A challenge for all Bush-Haters

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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 coffee, he takes his daily medication.
His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal
fought to insure 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 laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks to the 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.

Its noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit
so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the
FDIC 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 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. 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."

[Scytano]

I'm in a state that's been seeing high unemployment for the past 5 years, it's even hard to get TEMP jobs. So I'm not a fan of his tax cuts that don't reach down to the level where they would actually benefit a truly poor person.

So no one should get tax cuts, because they didn't help your state? Because your state chose to raise taxes?

That's the left-wing philosophy in a nutshell folks. Everyone must suffer lest someone else be better off than another.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm in a state that's been seeing high unemployment for the past 5 years, it's even hard to get TEMP jobs. So I'm not a fan of his tax cuts that don't reach down to the level where they would actually benefit a truly poor person.

So no one should get tax cuts, because they didn't help your state? Because your state chose to raise taxes?

That's the left-wing philosophy in a nutshell folks. Everyone must suffer lest someone else be better off than another.

Let's take a look at the right-wing philosophy:

Story #1 (2001):  "Tax cuts will actually INCREASE revenue."

Story #2 (2004):  "Deficits don't matter".

Story #3 (2006):  "We welcome our Chinese overlords."

[B_M_W]

Story #3 (2006): "We welcome our Chinese overlords."

[agent compassion]

So no one should get tax cuts, because they didn't help your state? Because your state chose to raise taxes?

That's the left-wing philosophy in a nutshell folks. Everyone must suffer lest someone else be better off than another.

That is not what I said....what I'm saying is that *this particular tax cut plan* isn't worth applauding because it doesn't help a lot of people who, frankly, could use it. Not just in my state.  Besides, this decision was made at the federal level, so it has impact in all 50 states.

Sometimes a tax cut IS a good thing to do - however, like someone else on this board said earlier, you're also supposed to LOWER SPENDING when you cut taxes, because taxes = revenue, after all. He's spending us into a very deep hole while cutting taxes for people who have the most revenue to contribute....does that make sense to you? Would you refuse a paycheck from your employer and then go buy a new car? I don't think so.

And you got the left-wing philosophy completely inside out. A true liberal does not want everyone to suffer equally - we just don't want one group to get all the benefits AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS.

There's no reason why one person needs 5 houses and another must sleep in an alley. Somewhere in the middle is what we're aiming for.  The current economic system REQUIRES a certain amount of poverty and unemployment in order for it to grow - that needs to change. With all our resources, nobody should be homeless, but the system's lopsided to favor those who already have a fair chunk of resources, so they keep accumulating and accumulating and those with less keep losing and losing. It's imbalanced.

[agent compassion]

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN (snip)

RAH!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So no one should get tax cuts, because they didn't help your state? Because your state chose to raise taxes?

That's the left-wing philosophy in a nutshell folks. Everyone must suffer lest someone else be better off than another.

That is not what I said....what I'm saying is that *this particular tax cut plan* isn't worth applauding because it doesn't help a lot of people who, frankly, could use it. Not just in my state.  Besides, this decision was made at the federal level, so it has impact in all 50 states.

Sometimes a tax cut IS a good thing to do - however, like someone else on this board said earlier, you're also supposed to LOWER SPENDING when you cut taxes, because taxes = revenue, after all. He's spending us into a very deep hole while cutting taxes for people who have the most revenue to contribute....does that make sense to you? Would you refuse a paycheck from your employer and then go buy a new car? I don't think so.

And you got the left-wing philosophy completely inside out. A true liberal does not want everyone to suffer equally - we just don't want one group to get all the benefits AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS.

There's no reason why one person needs 5 houses and another must sleep in an alley. Somewhere in the middle is what we're aiming for.  The current economic system REQUIRES a certain amount of poverty and unemployment in order for it to grow - that needs to change. With all our resources, nobody should be homeless, but the system's lopsided to favor those who already have a fair chunk of resources, so they keep accumulating and accumulating and those with less keep losing and losing. It's imbalanced.

Bush has NEVER vetoed a spending bill.

He HAS, however, cut taxes.

He's governing like a frat-boi with daddy's American Express.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN (snip)

RAH!

I thought you'd like that one.  Listening to RWNs jabber about self reliance always makes me giggle.

[Cain]

The current economic system REQUIRES a certain amount of poverty and unemployment in order for it to grow

Over 5% unemployment to ensure comptetition for jobs and stave off inflation is what I hear.  I cant remember the precise source but I'll look it up.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The current economic system REQUIRES a certain amount of poverty and unemployment in order for it to grow

Over 5% unemployment to ensure comptetition for jobs and stave off inflation is what I hear.  I cant remember the precise source but I'll look it up.

Naw.  Unemployment is desirable in this context because then employees will work for peanuts.

Sam Walton should be dug up and buggered.

[agent compassion]

Sam Walton should be dug up and buggered.

::passes Rog the shovel::

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Sam Walton should be dug up and buggered.

::passes Rog the shovel::

[East Coast Hustle]

This is a post from another board I'm on...thought it was interesting. Turd/Commie/Goat/Bastard, feel free to ignore and/or dis this one, since it was written by a Kucinich supporter.

blah blah blah...various thought-provoking and reasonably intelligent musings....blah blah blah

you allow your passion for your boy to cloud your mind, dear AgComp...I nver said I didn't like Kucinich, I never said I didn't think he was a good politician, I never said he was anything other than a decent human being, I just said that I didn't think he was an appropriate choice for President. Congressman, Senator, hell, even Governor....fine, he seems like a reasonable man who has some good ideas, and if one or two of them turned out to be realistically implementable, that'd be great...I just don't think he'd be the guy I'd want as the face of our entire country in the world arena...I think he'd be great in a position where domestic policy was his sole concern, but his ideas on foreign policy scare the shit outta me....that's all, and if I offended you making that argument last night, well, I apologize for the vitriolic nature of my words (I get like that sometimes, particularly on zero sleep for the week and a bad hangover and no hot water at my apartment, forgive me my crankiness), but I stand by my opinions...instead of hating, y'oughtta just agree to disagree...

[Cain]

The current economic system REQUIRES a certain amount of poverty and unemployment in order for it to grow

Over 5% unemployment to ensure comptetition for jobs and stave off inflation is what I hear.  I cant remember the precise source but I'll look it up.

Naw.  Unemployment is desirable in this context because then employees will work for peanuts.

Thats "competition for jobs" Rog.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This is a post from another board I'm on...thought it was interesting. Turd/Commie/Goat/Bastard, feel free to ignore and/or dis this one, since it was written by a Kucinich supporter.

blah blah blah...various thought-provoking and reasonably intelligent musings....blah blah blah

you allow your passion for your boy to cloud your mind, dear AgComp...I nver said I didn't like sodomizing sheep and various other farm animals.  I secretly yearn for Henry Kissinger's virile attentions!

RAH!