Jump to content

A Day in the Life of Joe Republican


Guest Bill616
This topic is 6666 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Guest Bill616

Joe gets up at 6:00 am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of clean, fluoridated drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards.

 

After his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought for the FDA to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

 

All but $20.00 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers negotiated with their employers for paid medical insurance. Now Joe gets it, too.

 

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

 

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

 

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is cleaner because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to reduce pollution.

 

He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. Again, it was some liberal who fought for public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to travel around his city (and relieves traffic congestion and air pollution).

 

Joe begins his work day: He has a good job with decent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer meets these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get worker's compensation or an unemployment check because some Liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune at work.

 

It's noon; Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers such as those who ruined the banking system before the depression.

 

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

 

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to Dad's; his car is among the safest ever made because some liberal fought for car safety standards.

 

He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

 

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself after decades of work so that Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with his dad, Joe gets back in his car for the ride home.

 

He turns on a radio talk show, the host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees, "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self- made man and I believe everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bill616

Joe gets up at 6:00 am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of clean, fluoridated drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards.

 

After his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought for the FDA to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

 

All but $20.00 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers negotiated with their employers for paid medical insurance. Now Joe gets it, too.

 

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

 

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

 

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is cleaner because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to reduce pollution.

 

He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. Again, it was some liberal who fought for public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to travel around his city (and relieves traffic congestion and air pollution).

 

Joe begins his work day: He has a good job with decent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer meets these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get worker's compensation or an unemployment check because some Liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune at work.

 

It's noon; Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers such as those who ruined the banking system before the depression.

 

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

 

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to Dad's; his car is among the safest ever made because some liberal fought for car safety standards.

 

He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

 

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself after decades of work so that Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with his dad, Joe gets back in his car for the ride home.

 

He turns on a radio talk show, the host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees, "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self- made man and I believe everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Joe Republican can do that without fear of the Soviet Union raining nuclear bombs down on him, annihilating, in an instant, all those wonderful liberal accomplishments, because a conservative won the Cold War, making the world a safer place for all Americans.

 

Since all that is good and right springs forth from liberals, I'm happy to say that it was a liberal who said that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. So, I guess we needn't argue that assertion since it was Edward "Could Someone Please Get Me Some Dry Clothes" Kennedy who said it.

 

Historically yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A conservative "won" the Cold War? Will the myth-making never end?

 

The Cold War ended, not because of anything the addled and morally bankrupt Ronald Reagan ever did, but because the Soviet Union and its creaky empire collapsed under the weight of their own inefficiency, bloat, and corruption. It has been much-commented upon that Western intelligence agencies were unprepared for the sudden collapse of the Soviet empire and hadn't predicted it. When the Wall came down it did so with a speed that left the West gasping for breath.

 

The Soviet empire also died because of the courage of citizens and leaders in the Eastern bloc who began actively challenging the system or (in the case of East Germany and its neighbors) leaving for the West in such droves that the countries were becoming unsustainable. There were also mass marches against the regime in East Germany and Russia. There had also been enormous ferment in Poland with the rise of the Solidarity movement in opposition to the government. None of this had anything to do with Ronald Reagan and everything to do with the exhaustion of ordinary East Europeans with the communist system. And believe me, if the most recent revolutionary efforts in Eastern Europe had failed this time, as they did in Hungary and then in Czechoslovakia in years past, Ronald Reagan wouldn't have lifted a finger to help them, just as the West failed to help the Hungarians and the Czechs.

 

If any person in the West can be said to have had a significant role in bringing down the Communist system, it's the Pope, who is widely credited with having actively supported opponents of the regime. The Pope will not be remembered kindly for his reactionary views on sexuality, marriage and the place of women in the Church, but he will be remembered for his part in fostering resistance to the Communists and contributing to the end of the Soviet empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AlohaGuy

This last post reveals an all-too-widespread belief amongst gays: that Republicans/conservatives/Christians/Catholics are their evil oppressors and the cause of all the world's ills whereas Democrats/liberals/secularists are their Good Witch of the North salvation. As a result, these victim-wannabe's relentlessly demonize anything and everything Republicans/conservatives do while fawningly glorifying their Democratic/liberal saviors. Republicans can do no right, and although Democrats do occasionally do wrong (e.g., Clinton's support of the Defense of Marriage Act after shamelessly gladhanding his gay/lesbian supporters for years), the victimhood set knee-jerks to their defense with, "they're nowhere nearly as bad as the Republicans!" There is no reasoning or productive discourse possible with these victim-wannabe's because they are blind with hatred for their Republican so-called "oppressors" and adoration for their Democratic saviors.

 

F*cking spare me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy, is THAT reading way more into a posting than it contains, or what? I guess it's possible to O.D. on Mai-Tais in paradise, huh?

 

If you recover from your haze, please re-read the posting. It deals with the causes of the fall of the Soviet empire and only tangentially with the Pope's views on sexuality, so I have no idea how you derive your entire rant from what it contains. The posting also gives the Pope deserved credit for his role in bringing an end to the Communist system, which will probably be his lasting positive historical legacy. His reactionary views on sexuality (and his packing the hierarchy of the Church with like-minded clerics who will perpetuate his narrow vision in this area) are likely to be seen as his lasting negative historical legacy, because it very may well lead to the collapse of the Church as an institution in the developed nations. More and more people are becoming disaffected with a Church whose teachings don't conform to their own moral views on sexual behavior, which brands them as as sinners, and shuts out the laity. The collapse of the Soviet empire may, ironically, contribute to the further decline of the Church, because its resistance to the Communists was a point around which otherwise wavering Catholics could rally in countries like Poland. Now that rallying point no longer exists, just leaving an institution obsessed (in the mold of Pope John Paul) with re-imposing pre-Renaissance codes of sexual conduct.

 

How you extrapolate from that a hatred of all things Christian is a mystery. Many churches (unlike the Catholics) are struggling with the issues of modern sexual morality. The debates and arguments in those churches may be difficult, but at least they honestly acknowledge that views on sexual morality are shifting and those churches are trying to find ways to reconcile Christian teaching with those changes. That contrasts with the situation in Catholicism, where there is no longer any meaningful debate and where all opposing views are simply stifled by the hierarchy. That may be an effective reactionary tactic in the short run, but in the long run it's likely to drive faithful Christians away from the Church. I think that's sad, but the Roman Catholic Church is a human institution and experience teaches us that institutions have been known to fail when they were incapable of adapting to historical changes. After 2,000 years of history, the Church may have reached the point where it's no longer capable of renewing itself and will decline into sclerotic insignificance or self-destruction. There is certainly a lot of handwriting on the wall pointing to such a fate. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>The Cold War ended, not because of anything the addled and

>morally bankrupt Ronald Reagan ever did, but because the

>Soviet Union and its creaky empire collapsed under the weight

>of their own inefficiency, bloat, and corruption.

 

But you don't give Reagan credit for being fiscally bankrupt, also. It was Eisenhower who invented the military-industrial complex, but Reagan who took arms-race spending to record levels. Did he do it because he knew the Soviet economy would collapse, trying to keep up with us? No -- he just signed the appropriations that Congress passed, awarding more and more contracts to the companies whose lobbyists promised financial rewards for military pork.

 

And by the way, Nixon invented the Internet. It happened while he was President, so he gets all the credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't give Reagan credit for his fiscal bankruptcy, but I'm glad you did. Bush Senior just continued the spree. Of course, it was the right wing's anti-Christ (Bill Clinton) who finally reversed course, putting the U.S. into surplus for the first time in memory and fostering the longest sustained economic growth period in history, but who can be bothered with facts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> it was the right wing's anti-Christ (Bill Clinton) who

>finally reversed course, putting the U.S. into surplus for the

>first time in memory and fostering the longest sustained

>economic growth period in history, but who can be bothered

>with facts?

 

LOL!! I love how the mere fact that Reagan was President when the Soviet Union collapsed doesn't mean that Reagan was responsible for that event.

 

BUT . . . . the mere fact that Clinton was President during the economic boom caused by the explosion of the Internet and the resulting explosion of the stock market is proof that Clinton "caused" the economic growth of the 1990s.

 

So, to review this line of "thought":

 

*When it comes to Reagan, the fact that someone is President when Event X occurs (e.g., the collapse of the Soviet empire) doesn't mean that the President caused Event X.

 

*When it comes to Clinton, the fact that someone is President when Event X occurs (e.g., economic expansion of the 1990s) means that the President caused Event X.

 

But who needs principled consistency when it comes to shrill partisan argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try, Dougie, but no cigar. By your reasoning, Dubya is responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks because they occurred on his watch. Of course, that's senseless.

 

Reagan didn't have any meaningful effect on the Soviet bloc. Its collapse was the result of internal dynamics. Clinton WAS responsible for the economic growth during his administration because he actively promoted deficit reduction and got the U.S. into a surplus situation. That eased interest rates and inflation and promoted economic growth. Clinton wasn't responsible for the tech boom, per se, but the economic climate he helped create contributed to the ability of the tech industry to raise money and create growth.

He certainly had a much more direct impact on the economic climate during his administration than Reagan had on the Soviet Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>LOL!! I love how the mere fact that Reagan was President when

>the Soviet Union collapsed doesn't mean that Reagan was

>responsible for that event.

 

There you go again, Dougie, with your penchant for revisionist history. Reagan was already out of office when things unraveled in the USSR.....the year was 1991. So, as usual, your screwy argument goes down the toilet. Does the credit now go to George H.W. Bush? Nope, Trilingual has it pegged. The Pope had way more impact on the demise of the USSR than did your Republican idols. Sorry to burst your bubble, Bubba.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>(Bill Clinton) who

>finally reversed course, putting the U.S. into surplus for the

>first time in memory and fostering the longest sustained

>economic growth period in history, but who can be bothered

>with facts?

 

Apparently you since you conveniently left out the uncomfortable little fact that during the last year of Clinton's presidency, the nation was in recession.

 

Yes or no, was he responsible for the recession? Or, was he responsible for merely the good things?

 

Curiously yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>A conservative "won" the Cold War? Will the myth-making

>never end?

 

I was merely quoting Edward "Could Someone Please Get Me Some Dry Clothes" Kennedy. He's not merely a liberal, he's THE liberal.

 

So if you have a problem with that little bit of "myth-making", I would suggest you take it up with THE liberal.

 

Instructively yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>was he responsible for the recession?

 

Since you ask, I'd say "no." Economic growth isn't eternal, it's cyclical. The (ironically) conservative economic policies of the Clinton/Gore administration directly contributed to the long period of economic growth the U.S. enjoyed. The administration didn't change its policies in its last year, so there's no basis for claiming that it was somehow responsible for the incipient recession. A significant contributor to the recession was the bursting of the tech bubble, which wasn't a matter within the administration's control.

 

The Bush administration, to the contrary, actively contributed to the weakening of the American economy by its massive tax cuts coupled with staggering deficit spending. A recession that might have been a blip was turned into something else by the Bush team. The attack on 9/11 made things worse, of course, and that wasn't something within control of the administration, but in a time of crisis the administration exacerbated the problem by subsequent irresponsible fiscal behavior. Instead of suspending or repealing the tax cuts to help pay for increased defense costs, the administration clung to them with all their might. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co. started spending like drunken sailors. To compound matters, they started a new, unnecessary and ruinously expensive war in Iraq, throwing money at their favored supporters like Halliburton (and lining their own pockets with war profits) while putting all the rest of us deeper into debt. That's a significant contrast to the actions of the previous administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Since you ask, I'd say "no." Economic growth isn't eternal,

>it's cyclical.

 

To use your logic you would then have to concede that Clinton/Gore (and the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS) had nothing to do with the expansion either because "economic growth is cyclical".

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

Unless, of course, you're John Kerry.

 

Exactly yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>A conservative "won" the Cold War? Will the myth-making

>>never end?

>

>I was merely quoting Edward "Could Someone Please Get Me Some

>Dry Clothes" Kennedy. He's not merely a liberal, he's THE

>liberal.

>

>So if you have a problem with that little bit of

>"myth-making", I would suggest you take it up with THE

>liberal.

>

>Instructively yours,

>

>FFF

 

How incuriously amusing.

 

Normally, you Repigs qualify anything Ted Kennedy has to say with a comment about being drunk of driving off a bridge or both. Yet you run right for him to support your cause.

 

Never mind the fact that he said it after Reagan died. Never mind the fact that most people will say nice things about those they didn't like they're dead but not really mean it. I'm sure Kennedy must have been drunk when he said it. Like everything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...