A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

by Donna L. Lavins and Sheldon Cotler

Joe gets up at 6:00 AM to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot with good, clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10.00 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 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 that is contains because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and the breakdown of its contents. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree-hugging 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. You see, some 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, medicals 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 loose his home to temporary misfortune.

It's noon time. 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 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 dads; his car is among the safest in the world 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 electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification (those rural Republican's would still be sitting in the dark).

Joe is happy to see his dad, who is now retired. Joe's dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with 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 tell Joe 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 who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

In the years to come, Joe's life will change dramatically. The U.S. dollar will be devalued as a result of our huge deficit, our living standards demolished, our standing with the world diminished and our social security gone...all because some conservative republican made sure he could take care of himself and his buddies.

Aghast, i remain...

First bit of sense I've read in this political forum. I salute you.

Re:: A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

:BSPost:

Re:: A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

You forgot the part where he says a prayer to Satan right before bed, any honest rightwinger can't go a day without saluting his lord and master. Oh, and don't forget the 3:30pm snack when Republicans eat babies dipped in chocolate - gotta keep that fatcat physique nice and tight. Good job otherwise though, you had the schedule 98% right.

Re:: A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

OK, I would say that I probably lie more on the liberal end of the political spectrum, but this shit still annoys me to no end. :evil: This whole garbage "us vs. them" mentality which spews forth from [b]both[/b] right-wingers and left-wingers is the number one problem plaguing and holding back US politics nowadays. What ever happened to accepting a difference in political ideals and working to get the job done rather than demonizing the "other side"?? Now it is all about each party doing everything in its power to make the other one look bad and get the political upper hand on the other. This isn't very good for actually getting shit done that needs to be done.

Ah yes, everything good that has happened is due to the democrats, and the republicans are going to destroy it all. Riiiight. Were it not for the republicans, the democrats would let the terrorists walk all over America. Riiiight. Give me a fucking break. :roll:

At least some people have the right idea about cooperation - to quote John McCain's speech at the RNC:

[quote][i]My friends in the Democratic Party -- and I'm fortunate to call many of them my friends.....I don't doubt their sincerity.

I don't doubt the sincerity of my Democratic friends. And they should not doubt ours.[/i][/quote]

I might not agree with all McCain's positions, but I have a multitude of respect for the guy because he respects and reaches out to people he doesn't agree with politically. He has done this consistently for years. I never see him attack democrats in his expression of differing beliefs. We need more people like him running the country - in both parties - not this fucking counterproductive "them bad, us good" mentality that dominates nowadays.

Oh wait, but he's a republican, so I'm betraying my liberal leanings to have respect for the guy. Or am I actually a baby-eating right-winger in disguise? :roll:

There is my rant. Take it as you will. ;)

Krelm well spoken, Dalex, your little twisted truman showish story is boring and pervasive. Sounds like a cross between an omish documentary and a YMCA video. 'He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers'...hahahahahahah this is all fluff.......'house underwritten by Fannie Mae' hahahahahah Ok so the guy has a conventional mortgage, what is the point here? 'The air he breathes is clean because some tree-hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air' ahhhh what a perfect utopia you liberals all live in right? What an oasis of love and happiness, the epicenter of rightousness, huh? 'The host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day'...now you and the authors(cant believe it actually took two people to write this) should really be ashamed of yourself. This undermines, as Krelm indicated, everything we are trying to accomplish by creating (1) America! Not two as the liberals Kerry and Edwards have suggested. Quite a meaningless waste of thread space to read such pitilus theocracy. Bring a positive message to the board then we'll talk. Y-M-C-A !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quadruple post

quadruple post

quadruple post

quadruple post

computer froze, quadruple post, what were we talking about again :)

Re:: A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

[quote=krelm]This whole garbage "us vs. them" mentality which spews forth from [b]both[/b] right-wingers and left-wingers is the number one problem plaguing and holding back US politics nowadays. [/quote] Krelm I believe you are one of the most sensible posters in here but you do need to look up some history. Politics in this country were bloody. In the true meaning of the word. Especially here in NYC. Gangs of New York was based on a true story. Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel.

[quote=krelm]At least some people have the right idea about cooperation - to quote John McCain's speech at the RNC:

[i]My friends in the Democratic Party -- and I'm fortunate to call many of them my friends.....I don't doubt their sincerity.

I don't doubt the sincerity of my Democratic friends. And they should not doubt ours.[/i][/quote]

John McCain only speaks up against his homies when it might benefit him. Hypocrite.

Re:: A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

[quote=HoneyBearKelly] Krelm I believe you are one of the most sensible posters in here but you do need to look up some history. Politics in this country were bloody. In the true meaning of the word. Especially here in NYC. Gangs of New York was based on a true story. Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. [/quote]

Yeah, [b]in the past[/b]. In response, I'd ask why are we still stuck in the political attitudes of the past? One would hope we could move beyond that for the benefit of the country. I'd like to think that people are a little more rational nowadays than 100-200 years ago.

Politics - especially in campaigns - focus most of their effort on why the "other side" is bad rather than why "our" side is better.

[quote]John McCain only speaks up against his homies when it might benefit him. Hypocrite.[/quote]

I've never gathered that from McCain - he has always seemed to be a straightforward guy who speaks his mind, no matter who the hell it pisses of. He is still a republican in many of his ideals (albeit a quite moderate one), but I've never seen him to be a hypocrite of any sort. He is quite apt to call bullshit on just about anybody, which I highly respect.

fuck republicans. they only pretend to be conservatives. neo-conservatives infect the so called republican party, fuck the liberals too and the other facist/communists. i am a true conservative in the oringinal sense of the word. maybe some of these so called liberal and conservative groups would get the definition right, we would be more informed. it is not governments job to be in our lives so much. In this country, leftist and right-wing ideologies DO NOT really exist. These competing ideologies in the United States government have combined forces to oppress and contol the American people. there is no longer a seperation of right and left in america. they just give the illusion of this. it is actually one big group working together for each others mutual benefit. they do this for wealth and power. this is not unusally, look at history.

here is a simple education lesson ...

being republican equals less government. being democratic equals more government.

the funny thing ... people do not know that.

[quote=asdf_admin";p="46027] here is a simple education lesson ...

being republican equals less government. being democratic equals more government.

the funny thing ... people do not know that. [/quote]

I completely agree- not enough people know this!! When I try talking to my "democrat" friends who think that republicans always want to be more in our life, I just laugh and try to explain the reality for them. Unfortunately, they never get it.

it's sick. i am not sure what is wrong with people. they almost believe in what they want to hear.

bah.

[quote=asdf_admin";p="46027] being republican equals less government. being democratic equals more government. [/quote]

I agree with this -- which is why I have voted Republican every election before this one. With that said, I ask you:

What has Bush done to decrease the size of government over the last three and a half years? Do you feel like the government is more or less in your grill, and exerting more or less influence over the things that you see, hear, and do than before Bush took office?

Department of Homeland Security...one of the reasons why the government is larger. Would you rather be without this dept?

^^Of course not -- but that's not the point. The point is:

-The Patriot Act -Spending $1.3B to promote the concept of marriage -Bush's religion mixed into his politics and, accordingly, your life -Censorship at the FCC level of things the religious right considers unsavory

Seriously, setting aside the DHS which we can all agree is a good use of government resources (and which Bush initially opposed, BTW), what has Bush done to make government smaller and less intrusive? I can think of some things he has done to help the corporate world in that regard, but how about you and me?

^yeah, i don't know, but hey...i paid less taxes! :)

... and i feel safe.

[quote=asdf_admin";p="46410] ... and i feel safe. [/quote]

Well that's valid, but it is a totally different argument than "Bush = less government." Seriously, and I'm not trying to antagonize you, any further thought on that? Setting aside that Bush's status as a Republican would suggest that he is in favor of smaller, less intrusive government, I haven't seen anything to indicate that, as a matter of fact, he has or will further that ideology.

sure he has created more gov ... but in this sense it needed to be there. all those great cuts by Clinton and his administration have weakened our defense, intelligence and etc. The type of gov I am referring to is paper-pusher worthless desk jobs. You know the ones democrats love to create.

Bush had to change everything he wished to accomplish in office because of 9/11.

Yes, I do honestly believe that he would have continued the republican trend of limiting the power government has as a whole.

Because of 9/11, this was not possible. The Patriot Act has its Pro's and Con's, but for the most part it only has a 5 year shelf life anyway. So basically, he has only temporarily made the government bigger and more powerful, and only because he felt it necessary. I tend to agree with him on that and what the Patriot Act means.

One thing that people still don't realize is that while Clinton was getting BJ's he was allowing the WTC to be bombed the first time and not do anything about it. I would rather have the "bigger" government agencies that Bush created than not doing anything about the 9/11. Could you imagine where this country would be with Gore leading?? It's scary to think about how he would have treated the situation. We might have been attacked a few more times since 9/11 if he had the reins. Overall I feel more secure now than I did when Clinton was in office and that means something to me!!

^^^ much agree Pam. Those dirty Dems ... Just good for paper pushing and making up lies.

Asdf_ thank you for clarifying for those that may not have time to educate themselves on this issue. Most people believe in a trend either from friends or mostly from their family(progressive420 I still havent figured out) your lesson 101 is right on point though.

[quote=Trancelucent One";p="46543]Could you imagine where this country would be with Gore leading?? It's scary to think about how he would have treated the situation. We might have been attacked a few more times since 9/11 if he had the reins. Overall I feel more secure now than I did when Clinton was in office and that means something to me!! [/quote]

I used to agree with this, but thinking back on 9/11, I don't know that I really and truly feel this way anymore. 9/11 was a wake up call for this country -- not for democrats, or republicans, or greens, or whatever, but for the whole country. Neither Bush nor Clinton fully appreciated the threat that terrorists posed until it was too late.

Now think back to what the sentiment was on 9/12. There was no discussion over whether we [b]ought[/b] to go to war, or whether we [b]ought[/b] to be trying to go after al Qaeda -- really, the only question was "Do we go in right now, guns a-blazing and just start bombing the hell out of everything we see, or do we take a step back and do some more focused bombing?" The [b]vast[/b] majority of the country, republicans and democrats alike, were not going to be happy until some asses were kicked.

With that in mind, I feel fairly confident that we would have gone in and commenced the kicking of asses and the taking of names in Afghanistan post-9/11 whether Gore or Bush was in office.

[quote=toasty";p="46896] With that in mind, I feel fairly confident that we would have gone in and commenced the kicking of asses and the taking of names in Afghanistan post-9/11 whether Gore or Bush was in office.[/quote]

Perhaps, but would we have gone to Iraq as well? Thats yet another point. Vladimir told Bush that Iraq was planning an attack against the US. And what better time to do so then after 9/11, while we were still cleaning up the mess?

Vladimir would have given Gore the same information, but would Gore have acted on it?? Personally, I say no he wouldn't have. He is a pussy and would have resorted to diplomacy through talks with the UN. Which would have accomplished dick. Perhaps he still would have gone to Afghanastan, that I agree with, but the whole world is against our war with Iraq, not Afghanastan.

Now think what could have happened while Gore is over talking with Haans while he carries out further inspections, and they find nothing. Saddam attacks the US with some biological agent, most likely antrax and hundreds of thousands are infected. 9/11 looks like a joke in comparrison. Think about it, sure Osama hates us, and he has plenty of backing and funding, but not near the extent that Saddam has and could have used against us.

Gore probably would have not taken the same initiative that Bush did, this is just my personal belief. And that could have resulted in further attacks against the US, not by Al Quada but by Saddam and his cohorts. And could have been much, much worse then 9/11. Gore would have been more concerned with Diplomacy and how the world looked at him. Bush knew he would get hated at least in the immediate future for taking such action and did it any way. That shows character to me, regardless of all the other mistakes he made along the way.

It also makes sense to me that Vladirmir would say, "Bush, here is this information, but please don't mention it publicly that I told you." He was worried that it could lead to attacks against his people if Bush just said, "Lets go get Iraq boys, Vladimir just told me such and such." Besides, the 10 years he dodged inspections was enough to get congress to agree that war against Iraq was in order. Including Kerry I might add.

Nobody will ever know, but I personally agree with Pam. Shit would have been a lot different had Gore won. And in my estimation, could have been a lot lot worse.

Gore would have been the worst of the worst.

I have no doubt we would have gone into afghanistan, it wasn't so much the government that acted on that, it was the American public that demanded it. Regardless of who was president at the time, noone could have ignored the public outcry for retaliation. In that respect, Gore would have done a decent enough job, and who knows, maybe would have finished Afghanistan.

Gore on a domestic front would have scared the bejesus out of me, not that the Bush Admin has done much better, but holy hell and a bag of chips i don't agree with Democratic domestic policy.

[quote=Civic_Zen";p="46942] Perhaps, but would we have gone to Iraq as well? Thats yet another point. Vladimir told Bush that Iraq was planning an attack against the US. And what better time to do so then after 9/11, while we were still cleaning up the mess?
[/quote]

That's a real good question. Maybe, maybe not. Saddam clearly needed to go at some point. I would have liked to have seen us finish the job with Osama first, and I would have liked to have been given a legitmate reason for going in there, but that's a discussion for another day. Regardless, one would hope that we didn't go into Iraq as we have, with unrealistic expectations about what would happen once we got there and no exit strategy. Alas, I digress...

[quote=Civic_Zen";p="46942]

Now think what could have happened while Gore is over talking with Haans while he carries out further inspections, and they find nothing. Saddam attacks the US with some biological agent, most likely antrax and hundreds of thousands are infected. 9/11 looks like a joke in comparrison. Think about it, sure Osama hates us, and he has plenty of backing and funding, but not near the extent that Saddam has and could have used against us.

Gore probably would have not taken the same initiative that Bush did, this is just my personal belief. And that could have resulted in further attacks against the US, not by Al Quada but by Saddam and his cohorts. And could have been much, much worse then 9/11. Gore would have been more concerned with Diplomacy and how the world looked at him. Bush knew he would get hated at least in the immediate future for taking such action and did it any way. That shows character to me, regardless of all the other mistakes he made along the way.

...

Nobody will ever know, but I personally agree with Pam. Shit would have been a lot different had Gore won. And in my estimation, could have been a lot lot worse. [/quote]

This would hold a lot more water with me if we didn't know know that, as a matter of fact, no WMDs existed, and Saddam did not pose an imminent threat ( [url]http://www.boston.com/dailynews/258/wash/Powell_appears_to_rule_out_fin:.shtml[/url] ). You're presenting a doomsday scenario, but the facts really don't bear it out.

I guess if you're in that camp that believes that Saddam shipped all of his WMDs out of the country and that they're still out there somewhere, I guess that's your prerogative, but I don't buy it, and haven't seen any credible evidence that that is the case. Of course, I'm in the camp that believes that we went into Iraq because Bush had a hard-on for Saddam and had every intention of going into Iraq and was just looking for an excuse, but there's no hard evidence for that either.

I just wish Bush had come out and said, "Look, this Saddam cat needs to go, who's with me?" He could have saved himself a lot of trouble. I probably wouldn't be voting for him for a host of other reasons, but at least I would continue to have some respect for the guy.

The fact that Saddam was side stepping the UN for 10 years on the WMD issue is more then enough evidence to assume that he has them. Or at the very least had them.

There's a lot more evidence supporting my camp; that there are WMD - just look at all the places underground and otherwise that were obviously used for their manufacturing. Where as there is absolutely no evidence to support your camp, just the usual liberals and their conspiracy theories. I'm not saying he was creating nuclear weapons, but Biological warfare is just as scary. And I'm not saying that he planned to use it all on us, because he probably would have bombed Israel first.

What I am saying is that there were biological and chemical weapons created and manufactured in the 100's of facilities strewn in and around Iraq. Where they are now is anyone's guess. And there will be evidence, in the next 10 years mind you, to support what I'm saying. I just hope it isn't proved with an attack against us.

Re: A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

Toasty, I don't think that Civic's idea is an unrealistic doomsday scenario. A small amount of biological weapons can cause disasterous effects!! There are certain agents that can kill in micro moles (that's about 1 x 10-9). I'm not going to bore you with the scientific details but these are the weapons that we should be most concerned with!! I also agree that the fact that Saddam was jerking everyone around for 10 years was enough reason to believe that something was there. If someone gets pulled over for drunk driving and refuses a breathalizer test then it is assumed that they were drunk. I think the same can be said for Saddam and all his sidestepping. Saddam knew that the UN didn't have the balls to do anything, what he didn't know was that the US did! I don't think that a good foreign policy is to "talk to the terrorists and find work with them." These are not rational people and should not be treated as such! This is one of the biggest ways in which I agree with the Republican party!

^^ Well, the Secretary of State has come out and said that there aren't any WMDs and that there are unlikely to be any found; that statement isn't exactly in his best interest in light of previous comments, so I'm inclined to take him at his word.

I think we're at an impasse here...

Its not surprising that WMD's can not be found in Iraq, with a decade to hide facilities and equipment i very much doubt that they will ever be found within Iraq itself.

If the US are serious about finding, and i guess destroying, weapons which we all know DID exsist, i suggest that a trip into Syria would be a good starting place.

As Civic said my country would probably been the first one WMD would have been used against, and with that in mind I'm relieved, as you all should be, that a previous administration took the unpopular decision to halt Saddam's nuclear programme.

[quote=asdf_admin";p="46027]here is a simple education lesson ...

being republican equals less government. being democratic equals more government.

the funny thing ... people do not know that.[/quote]

I'm sorry but thats compete B.S.- Here's how it should read: being republican equals [i]more[/i] government. being democratic equals more government.

the only difference is one of these parties wants to force their religious beliefs on you.

Where I work there's many things that are done inefficiently. Now we could tell people how to make things better but whats in it for us as employees? The company isn't going to give me more money for my suggestions. Maybe a pat on the back and a stupid gift certificate to the company store or some such crap. But what will happen is that they [i]will[/i] then need less people to run the show. They [i]will[/i] start letting people go, which at the very least takes the 'padding' away from me and the unemployment line.
While each party will try to get you to believe that they will redice the size of government, the truth of the matter is no ones really going to. That would just be putting themselves out of a job.

o i love this. you gonna burn biatch.

From Webster Online ...

Democratic-Republican of or relating to a major American political party of the early 19th century [b]favoring a strict interpretation of the constitution to restrict the powers of the federal government and emphasizing states' rights[/b]

Democratic often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism

it's that simple lesson. I know fact and truth ... not lies and deception. Good day. plus Kerry is also religious ... so what the fuck are you talking about? You liberals need to get your lies straight. They seem more and more desperate.

[quote=asdf_admin";p="47549]o i love this. you gonna burn biatch.

From Webster Online ...

Democratic-Republican of or relating to a major American political party of the early 19th century [b]favoring a strict interpretation of the constitution to restrict the powers of the federal government and emphasizing states' rights[/b]

Democratic often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism

it's that simple lesson. I know fact and truth ... not lies and deception. Good day. plus Kerry is also religious ... so what the fuck are you talking about? You liberals need to get your lies straight. They seem more and more desperate.[/quote]

Desperate? I'd say relying upon a definition which looks to "the early 19th century" is pretty desperate. :WinkNSmi:

In the here and now, though, I will reiterate that Bush does not fit the mold of what is traditionally considered republican, regardless of what he calls himself.

With regard to Kerry's religion, this is one area where I really like the guy. Yes, Kerry is a religious guy as is his prerogative, but he believes very strongly in separation of church and state. That is key in my mind. A politician's religion should not become policy.

are we on the topic of larger gov due to national security? or liberal paper pushers?

I love you.