"A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN"

http://www.thismodernworld.com/
from JoeUser Forums
"A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN" Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby 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 clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor. Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays 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 a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university. 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. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads. He arrives at his boyhood home. His 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 father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the 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 who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have." This is posted on the blog of "Tom Tomorrow" the cartoonist, attributed to "South Knox Bubba". Enjoy.... http://www.thismodernworld.com/
politics
14,073 views 34 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I want to read this, but I need some paragraph breaks . . . can you help me out?
Reply #2 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I tried to insert breaks, but it just wouldn't happen. I agree. Breaks are critical.
Go to the link at the bottom of the page. The article is there. Again.... http://www.thismodernworld.com/
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks for directing me to the link . . . he he he . . . I'm to dense to have done that to begin with. *sorry* It's a very interesting article. Thanks for sharing it.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Try the html BR tag.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
After reading this, I'm wondering how you would know anything about Republicans... or life, for that matter... You aren't one, and whether you have one or not is kind of up in the air with me...

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
After reading this, I'm wondering how you would know anything about Republicans... or life, for that matter... You aren't one, and whether you have one or not is kind of up in the air with me...


Lovely. That's just so helpful. I admit, the article makes only a pretense at actually "knowing" a republican. The point is to list all those things we all benefit from that (arguably) come as the result of more liberal ideology. I'd think you'd at least challenge that some of those benefits are at least bi-partisan if not out and out the result of some GOP law making. But no, you question this re-poster's knowledge about life and whether he has one. You can't even admit that some ideas from the Left have benefitted all of us. Nope, it's just "I'm Right and you're wrong." Period.

This Tom Tomorrow piece goes to the heart of my biggest concerns with the current political climate. Namely, those with privilege have a hard time seeing it let alone acknowledging it. That's true of all of us, Right, Left or inbetween. As a result, we make rash choices that may increase our privileges in the short term, but don't really protect them in any sustainable way. We won't really know what we've gambled away until it is gone. "And don't it always seem to go..." (with apologies to Joni Mitchell.)
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
The point is to list all those things we all benefit from that (arguably) come as the result of more liberal ideology.


Actually that is the dumbest, most ignorant stereotype going. next thing you are going to say, in your own ingnorant way, is that republicans were against the civil rights act.

But then you will never be convinced. You have to have some basis in reality for someone to even try, and this article and that comment shows you are bereft of rational thought.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards


Ah yes, the Clean Water Act, signed in 1972 by Richard Nixon, a REPUBLICAN.

His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.


The Food and Drug Act, signed in 1906 by Teddy Roosevelt, a REPUBLICAN.

Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.


Meat Inspection Act, 1906, TR again.

the tax-payer funded roads


Maybe it was originally funded by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, signed by Eisenhower, a REPUBLICAN.
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
Just because someone's a Republican doesn't mean they aren't liberal.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually that is the dumbest, most ignorant stereotype going. next thing you are going to say, in your own ingnorant way, is that republicans were against the civil rights act.


Do you f--king read????? I opened the door to the kind of post Madine was able to make. I admitted that the benefits elaborated in the Tom Tomorrow post were not all entirely liberal in origin. I pointed the direction to that line of analysis as a better mode of response/critique than BakerStreet's caustic dismissal. No, I wouldn't say that all Republicans were against the civil rights act. That would be ignorant. Since you fail to anticipate my capacity for cutting through the partisan crap and giving credit where credit is due, you obviously are the ignorant one (at least on ths point).

This is what really pisses me off about conservatives like "Dr. Guy." (Note: not all conservatives, just the ones who respond this way. ) Here I open the door to a reasonable conservative response/critique for a liberal fiction, and I get punished as the closeminded stereotyper "bereft of rational thought." All I ask for in return is some recognition that the Left has contributed some things of value to our current state of affairs. And you cannot even go there. I am starting to think it isn't just paranoia that some of you folks want to simply erradicate the Left.

Does your worldview really rely on things being so black and white?



Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ur... considering you posted a shamefully black-and-white article, you expected a lot of grey responses? Read your junk again. You posted caustic, you got caustic.

" I am starting to think it isn't just paranoia that some of you folks want to simply erradicate the Left."


Mmm, yeah, that is building a bridge there. I hate it when people like you post snide, mindless articles and then try and backtrack and pretend you just wanted to "make people think"...
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
You need to wake up as to the state of the unions that you lionize in your blog. The unions are as much big business as the businesses they set out to fight. I know this for a fact, because I was one of the 40 some odd underground miners, member of Teamsters local #986, who risked our lives for ore for a measly 9 bucks an hour and worked in unbearable conditions because the union wouldn't hold the management's feet to the fire.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ur... considering you posted a shamefully black-and-white article, you expected a lot of grey responses? Read your junk again. You posted caustic, you got caustic.


First, I didn't post the article. dabe did. And it was a re-post at that. I was just responding to it. Like you.

And not like you. Any causticity in my response was reserved just for you, Sherlock, and your blanket, caustic dismissal of anything valuable here (including, apparently, those GOP originated benefits I hinted at and Madine has now so carefully detailed).

I hate it when people like you post snide, mindless articles and then try and backtrack and pretend you just wanted to "make people think"...


I aint backtracking off of anything. I didn't post the article! If anything, I was demonstrating that a liberal can mount a pretty reasonable critique of a liberal argument. Better than the caustic, dismissive tripe you led with, at least. I started some bridgework, but it was pretty much shot down by you and Dr. Guy. And aint that just typical?

Now why don't you try a little backtracking. Or is it still impossible for you to ever admit you were mistaken?
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
As Landen mentioned...not all liberals are Dems and not all conservatives are Repubs... TR was espeically known to be conservative in the true sense of the word when it came to the environment (although now his views on the environment would be considered liberal) since he believed in conserving the environment for future generations. The evolution of the two parties is (to me) fascinating on certain issues...
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Mistaken about what? It is a caustic article, it got a caustic response. You say something asinine about Conservitives wanting to "eradicate the Left" in the same breath you are all whiney about people making things black and white.

By the way you were defending it and the words you used, I just figured you and dabe were the same person.

Your outrage is disingenuous. You think you can take a snide tone and then not expect one in return. When the person who wrote the article talks about Republicans, they are talking about me. YOU don't take offense at it because it isn't mis-characterizing you. I consider the article's tone caustic. Same old double standards.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Mistaken about what?.... (snip) By the way you were defending it and the words you used, I just figured you and dabe were the same person.


And that's about as close to a retraction as you are ever likely to get, I guess. Not really an admission of a mistake; more an accusation that I sound too much like the original poster (and that's somehow my fault). Of course, you could always read the by-line. But no. You're right. I guess it is too much for me to expect that. It always comes down to the same thing: "I'm Right, and you're not."

Same old double standards.


Yeah, you got a few yourself. My mistakes (even when I don't make them) are because I am "disengenuous" and "posting junk" and "ignroant" and "bereft of rational thought." When you make a fairly obvious mistake, it's because you can't tell all them liberals apart -- and everybody knows that's the liberals' fault.

It is precisely this double standard of yours that leads me to think you probably do want to eradicate the Left. And frankly, your inability to say something as simple as, "oops, I was mistaken. I thought you wrote the article. My bad." only makes me suspect so even more.

No, I don't take offense at the article. But I also don't offer a blanket defense of it, either. And I'm thinking phrases like:

those with privilege have a hard time seeing it let alone acknowledging it. That's true of all of us, Right, Left or inbetween.


go a long way to indicate some nuanced (gray zone) thinking on my part. More so than in your continued polemic, at least.

Thanks for the "apology." I realize you are doing the best you can.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think I am doing pretty well just acknowledging your existence as you keep accusing me of wanting to "eradicate the Left". geez... Keep banging away at the little details you can latch onto, though, it'll make you appear to have a point...
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is a pretty lame article.

As if our water is clean because of left wingers. The biggest conservationist of in American history was a Republican - Theodore Roosevelt.

The medication he takes is safe not because of left wingers but because of a combination of the FDA, an entity that got its start at the order of another Republican in 1862, and pharmacuetical companies.

Most Americans get insurance not because of unions but because of competition for employees in the private sector.

The food we eat is safe thanks to a combination of market forces (i.e. serve bad food in the age of mass communication and you'll be out of business) and some regulation from the USDA -- an agency that once again was created by a Republican President.

And it goes on and on. The bottom line is that Republicans have always argued that the government should regulate certain parts of industry. Just that they shouldn't be regulated to death.

Frankly your lack of knowledge on these issues that you just posted about is kind of stunning given the venom you put with it.

It's like arguing that you are able to post freely on this website thanks to the ACLU or something. Your cause and effect arguments are so tangential as to be meaningless.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Careful Brad. Watch the names closely. Careful who you eradicate. All these pinkos look alike... ...

Oh, my bad. I made a mistake.

SOME of these pinkos look alike...

...
...


Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think I am doing pretty well just acknowledging your existence as you keep accusing me of wanting to "eradicate the Left". geez...


Oh, thank-you. More Rightwing noblesse oblige. You acknowledge I exist. That's just ...so...touching...

And before you ratchet up the rhetoric on "accusations" I would like to point out my various modal qualifiers that keep my "eradicate the Left" claim from actually being an accusation:

I am starting to think it isn't just paranoia...


...this double standard of yours that leads me to think you probably do...


"Modal qualifiers," according to philosopher Stephen Toulmin, indicate the strength of an argumentative assertion (or, in this case, "accusation"). I am not accusing you of wanting to erradicate the Left. I am saying your words lead me to wonder if that mightbe the case. I "wonder" this (and I chose my words carefully) because you have yet to admit to any benefits in our society that come from the Left and you are unwilling to really acknowledge (and retract) a mistake made in one of your claims about the Left (or, more specifically, this particular Leftist). You even go so far as to suggest that the original poster (dabe, remember?) doesn't have a life. Yeah, "get a life" is just an expression -- but at least figuratively you've posited a Left without a life, already all but eradicated.

But here. If it will make it easier, I don't want to eradicate you or the Right. You actually post some challenging articles of your own and often make a strong case (sometimes even persuasive to me) for a variety of conservative positions. You haven't on this thread (and you could have!), but on other threads and articles you mount impressive arguments, well evidenced and reasoned. I also think the Right has provided some useful things to our culture (not limited to but certainly including the benefits discussed in this article that Madine's and Draginol's inventories correctly credit to Repubicans). And yeah, I've responded to your causticity with causticity, which is usually never productive. My bad. See? Not so hard. I'm still a Lefty. Still proud to be a Liberal.

But see, to your eyes this is probably just further evidence of the weakness of the Left.
And to my eyes, if so, that would be evidence of the weakness of (some on) the Right.




Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wow! I really started something. Interestingly enough, many of the environmental and health laws were initiated by Republicans. However, for some bizarro reason, the Republicans have abandoned all good sense and morality, and are trying to dismantle all those good laws. Market forces, my ass. It's having the fox watch the chicken coop. If you trust corporate greed to regulate its own emissions, have I got a bridge to sell you. The "Clear Skies Initiative" is a hoax. It's Dubya's efforts to deregulate the power industry, enabling them to pollute the air we breath so they can make more money. Dubya's has attempted, with some success I might add, to eviscerate the National Environmental Policy Act, which was signed into law by Nixon. For only one reason: enable his corporate cronies to make more money.

As for health care, it's pitiful that health care is predicated on employment. When you have record numbers of people losing jobs, you have record numbers of people losing health care. All liberals want to do is separate health care from employment, take it out of the hands of the greedy insurance companies, and allow everyone the right (not a priveege) to obtain health care. Is that so evil a purpose? I think not.

Because of all these corrupt policies, the rich are richer, the poor are poorer, and the rich are getting richer and richer off the backs of the poor. Our society has become so lopsided, so devoid of humanism, so utterly greedy and corrupt. All I'd like to see is some common sense put back into the White House. Bush has proven that he's incompetent. I'm very happy to give Kerry a chance at the helm. He's a decent, honest person, in spite of all the right wing smears. It amazes me that CBS gets skewered for basing a story on documents it cannot verify, and are likely forgeries (regardless that the content of those documents are correct), but Bush sends our military into a war based on the fradulent Niger documents, and all he says is "oops. I'd do it again". What a fucking clueless, selfixh, moronic, evil sonnovabitch.
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
Interestingly enough, Teddy Roosevelt (R-NY) also believed in busting large corporations that he felt were screwing people over and strangling the US economy. He also believed in moving away from laissez faire business policies and have the government make sure everyone got a square deal (Square deal was his re-election slogan) ....
To read about TR and his trust-busting policies....Link

I wonder how long until history repeats itself?
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
"However, for some bizarro reason, the Republicans have abandoned all good sense and morality, and are trying to dismantle all those good laws. "


Or, if you look at it objectively, perhaps conservatives are trying to moderate the snowballing, rampant, unchecked social experimentation that many Liberals would undertake with no care for the unforseen damage.

"Oh, thank-you. More Rightwing noblesse oblige. You acknowledge I exist. That's just ...so...touching..."


You should appreciate it. If I didn't, you wouldn't.

P.S. I think your articles are insightful, too, but I don't think you know much about the people you talk about. You act like you are debating a caracature.


Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Trust busting is consistent with the belief in free-market competition. When you have a monopoly controlling the market, you don't have free-market competition.

Why should small businesses (aka most of the top 1% of individual income earners) pay for everyone's health care?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
If we shared the cost of health care for everyone, not make businesses shoulder all the costs; if the money we spend on health insurance instead was paid to taxes to cover health care for all, we'd all be better off. After all, we are all in this together. And certainly, why give these miserable tax breaks to the people who need them the least? I just cannot follow the logic (or lack thereof). We should pay for eachother's health care because we're human; because we're humanitarian; because if we don't, we'll end up paying more in the end, in taxes on top of insurance premiums to cover the costs of unnecessary emergency room visits, for diseases that could have been prevented if health care was available.; because we should care about our fellow human beings, goddammit.