dabe dabe

"A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN"

▼

"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
14,075 views 34 replies
Reply #26 from PolMach Forums Top
Of course trust-busting is mostly consistent with free market competition although it is still imposing government regulation on the "market" even if it is a market of one. But what I wonder is with all the mega mergers that have occurred (banking and the media are two good examples) in the last two decades, how long until we will need a trust-buster again to give the people a "square deal"?

Plus in the link from my last reply and other things I've read about Roosevelt, you can tell that the Republican bosses weren't happy that Mr. Roosevelt decided to move away from the laissez-faire policies.

Random thought: There have been so many banking mergers in the last few years that the stadium location of the Sixers and the Celtics seem to change every couple years...
Reply #27 from PolMach Forums Top
Everyone seems to forget that Roosevelt, while belonging to the republican party, was actually rather progressive/liberal (whichever word you like to use) in comparison to most other republicans. He broke up huge trusts, reserved some of our largest national Parks, and got fair treatment for workers.

Many political bosses were worried when he became McKinley's VP. One even went so far as to declare "Don't you people realize that there's only one life between that madman and the presidency?"

Seriously, the man was probably the first RINO.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.


It's all right there, isn't it? I only exist because you acknowledge me, but I'm the one debating a charicature. Talk about double standards.

But thanks for the compliment. It's a start.

As for TR, it's worth noting that the so-called "wise use" movement gets its name if not exactly its philosophy from Roosevelt. Roosevelt was, afterall, a progressive conservationist and not a preservationist. The progressives of the era took "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" as their guiding principle. As a result, TR ultimately sided with folks like Gifford Pinchot over John Muir (the preservationist founder of the Sierra Club) on issues like the damming of the Hetch Hetchy river in California. He was skeptical of folks who simply wanted to preserve wilderness for its own sake. In many ways, conservative stances on the environment mirror this philosophy and "wise use" is based on the principle that people should get to do as they please on their land and, of course, since it is their land they won't want to damage it any more than is absolutely necessary. Much of the rhetoric behind market forces taking the long view and self-regulating on the environment is based on this position.

Problem is, times have changed. Population has exploded. Wilderness (whatever that is) has receded. And the "free" market has become dependent on (unsustainable) growth. There are fundamental contradictions between our economic system and sustainable maintenance (or development) of our environment and natural resources. The "we just want to keep environmental regulations from regulating business to death" argument reveals this, I think. Our environmental regulations, if anything, aren't strong enough (although some, like the Clean Air Act, seem to have caused more problems than they've solved), but any increase in regulation will have a (potentially) profound negative impact on the economy. It can only be hypothetical to wonder what TR would do today with the challenges presented at the intersection of free market economy and the environment.

The bottom line is that environmental and economic issues aren't black and white (there I go with the shades of gray again). We can ill-afford to say, "Save the environment at all costs and screw the economic impacts." We can also ill-afford to say, "The economy matters more than the environment." When we polarize these issues by saying ALL people on the Left only believe the former and ALL people on the Right only believe the latter, we don't help either our economic or environmental issues.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Republicans are for business, no doubt about it. But they're not for monopolies.  Theodore Roosevelt would still be a Republican today. If anything, Republicans of the 21st century are closer to his view than the Republicans of the 19th.

Consider the last major monopoly breakup AT&T. And who was responsible for that? Ronald Reagan.  And that was at the same time as he also broke the strangle hold of unions on certain types of jobs (air traffic controller strike).

Republicans believe in free market competition. It also believes in EFFECTIVE policies.  Democrats tend to worry about "fairness" but have no idea of how to achieve it effectively.  Republicans do favor fairness in opportunity. They just don't want to garauntee the results since different individuals make different choices.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
LMAO!! Your liberal RANT is the FUNNIEST thing I have read in a LONG time! Thanks for sharing.

The MORAL of this little work of FICTION is "Don't take care of YOURSELF and accept responsibility for your OWN DESTINY.........let BIG BROTHER do it for you, and let the TAXPAYERS pay for ALL OF IT".

Karl Marx and Josef Stalin would be SO PROUD OF YOU!!
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
You guys do realize that he is not the original author, right? Bag on him for sharing it, if you must, but don't bag on him for writing the piece. Sheesh.
Reply #32 from PolMach 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.


_Ironically enough, people talk about republicans this way, the original republican party favored civil rights, how ironic what a few years con do to a party...oh and FUck off to all the demy's
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
You guys do realize that he is not the original author, right? Bag on him for sharing it, if you must, but don't bag on him for writing the piece. Sheesh.


THANK-YOU! I am so tired of being told I don't read newspaper stories, links, or blog articles closely enough...but then the same people who tend to tell me that, think a point like this is nitpicking or that I...

Keep banging away at the little details...


And then I get accused of having the...

Same old double standards.


The original article is by Tom Tomorrow (best known for editorial cartoons). It was reposted by dabe. Although a dem and a Lefty, I (Bungy32) actually have been fairly suspicious (and openly so) of some of the fact-claims in the article (see above). Even so, I get flippantly lumped together as...

All these pinkos look alike... ...

Oh, my bad. I made a mistake.

SOME of these pinkos look alike...


You wanna bash this article (and its re-poster) for its stereotyping of Republicans and the Right, fine. It seems to me to be no more free and loose with the facts than many of the similarly posted lists and fictions about the Dems and Left that circulate around here. And frankly, it is no more free and loose with its stereotyping of Republicans and the Right than (some of) those with that position have been about us so-called "pinkos" in this discussion thread.

Why is a liberal who can challenge a liberal argument so threatening to (some on) the Right? Could it be that such demonstrations of reflective and individual thinking undermine attempts to cast the Left as all cut from the same (pink?) cloth? Could it be that, so far, many on the Right (at least here, on JU) seem incapable or unwilling to do anything but show support for any and every GOP/Rightwing argument, list, or fiction that hits the net?

I am not trying to claim the high moral ground here. I don't think this divisive phenomenon is necessarily quintessential to either "side." In 2000, Bush ran in part on a promise that he was a "uniter, not a divider." Four years later, the country is polarized. This observation is not to point out another failure of campaign promises -- fault can be found on both (all?) sides for this partisan polarization. And yes, frankly, the Kerry campaign carries plenty of blame for perpetuating and exacerbating this divisiveness as well. But I submit that if we as a country don't start trying to find and work from some common ground, we are going to do some serious damage to ourselves. Finding common ground is not just an expectation we should have for our public officials, but a goal that should play a role in our conversations in forums like these.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't think you need to find any common ground.
You already have common ground...It's called being an American.

I never liked the way that people are so completely categorized and easily self-referenced. People are more than that.

This political season has allot of importance for people, expressing your ideas and views (even soliciting to have a middle finger sucked) on sites like this is healthy, not only for the political process, but for Americans in general. Middle finger notwithstanding.

Just remember, when the dust all settles (even if it was settled by the Supreme Court), that we have a leader, and the better we back him, the better he can get the job done, the better off we'll be.

Oh, and the article I thought was funny, not anyway indicative, but funny. Reminds me of that Beatles song,” Woke up, fell out of bed, and dragged a comb across my Joe Republican head..."