# Teabaggers mock man with Parkinson's **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 19, 2010, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009 "2010-03-19T14:29:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/181 "2010-03-21T02:03:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my personal life, I do (or at least I try to) adhere to Christ’s teachings, as promulgated by the Catholic Church, which is of course headed always by Christ’s Vicar on Earth, as it has been since Peter took the job at Jesus’ command. > > This is why, for example, I spend a fair amount of time every month supporting a homeless shelter, doing everything from cooking and serving food to computer and carpentry work, as needed. This is why a fair amount of money every month goes to charity from the Bricker household. > > But these are all personal actions, which is what I contend is necessary to adhere to Christ’s teachings. Christ teaches us to help the helpless, not to force others to do so. I believe people gain grace when they step up,personally, and do something to help. They gain no grace where their “help” is procured involuntarily by taxation and public policy. > (snip) > As an American, I believe our public policy should not be informed by ourreligious convictions. I strongly oppose Catholic marriages for same-sex couples, but I strongly favor civil marriages for same-sex couples… because religion should not guide public policy. > > You cannot tell me my faith requires I support UHC, because it does not. You cannot claim that by opposing UHC I am acting contrary to my faith, because I am not. > > And I find it highly… um… ;et’s say “manipulative,” to be polite… for you to point to Christian ideals only when they happen to coincide with your plans, and vigorously reject the very idea when they don’t. I appreciate your thoughtful response and respect you for acting in accordance to your beliefs. So, thank you. (That being said, I’m not sure I understand your last sentence. My _only_ purpose in quoting Matthew was to indicate to you that I thought _you_ were picking and choosing. In fact, I don’t believe I’ve ever “point(ed) to Christian ideals” explicitly, and certainly not here on the Boards.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/182 "2010-03-21T02:13:26Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > (That being said, I’m not sure I understand your last sentence. My _only_ purpose in quoting Matthew was to indicate to you that I thought _you_ were picking and choosing. In fact, I don’t believe I’ve ever “point(ed) to Christian ideals” explicitly, and certainly not here on the Boards.) Ah, my mistake. So, sorry in turn. My bad. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/183 "2010-03-21T02:22:59Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > **Bricker** , a serious question. > > Do you think that charity alone can fix the current crisis of the uninsured and uninsurable sick? And if not, what do you suggest we do? Not really sure this is the right thread to answer that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/184 "2010-03-21T02:34:18Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Imagine that I offer you a piece of delicious pie. Because you’re hungry, you enjoy this delicious slice, in fact you love it so much you ask for seconds. But the second slice isn’t quite so delicious and valuable to you as the first, and the third is even less so because your hunger has been satisfied. > > It works the same with money. Economists call it [diminishing marginal returns](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns). With each additional unit of money earned after basic needs are met, the increase in happiness to the income earner diminishes until eventually it levels off. Studies on the relationship between income and happiness [show](http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/2006/08/01/8382225/index.htm) that the correlation levels off after $90,000 a year. > > Keeping that in mind, a progressive taxation system is remarkably fair. Let’s pretend we’ve changed our current system to a flat tax of 36% (which is [about the amount](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending) that would be needed to pay for all current federal, state, and local government services) it would _seriously_ harm the poor. As far as the rich goes, that additional money they gain from making things “fair” isn’t likely to make them any happier than they already are. As an underemployed college student struggling to get by, I can assure you that it would be a major kick to my balls to convert to what you consider a “fair” method of taxation. What alarms me is the blithe assumption that you have the moral right to (a) decide what levels of happiness are appropriate for me; (b) decide that the appropriate function of government is to equalize the levels of happiness amongst all citizens; and (c) take money from some people and give it to others to accomplish those ends. That said, I agree with you that the progressive tax system has some equity to it. But it has nothing to do with the relative happiness the various participants may experience. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/185 "2010-03-21T02:34:51Z")
Oh, thats OK, we’ll find it in our hearts to forgive your impertinence. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/186 "2010-03-21T02:42:51Z")
I’m not in a debating mood today, but this post made me a bit depressed. I have Parkinson’s. I was diagnosed quite recently, less than a year ago. The only people who know about this, online or in the real world, are my wife and my closest friend. Right now, it’s manageable, and not that big a deal, and with my medication, it’s barely visible. I have tremors, but I know how to hide it. I have health insurance through my job, and even if I didn’t, I could probably afford the medication I take. It’s been around for a while, and there is a generic equivalent, so it’s not very expensive. And, at least for now, it works. But Parkinson’s is (often, anyway) progressive. It’s probably going to get worse. And seeing my neurologist regularly is expensive, or would be, if I didn’t have insurance. And it’s very likely that I’ll need more, and more expensive, medication in the future. And what about new treatments in the pipeline? They’re not going to be cheap. They’re going to be so expensive that they will be beyond my reach without insurance. If I lose my job, and therefore my insurance, I am well and truly fucked. And when I reach retirement age, without Medicare, I’d be really fucked. What private insurer is going to insure someone with a decades-long record of Parkinson’s? There’s no way I’d be able to purchase my own insurance. There’s no way I could now. I doubt very much that any insurance company will touch me. I even worry about what will happen if I change jobs. Will my new insurance carrier refuse to cover my pre-existing condition? Not that I could afford it even if insurers would take me. I’m carrying my wife on my employer’s plan right now, because she got laid off about a year ago, and hasn’t found a job yet. She’s done temp work, but that doesn’t provide insurance, and her insurance costs me more than $6,000 a year. I have no complaints about my income, but no real possibility of increasing it significantly, either, and $6,000 is not pocket change to me, not by a long shot. If I were a citizen of just about any developed nation other than the United States, the only thing I’d have to worry about is the disease itself. But I’ve got all this other crap to keep me awake at night. Sorry about the rambling. This thread just made me think a bit, and also got me a bit depressed. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/187 "2010-03-21T02:48:23Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > I’m not in a debating mood today, but this post made me a bit depressed. I have Parkinson’s. I was diagnosed quite recently, less than a year ago. The only people who know about this, online or in the real world, are my wife and my closest friend. Right now, it’s manageable, and not that big a deal, and with my medication, it’s barely visible. I have tremors, but I know how to hide it. > > I have health insurance through my job, and even if I didn’t, I could probably afford the medication I take. It’s been around for a while, and there is a generic equivalent, so it’s not very expensive. And, at least for now, it works. > > But Parkinson’s is (often, anyway) progressive. It’s probably going to get worse. And seeing my neurologist regularly is expensive, or would be, if I didn’t have insurance. And it’s very likely that I’ll need more, and more expensive, medication in the future. And what about new treatments in the pipeline? They’re not going to be cheap. They’re going to be so expensive that they will be beyond my reach without insurance. > > If I lose my job, and therefore my insurance, I am well and truly fucked. And when I reach retirement age, without Medicare, I’d be really fucked. What private insurer is going to insure someone with a decades-long record of Parkinson’s? There’s no way I’d be able to purchase my own insurance. There’s no way I could now. I doubt very much that any insurance company will touch me. I even worry about what will happen if I change jobs. Will my new insurance carrier refuse to cover my pre-existing condition? Not that I could afford it even if insurers would take me. I’m carrying my wife on my employer’s plan right now, because she got laid off about a year ago, and hasn’t found a job yet. She’s done temp work, but that doesn’t provide insurance, and her insurance costs me more than $6,000 a year. I have no complaints about my income, but no real possibility of increasing it significantly, either, and $6,000 is not pocket change to me, not by a long shot. > > If I were a citizen of just about any developed nation other than the United States, the only thing I’d have to worry about is the disease itself. But I’ve got all this other crap to keep me awake at night. > > Sorry about the rambling. This thread just made me think a bit, and also got me a bit depressed. This is why I support UHC, despite otherwise being Libertarian. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/188 "2010-03-21T02:51:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What constantly amazes me is that I can see that both sides of the argument have merit; that both sides believe their approach is best for the country. One is probably wrong. But neither is acting in bad faith. > > Yet the other side doesn’t seem to agree. Not only is their opposition wrong, but it’s evil. It’s BAD. It’s acting in bad faith. Broad brushes. I do believe that there are conservatives who, in absolute good faith, believe that certain policies will produce the greatest good for the most people. And it is quite likely that their vision of the best possible society isn’t all that different from mine, in that they believe, at some time in the future, when they succeed in persuading everyone that their political philosophy is the best possible philosophy, that a society with opportunity and equality (of opportunity, not outcomes) and security and freedom for all will emerge. As a liberal (progressive, social democrat, whatever), I hope for those very same things. I disagree with conservatives on the road to those goals, but I’m betting that in the end, there are plenty of conservatives who hope for the same things I do. So I don’t think that conservatism is evil, or acting in bad faith. I think it’s misguided (and I understand that conservatives think the same of liberalism). But these tea party people seem to me to be an entirely different kettle of fish. There’s something mean-spirited in them. And there seems to be an unsavory streak of racism there. And a lot of anger and fear. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/189 "2010-03-21T03:07:47Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > If I lose my job, and therefore my insurance, I am well and truly fucked. Not if you get another job that offers health insurance. (I know, here comes the BUT BUT BUT crowd to spin all sorts of yarns . . .) > [@](#): > > If I were a citizen of just about any developed nation other than the United States, the only thing I’d have to worry about is the disease itself. But I’ve got all this other crap to keep me awake at night. Looking at UHC v. No UHC just from a health care perspective doesn’t tell even half the story. UHC requires higher taxes, which necessarily reduces economic activity. So, if you want to think about an alternate universe where the US has UHC, you can’t just think “I wouldn’t have to worry about paying for health care.” You also have to think “The job I have may not exist.” ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/190 "2010-03-21T03:11:47Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Not if you get another job that offers health insurance. (I know, here comes the BUT BUT BUT crowd to spin all sorts of yarns . . .) A job whose healthcare might not cover him due to his preexisting condition. > [@](#): > > Looking at UHC v. No UHC just from a health care perspective doesn’t tell even half the story. UHC requires higher taxes, which necessarily reduces economic activity. So, if you want to think about an alternate universe where the US has UHC, you can’t just think “I wouldn’t have to worry about paying for health care.” You also have to think “The job I have may not exist.” And yet even without a job, at least he wouldn’t have to worry about treatment. Our economy must be on fire what with the low taxes from not having UHC, right? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/191 "2010-03-21T03:16:35Z")
> [@](#): > > …(I know, here comes the BUT BUT BUT crowd to spin all sorts of yarns . . .) “Yarns”, then? Making up stories to play upon the sympathy of the gullible and weak? ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/192 "2010-03-21T03:18:49Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Not if you get another job that offers health insurance. (I know, here comes the BUT BUT BUT crowd to spin all sorts of yarns . . .) Exclusion of pre-existing conditions isn’t a “yarn.” It’s a fact. In the absence of legislation prohibiting them from doing so, insurance companies will naturally (and do) exclude from coverage those who have known conditions that may require expensive treatment. Or at least exclude that condition from coverage. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/193 "2010-03-21T03:47:51Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I think people raise it because you are using a very odd definition of “rich.” I think maybe 100 people in the whole US qualify as “rich” by your apparent definition (i.e., they inherited vast wealth and then never worked a day in their life). I didn’t use any definition at all, but as it happns, most rich people never earn a dime of it. We have a very small, parasitic overclass that needs to be punctured and drained. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/194 "2010-03-21T03:51:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my personal life, I do (or at least I try to) adhere to Christ’s teachings, as promulgated by the Catholic Church, which is of course headed always by Christ’s Vicar on Earth, as it has been since Peter took the job at Jesus’ command. > > This is why, for example, I spend a fair amount of time every month supporting a homeless shelter, doing everything from cooking and serving food to computer and carpentry work, as needed. This is why a fair amount of money every month goes to charity from the Bricker household. > > But these are all personal actions, which is what I contend is necessary to adhere to Christ’s teachings. Christ teaches us to help the helpless, not to force others to do so. I believe people gain grace when they step up,personally, and do something to help. They gain no grace where their “help” is procured involuntarily by taxation and public policy. > > So those are my relevant religious beliefs. > > Now, in what way am I acting contrary to them? > > As an American, I believe our public policy should not be informed by ourreligious convictions. I strongly oppose Catholic marriages for same-sex couples, but I strongly favor civil marriages for same-sex couples… because religion should not guide public policy. > > You cannot tell me my faith requires I support UHC, because it does not. You cannot claim that by opposing UHC I am acting contrary to my faith, because I am not. > > And I find it highly… um… ;et’s say “manipulative,” to be polite… for you to point to Christian ideals only when they happen to coincide with your plans, and vigorously reject the very idea when they don’t. Jesus said to pay your taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/195 "2010-03-21T03:55:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What alarms me is the blithe assumption that you have the moral right to (a) decide what levels of happiness are appropriate for me; (b) decide that the appropriate function of government is to equalize the levels of happiness amongst all citizens; and (c) take money from some people and give it to others to accomplish those ends. This is an utterly false and disingenuous of progressive ideology, and a callow dismissal of your civic responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/196 "2010-03-21T04:17:34Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Who gives a fuck about _nobless oblige_. Rich cocksuckers have a civic responsibility. The public has no obligation to indulge their desire to feel smugly beneficent. Without the government, there _aren’t_ any rich people. I don’t give two shits about their _feelings_. Then why should they give even one shit about yours? > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > **Bricker** , a serious question. > > Do you think that charity alone can fix the current crisis of the uninsured and uninsurable sick? And if not, what do you suggest we do? Since Bricker doesn’t want to try this one, I will. I think that we need to get back to a society where personal responsibility is _expected_, where people actually wait until they can afford it to buy things, who only have as many children as they can realistically comfortably raise and who do not have them as teens or underemployed singles. This would make a big cut in the number of uninsured and unisurable, to the point that it would be far easier for the government to take care of those people who “fall thru the cracks”. Instead of wanting and expecting to live in a nanny state, people need to get back to taking care of themselves. > [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > Exclusion of pre-existing conditions isn’t a “yarn.” It’s a fact. In the absence of legislation prohibiting them from doing so, insurance companies will naturally (and do) exclude from coverage those who have known conditions that may require expensive treatment. Or at least exclude that condition from coverage. In the case of group insurance thru employers, there are laws that don’t allow them to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, as long as a couple of requirements are met. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/197 "2010-03-21T04:25:36Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Then why should they give even one shit about yours? I’m not asking anyone to. > [@](#): > > Since Bricker doesn’t want to try this one, I will. I think that we need to get back to a society where personal responsibility is _expected_, where people actually wait until they can afford it to buy things, who only have as many children as they can realistically comfortably raise and who do not have them as teens or underemployed singles. This would make a big cut in the number of uninsured and unisurable, to the point that it would be far easier for the government to take care of those people who “fall thru the cracks”. Instead of wanting and expecting to live in a nanny state, people need to get back to taking care of themselves. So you think we should do away with credit card companies, home and car loans and any other kind of credit, as well as insuring that both birth control and abortion are legal, cheap and easily accessible? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/198 "2010-03-21T04:27:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What alarms me is the blithe assumption that you have the moral right to (a) decide what levels of happiness are appropriate for me; (b) decide that the appropriate function of government is to equalize the levels of happiness amongst all citizens; and (c) take money from some people and give it to others to accomplish those ends. As to your first point, my goal is not to put some kind of cap on your happiness levels. My belief is that if this passes, the worst that will happen to you is that you will grumble about it for a few days or weeks and then carry on with your affairs like you did before. Aside from that, it won’t put any measurable crimp on your lifestyle whatsoever. But it will make a huge difference to millions of people and prevent a great deal of abject suffering. That’s why I sleep easy at night and don’t fret about the morality of my position. Point B, _equalizing_ happiness is an impossible task. Equality, in and of itself, is not my aim. A better description of my aims is to maximize _overall_ happiness amongst the populace. Point C, the ship has already sailed on the issue of income taxes. You’re about a hundred years too late. It’s in the Constitution as a legitimate government function, along with “promoting the general welfare.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/199 "2010-03-21T04:34:11Z")
I don’t worry so much about assuring happiness, I’ll settle for preventing misery and hopelessness, and figure happiness can pretty much take care of itself. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/200 "2010-03-21T05:00:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > … This is why, for example, I spend a fair amount of time every month supporting a homeless shelter, doing everything from cooking and serving food to computer and carpentry work, as needed. This is why a fair amount of money every month goes to charity from the Bricker household. > > But these are all personal actions, … That’s more than most people do, good on ya. Seriously. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009.md?page=11)