# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/161 "2010-03-20T18:28:20Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > If you don’t understand why we have a progressive income tax and how a flat tax like you suggest is bullshit, you should sit out this conversation. No I shouldn’t. And I won’t. So there. a progressive tax has pros and cons, just like a flat tax and the fair tax do. They are all worthy of consideration. And I think that the progressive strain is the most immoral. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/162 "2010-03-20T18:35:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No I shouldn’t. And I won’t. So there. a progressive tax has pros and cons, just like a flat tax and the fair tax do. They are all worthy of consideration. And I think that the progressive strain is the most immoral. And I think it’s the most moral. Because the idea of a tax should be to reduce the amount of harm. A flat tax harms the poor more, and there are more of them, so in causes much more misery. A progressive tax should aim to hurt the middle class and the rich alike. 10% of your income when you’re making 30k can cripple your chances of leading a productive life. At 300k it’s trivial. The spread of the tax burden should hurt equally across the brackets. The specific points are elements for debate, but there is no way a flat tax would work at all, except for making the rich, much, much richer. And Bush II has taught us that this is a fool’s errand. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/163 "2010-03-20T18:39:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > :rolleyes:Unbelievable. My comments went solely to the concept of noblesse oblige that someone brought up. Specifically the degree to which the “giving” be voluntary. This has nothing to do with taxes and government safety nets. Yeah, sorry, I misinterpreted. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/164 "2010-03-20T18:59:46Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Contrary to the desires of the ilk, this country is not and has never been intended to be a giant ant hill where everyone works for the good of everyone else. That system has failed every single time it’s been tried and why you people keep trying to pound the square peg of reality through the round hole of communism/socialism is a mystery to me. I believe I can answer this: It’s been tried ELSEWHERE. Places like Europe and Russia. Just because it failed over there, doesn’t mean it will fail here. The US is different. The same way UHC can work in other countries but NOT in the US. Socialism can fail in other countries but work in the US. Seems logically sound to me. ---
**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 20, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/165 "2010-03-20T21:31:08Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Why do people always raise this point like it’s meaningful or clever? What do YOU think “rich” means? I’ll go along with whatever you think it means. 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). Out here in the real world, the VAST majority of millionaires didn’t inherit anything–they got it by working hard and investing. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/166 "2010-03-20T21:42:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But it’s a concept that pushes one to do what he doesn’t have to do. He does that which is beyond what he has to. Someone might choose to build a library, fund a school sports team, be a patron of the arts, fund a soup kitchen, an orphanage, etc. All wonderful things, but once an action becomes mandatory, the sense of noblesse oblige (which I share with you) becomes lost. About the only reasonable answer I can offer you is, that some things are too big for one individual to tackle no matter what personal resources he has. A Bill Gates sort of person can do great things, bet he is still only one person. Carnegie created the Carnegie Foundation. During the Great Depression, Al Capone was very generous, opening soup kitchens etc, and (ignoring how he made his money) people were thankful for that food. There are probably many more examples of men with wealth and power doing these things, but each was only one man. One man can only do, and finance so many things. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/167 "2010-03-20T21:47:43Z")
Another fine example of teabagger classiness: > **[Tea Party Protests: 'Ni\*\*er,' 'Faggot' Shouted At Members Of Congress](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tea-party-protests-nier-f_n_507116)** > > Tea Party Protests: 'Ni\*\*er,' 'Faggot' Shouted At Members Of Congress ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/168 "2010-03-20T21:56:00Z")
> [@joebuck20](#): > > Another fine example of teabagger classiness: > > [Tea Party Protests: 'Ni\*\*er,' 'Fa\*\*ot' Shouted At Members Of Congress | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/tea-party-protests-nier-f_n_507116.html) Oh yeah, and people are saying WE (Dopers) don’t kow how to act > [@](#): > > A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spat on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a ‘ni–er.’ And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a “faggot,” as protestors shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams. Frank, approached in the halls after the president’s speech, shrugged off the incident. … > “A lot of us have been saying for a long time that much of this, much of this is not about health care a all. …” ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/169 "2010-03-20T22:01:51Z")
Proving once and for all that the tea-baggers are nothing more than racist troglodytes. Personally I think every single person holding a sign with a Browning on it should have been arrested and charged under Homeland Security violations and shipped off to Gitmo. Let the fuckers rot. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/170 "2010-03-20T22:02:28Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > Yeah, sorry, I misinterpreted. Well, that was easy. Thank you. But since this is the pit, “Look asshat, how dare you rile me up and then come back with your…your…_reasonableness_—and polite manner to boot!” 😉 ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/171 "2010-03-20T22:08:21Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > About the only reasonable answer I can offer you is, that some things are too big for one individual to tackle no matter what personal resources he has. A Bill Gates sort of person can do great things, bet he is still only one person. Carnegie created the Carnegie Foundation. During the Great Depression, Al Capone was very generous, opening soup kitchens etc, and (ignoring how he made his money) people were thankful for that food. There are probably many more examples of men with wealth and power doing these things, but each was only one man. One man can only do, and finance so many things. You are right here, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Yes, there are only a few individuals who can give so substantially, but that doesn’t mean that you and I can’t make a donation to a school sports team, or get a few of our friends together and sponsor a 5, 10, or 20 thousand dollar scholarship to a low-income school. Or help out at the old folks home, with either time or a donation. ---
**Author:** ![FE3O4ENAIL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ba9def/32.png) [@FE3O4ENAIL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FE3O4ENAIL)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/172 "2010-03-20T22:24:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You are right here, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Yes, there are only a few individuals who can give so substantially, but that doesn’t mean that you and I can’t make a donation to a school sports team, or get a few of our friends together and sponsor a 5, 10, or 20 thousand dollar scholarship to a low-income school. Or help out at the old folks home, with either time or a donation. No, no, no, we must take the money of those nasty rich people and use that for good. You know, those slow and stupid rich that are just going to sit there and let their money be taken.😉 ---
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/173 "2010-03-20T23:01:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You are right here, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Yes, there are only a few individuals who can give so substantially, but that doesn’t mean that you and I can’t make a donation to a school sports team, or get a few of our friends together and sponsor a 5, 10, or 20 thousand dollar scholarship to a low-income school. Or help out at the old folks home, with either time or a donation. How exactly is this going to help the uninsurable? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/174 "2010-03-20T23:06:58Z")
> [@sinjin](#): > > How exactly is this going to help the uninsurable? I have no friggin idea. There was a tangent and then a tangent on the tangent. I had commented on someone’s use of noblesse oblige and we meandered from there. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/175 "2010-03-20T23:41:58Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > ] > God forbid! No, Mr. **Bricker** , not at all. > > My point, clearly lost on you, is that it’s almost entertaining to watch so many ostensible Christians, especially those who profess to adhere sedulously to the teachings of Christ, pick and choose which of those teachings they’re going to respect. Today. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/176 "2010-03-20T23:45:07Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Bricker, I am sure you’ll treat the upper post with the amount of consideration it deserves, but since you’ve made a point about being annoyed by a double standard of letting people “on side” get away with things; **Facts** , your post is pretty damn foolish. And, to any in general, just because you can be a bastard in the Pit doesn’t mean you should. Especially if it’s not particularly clever bastardry. Although you’d think I would just shrug off nonsense like that post, in fact it means a great deal to me to have you post what you did. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/177 "2010-03-20T23:59:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Wow. This may be my favorite SDMB post EVER. It sums up the open-mindedness and tolerance the left embraces so well. > > A work of art, it is. You’ll notice that while a couple of folks did sort of endorse the thought, the majority of reactions to it were negative. And thanks again to everyone who stepped up. As I hinted above, although I’m generally pretty thick-skinned, it does mean something to me when this kind of crap is actively rejected. ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/178 "2010-03-21T00:06:43Z")
**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? ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/179 "2010-03-21T00:09:57Z")
… ---
**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, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009/180 "2010-03-21T01:21:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Define “fair share”. If someone makes $30,000 and another makes $300,000 and the first pays $4,500 and the second pays $45,000, I think that’s VERY fair. Yeah, I know you disagree. 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teabaggers-mock-man-with-parkinsons/533009.md?page=10)