a lie.

Don't forget you promised one million lies.

: "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:***@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
: > I can prove that a million lies were told by you hatefilled repugs.
: >

--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

The Vicar

2006-10-27 00:14:02 UTC

Post by Frank Pittel
In alt.politics.usa.republican Billary/2008
: Okay, we're waiting asshole. Tell us. AND PLEASE do NOT point to any of the
: crap on the paranoid left wing websites. Please use mainstream sources to
: prove there was a lie.
Don't forget you promised one million lies.

It's called hyperbole. i would think you'd understand it since it's how your
boy got re-elected by exaggerating every rumor of a threat during the last
election.

Post by Frank Pittel
: > I can prove that a million lies were told by you hatefilled repugs.
: >
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

Aaron

2006-10-26 18:22:39 UTC