Saturday, July 28, 2018

A Day in the Life of Joe Republican

A redated post.

This post is dedicated to the memory of David Baur, a friend of mine whom I recently discovered died of a heart attack last August. He sent me this during the 2004 election campaign.

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 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.

It's 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 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."

* written by Donna L. Lavins and Sheldon Cotler.

41 comments:

Blue Devil Knight said...

Wow, that is great. A beautifully simple implicit statement of liberal values, values which liberals are horrible at selling.

normajean said...

LOL!!! I'm sure a spin exists.

Anonymous said...

Is that post in anyway supposed to be convincing ... or was it just poetic license?

Milton Friedman and John Lott Jr., discuss this style of argument in Capitalism and Freedom & Freedomnomics.

I would recommend reading each.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Here's an alternative view:

A day in the life of Joe Democrat

Merlijn de Smit said...

Oi. Though my sympathies lie without doubt with liberalism, I must say that the Joe Democrat one is funnier! Especially the one about the shampoo.

(And what's this about "wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals"?? Both are consumed in places where nature's bounties are plentiful and life is good. Beer is a substitute for barbaric Teutonic forests and rainswept countries where people shouldn't be living in the first place. Depoliticize gastronomy!)

Doctor Logic said...

truth,

I see that racism is still alive and well in the Republican party. No wonder your friends are praying Obama doesn't win... like you, they believe Obama must be a mugger/gangbanger with "post-traumatic slavery disorder" who only became president of the Harvard Law Review because of "racial quotas". This is the third time this week I've encountered such racism. And I thought America was above this kind of bigotry.

Anonymous said...

Doc Logic: You are so full of crap you vote democrat. If anything the libs are the ones concerned with race and gender -- the right is more concerned with accomplishments and competence... although there are some exceptions.

When will liberals learn?!

steve said...

At 4:13 PM ,  Doctor Logic said...
truth,

I see that racism is still alive and well in the Republican party. No wonder your friends are praying Obama doesn't win... like you, they believe Obama must be a mugger/gangbanger with "post-traumatic slavery disorder" who only became president of the Harvard Law Review because of "racial quotas". This is the third time this week I've encountered such racism. And I thought America was above this kind of bigotry.

*************************************************************

Change in Selection System

Mr. Obama was elected after a meeting of the review's 80 editors that convened Sunday and lasted until early this morning, a participant said.

Until the 1970's the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.

That system came under attack in the 1970's and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review.

Harvard, like a number of other top law schools, no longer ranks its law students for any purpose including a guide to recruiters.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FPeople%2FO%2FObama%2C%20Barack

Bert Power said...

I think Kant was right when he said:

"...there is... a duty of respect for man even in the logical use of his reason: a duty not to censure his error by calling it absurdity, poor judgment and so forth, but rather to suppose that his error must yet contain some truth and to seek this out...

I can hardly think of a more applicable place for application of this except in political discourse. There is one though: religious debate. And in that regard VR is admirably excellent, it surprises me that he doesn't seek to raise the level of political discourse.

Bert Power said...

subscribing

Jason said...

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE DEMOCRAT

[the following was taken from http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/day-in-life-of-joe-democrat.html
it disappointed and frightened me with its fear-mongering hate-speech that I felt compelled to respond.]

I see that hippie philosopher Victor Reppert has redated an old political post. I’ll take the occasion to return the favor.

[from Jason: And I shall take the liberty of commenting on Triablogue's diatribe within. I'll offset it by using brackets and bold-font.]

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE DEMOCRAT


Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. He can only afford to drink four ounces a day because his tree-hugging governor raised the sales tax for the fifth time in four years to pay for gov't run Daycare, the Playboy channel for incarcerated sex-offenders, free needle-exchange programs, social services for illegal aliens, and condom-vending machines in preschool.


[I've not got much to comment on in this particular stanza because it is is so obviously a "YOU MUST FEAR; FEAR THE LIBERAL AND GET IN ORDER!" argument that it's hardly worth reading. Yet still, I'd hazard to not Jesus's teachings of the Good Samaritan when considering that attack on "illegal aliens." Certainly, they (illegal aliens) don't deserve to be slotted between sex offenders and the obvious hyperbole of "condom-vending machines in preschool." (sic)

But he savors every drop, for next year he'll only be permitted to buy decaffeinated coffee because FDA testing found that force-feeding lab rats 20 gallons of coffee per day raised their cancer rate by .0003% per thousand.

[I was totally unaware that coffee was a controlled substance. Nor is there any legislation on the books for this. Hyperbole.]

With his first swallow of water, he rations his daily intake of medication. He can't afford all his meds because some stupid commie liberal ambulance-chaser drove pharmaceutical costs through the roof with frivolous lawsuits.

[In 2002, a Congressional commission found that Pharmaceutical companies were spending an average of $2.5 BILLION annually, not on litigation (not even the "frivolous lawsuits") but on Direct-to-Consumer advertising. Before 1990, Pharms were not allowed to market direct-to-consumer. Even today, only New Zealand and the US are the ~only~ two countries (dare I say it) foolish enough to allow this practice. Do you really think that the consumer, after a 30-second viagra/cialis commercial is ready to diagnose and prescribe for himself -as opposed, perhaps, to the medical doctor with all of her years of education, training, and experience? No way, no how. Oh, and I mentioned 1990; guess what else has happened since then? You got it, med costs have skyrocketed. Gotta pay for that "free-market" advertising somehow, billions of dollars are a lot to make up.
Last note on this (for now): Do you know how expensive good lawyers are? Well, you'd best start saving, because the Pharms can afford them, many of them, and you lawyer isn't going to get very far against them if you do get sick/maimed/killed from their drugs, let-alone if it was a "frivolous lawsuit."]


His meds are subsidized by his employer's medical plan because some liberal closed shop union workers fought their employers in order to garnish employee wages so that Joe would labor under the illusion that someone else is picking up the tab when in fact his employer is reaching into Joe's own back pocket.

[LOL. Yeah, like unions generally allow garnishment of wages. Nope. And before we assume such facts, why not offer back the supposed "lost wages" in exchange for the employees health care? I doubt there'd be many takers of that particular bargain.

Oh, and on the other side of that argument (because I hear it so often from "conservatives"), what about the entrepreneurial employer who has created these jobs but really might just possibly create more but for the cost of insurance? While my mind does *almost* want to hear the violin you're playing for the employer, the fact remains that my heart isn't too fond of sweatshops. In another WWJD-moment: Does the master owe no duty to the servant? Who is in the better position to bear the burden? Honestly, if the cost of supporting employee health becomes too great, then the risks are too high -and that is an injurious or insolvent industry.]

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is unsafe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for limited liability laws so that if anyone dies of food poisoning, the meat packing industry will pay a fine and pass the cost on to the customer.

[Waitaminute.... now you're attacking "limited liability laws?" I thought just a few paragraphs back the argument was against too many damaging lawsuits?... No. You wouldn't make that mistake. Nobody could flip-flop so fast that it looks like they're lying or confused...]

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient because some crybaby liberal thought that he was too stupid to know that imbibing a pint of shampoo might be harmful to his health.

[Touche. Oops, that was French. Oh well, I did leave off the accente aigu, at least.]

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. Joe begins to cough, choke, and gasp for breath because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for passage of the Kyoto treaty, allowing Third World countries to contaminate the world air supply with carbon monoxide.

[Really? That's the argument? The Kyoto Protocol REQUIRES 36 countries to reduce their emissions. It does NOT, by any means or interpretation, cause other countries to contaminate to make-up or exceed that loss -honestly... where do this completely irrational distractors come from? Oh, wait... Bush? Yes, I do think I remember that. So, they're masters of lies (*ahem,* 'WMD's in Iraq?', Pro-Life [seen any change on the Roe v. Wade front? Me neither, but I'm pretty sure that was a platform.], etc. ad nausea... -please don't fall into their influence.

Oh yes, and before you get all worked-up that I linked to wikipedia above, remember: Palin uses it. (Try not to get too distracted by her pretty picture on the site.)]

Joe doesn't dare go out at night because some environmentalist wacko liberal lawmaker forbade the spraying or draining of malarial swamps.

[Again; more hyperbole. Here's Mrs. Bush pointing-out that malaria was long-ago eradicated in the U.S.]

Joe lost his first home to wildfire because some environmentalist wacko liberal lawmaker forbade the thinning old growth forestland.

[I'm sure that the kid with the matches had nothing to do with it. But, to address the argument as made, it's from a recent National Geographic article I think... Yeah, I read that one. I remember that it pointed-out that we keep putting ourselves in harm's way by moving right up to the edges of the forest. Good thing we don't allow the gov't to regulate that, huh?]

His dad used to take the train to work. But when the Federal highway system destroyed our once-magnificent train system, Joe had to resort to the filthy, crime-ridden subway system because some fancy-pants liberal fought to disarm law-abiding citizens so that street gangs could mug commuters, then cop a plea based on post-traumatic slavery disorder.

[Waitaminute... I must be reading this wrong, or it's happening again... Is this another flip-flop?
Public Transport = Good, because dad loved it.
Private Transport = BAD, cars and highways have ruined our "magnificent" option.
ergo
Public Transpot = BAD.
What???!
Now that's two times... I'm starting to wonder. What was it Bush said? I think I might turn to him for guidance here. Oh, yeah... "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." Nope. That didn't help. That didn't help at all.


Joe begins his workday. Joe's dad used to support his family at a middle class lifestyle on a single income. But it now takes two or three incomes to do the work of one because liberal bureaucrats drove up the cost of doing business through overregulation and usurious corporate taxation.

[If they find the corporate tax-system, *ahem*, "usurious," then they could always incorporate as an LLC, and maybe even an LLP. Seriously, this statement shows a distinct lack of understanding of either A) corporate codes, or B) the word "usurious." It sounds more like the argument was provided by one of those "corporate-types." Again, they're sending-out pawns to do their dirty-work on the basis of misrepresentations and fear. As for "overregulation," (sic) weren't we just worried about "limited liability laws?" Isn't that a form of government regulation? Yep, it is. Must be a mistake. Another one.]

If Joe gets bored with his job, he can fake an injury and collect workman's comp., retiring to the slopes of Aspen to recuperate because some stupid liberal didn't think that employees might try to bilk the system.

[No. It doesn't work this way. How many people do you know enjoying the high-life in Aspen on worker's comp? Hyperbole -utterly ridiculous if you take just one minute to consider the assertion. Not to mention, that's a great way to show faith in your common man. Would you do this? Then again, you might -you thought of it after all.]

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 thought that financial institutions should be able to defraud their customers and then file for bankruptcy, thereby shielding the pension and severance pay of board members while sticking the taxpayer with the tab.

[Oops. The FSLIC hasn't existed since 1989. Another baseless claim? No way... but nobody would buy this, then!]

Joe has to pay his federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided to subsidize college education so that universities, freed from competitive pressure, no longer had to keep tuition costs down.

[Education is well-worth the cost. Loans are available to all. Oh, and I'll let you know that universities are still extremely competitive, that's why our upper-education system is the best in the world.]

Joe had the GPA and SAT scores to get into Harvard, but he had to settle for a community college because racial quotas kept him out while admitting inner city students who couldn't read or write, but had mastered multiple techniques of fitting a condom in high school sex-ed.

[Harvard-worthy GPA and SAT? Well, then Joe is not going to "community college." If Joe had the grades and SAT to get in to Harvard, then he's there. If all he had was his sense of entitlement -well, then, yeah... he may well be in community college. As for the second part of that assertion: Is that racism I hear? Being from the inner-city does not make anyone less human, no more so than being a Samaritan did in Biblical times. And I'm pretty sure that G*d still doesn't smile upon racism or classism.]

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. He has to practice defensive driving because some America-hating liberal had alcoholism classified as a legally-protected disease and disability.

[Alcoholism is a disease but it is NOT a defense for driving under the influence. Not in any state in the union. Don't drink and drive.]

He arrives at his boyhood home. The countryside used to be a quiet, leisurely, pristine place to live until the Federal highway system and forced bussing overran the bucolic countryside with suburban sprawl as urbanites fled the cities.

[Awww... there's that bucolic countryside again. Damn those highways! Let's go back to public transport and REGULATE cars! Oh, wait... I think we know where that argument goes. Shoot.

Okay, what about this next part: "Urbanites" are evil. I keep hearing this. We had "inner city students" taking over Harvard from the more-deserving. Now we've got "urbanites" overunning the countryside. City-dwellers are really scary, apparently. Really? Why? Got any family or friends in the city? Are they pretty evil? By the way, as of 2005 80% of Americans reside in "cities or suburbs." That's a lot of evil. Oh my, it seems that 79% of Americans are Christian. Uh-oh.]

His family used to live off the land, in harmony with nature, until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification, powered by fossil fuel consumption.

[Yeah, wax candles are pretty quaint. But they can make the long-nights studying for that Harvard education rather brutal. By the way, how was this message composed and sent, anyway? Oh, wait, yeah... computers. Best get your quill ready if you're arguing for the end of electricity.]

He is happy to see his dad. Dad will be the last generation to retire on Social Security because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals regularly raided the SS trust-fund to subsidize social programs, instead of allowing workers to invest their own earnings in compound interest-bearing accounts.

[I'm pretty sure that this is still ostensibly a free country, and that we can invest in any "compound interest-bearing account" that we choose. But we do need to choose to do so. Too bad you're not doing that but instead you're complaining. Funny thing too, what you're now pining for was initiated by Franklin Roosevelt, a democrat, as part of the "New Deal." I'm not sure that there was EVER a more liberal program in the United States. Shucks.]

Joe's Dad was forced into early retirement, without a pension, because some environmentalist wacko liberal discovered a snail-darter in the cooling system of the local nuclear plant, where his dad used to work.

[Joe might want to get some more education then. Oh, wait, that's right. Joe's a Harvard-man (or at least, he would have been if not for "racial quotas." I'm sure he can think his way out of this one.]

Joe's uncle used to be a cattle rancher until he was driven out of business because some environmentalist wacko liberal lawmaker kept him from shooting wolves that preyed on his livestock.

[Um... Are you actually arguing that the "wolves ate Joe's uncle's cattle?" Where's your homework? Did they eat that, too?]

Joe's cousin used to work at the local lumber mill until he was laid off because some environmentalist wacko liberal discovered a spotted owl on timberland.

[Uh-oh; another good for nothing animal making life hard for the workin' man. This is getting quite repetitive. Though I do find it kind of funny given the earlier attestation to life "in harmony with nature." Oh yes, and what about that nuclear plant from two examples prior... wasn't that providing the cursed evil of "electricity?"]

Joe's relatives used to receive assistance from the local chapter of the Salvation Army until it had to close its doors because some liberal civil libertarian sued it for refusing to offer domestic partnership benefits to all its employees.

[Salvation Army? Assistance? Liberal assistance! They work with alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, and other "undesirables of society!" Liberals! Christians! Liberals! Christians! Oh, my... I think they're both. What do we do with them?]

Wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals also invented a Constitutional right to an abortion, resulting in 45 million fewer workers to support the retirees.

[That's right; make a servant-labor argument justify encouraging Life. This is just messed-up.]

In addition, wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals promoted SS so that no able-bodied, adult child should ever be saddled with the onerous burden of caring for the elderly parents who devoted the best years of their lives caring for them when they were young and helpless.

[Wow. The "liberals" sure sound like they're having fun! So, it was the "liberals" who came into your home and taught your family it's values? Weren't there dinner-hours? Weren't there Saturday afternoons? Wasn't there Sunday School and Church? No, no, the failures are clearly not your own -they're "the liberals" fault! Oh, by the way, can you point me to where the liberals have published this mandate to escape the "onerous burden of caring for the elderly parents?" I have GOT to read that.

Finally, wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals lobbied for involuntary euthanasia so that burdensome parents can be put out of their children's misery.

[Phew. I don't know if this diatribe counts as involuntary euthanasia. I think you may be being a bit too hard on yourself.]

As the day ends, Joe reflects on his nation, his liberties and his freedoms. He is free because conservative cold warriors kept commie lefty Liberals from unilaterally disarming America.

[Yes, and what of the "liberals" who have fought, and died, for their country? What about those fighting right now? US Troops serving abroad have contributed Six-Times as much to the Obama campaign as to McCain. What about those who have fought for us in the past for our glory and independence? How about retired Air Force General Merrill McPeak. And Obama has said, time-and-again, he doesn't oppose all wars, just "dumb wars, rash wars," and wars fought to distract us from real issues that cause real deaths. Does that sound like a call for disarmament? Does that sound like a, ahem, again, "commie lefty?" We are so concerned over abortion of infants, as well we should be, but what about the effective abortion of our young men and women over falsified reports of WMD's?! As Christians, we have a compulsion to save all human life. Obama is also, like you and I, against abortion. But he also knows that overturning Roe v. Wade is not in the power of the Executive, and he's not going to lie to you about that. If it was in the power of the President, why didn't Bush overturn it? He's had eight years.]

Joe resents having to be so dependent on gov't goods and services, but since he didn't ask for it, since--indeed--it was imposed on him anyway, against his will, and forcibly deducted from his hard-earned wages, the only way he can recoup a fraction of his losses is to play the hand he's been dealt--even if the deck is stacked against him.

[Okay.]

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on NPR. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are good and right-wingers are bad. He doesn't mention that the beloved liberals have fought for the infringement of every freedom that Joe's old man used to enjoy and take for granted.

[LOL. Gotta suspect anyone but FoxNews, huh? Yeah, that's trustworthy -only get your news from one source.]





--
You'll never till a field turning it over in your mind.
[Irish Proverb]

Mark Pendray said...

I could write some of these:

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and switches on the radio. The radio works because of flower power.

With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because straggly-haired hippies fought the system to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised by the Man.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because the plan was made by Bob Marley.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal died for his right to PARTY!

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his mojo. His mojo is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some gay rights activists fought for his right to know what true gayness is when it comes to passing laws.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because Communism produced all that wealth, dude.

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 has more electricity than any house in the world because of love.

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 liberals have good luck amulets

Ilíon said...

I didn't think of this myself (it is not the sort of thing I'm capable of uniquely coming up with) --

For the original (so far as I know), see here, How to start a day with a more positive attitude!
1. Open a new file in your computer
2. Name it 'Barack Obama'
3. Send it to the Trash Bin
4. Empty the Trash Bin
5. The prompt will ask you: "Do you really want to get rid of 'Barack Obama'?"
6. Firmly click 'YES'
7. Feel better? GOOD! Tomorrow we'll do Nancy Pelosi!!

Though, I can think of several other names to add to the list.

Legion of Logic said...

Too bad those liberals are not today's progressives.

A rational person would not say that Republicans want dirty water, dangerous medications, no medical insurance, unsafe food, unknown products, polluted air, no public transportation, terrible jobs, no worker's compensation, at-risk money, no education, lethal cars, no electricity in rural areas, and no retirement. Yesterday's liberals would not have said those things, because yesterday's liberals were more rational. They would have known that opposition was not in the goal ("We hate clean water!"), but in the method and process of achieving the goal ("This bill overreaches and will infringe upon basic freedoms."). Obviously, these liberals knew, no one wanted things to be worse for everyone, and it would make them look insane to claim otherwise.

Too bad those liberals are not today's progressives.

In all fairness, the talk-radio crowd isn't any better. Basically, if someone can say in their mind that one party is good and the other is evil, then they have lost touch with reality.


Dave Duffy said...

I can't imagine that is how someone would remember a friend. A friend!

Dave Duffy said...

Thanks for the sober remember how sick people have become about their politics. This what you remember about a friend? A friend!

Dave Duffy said...

You have no memory of helping the guy move, visiting him in the hospital, talking to him about his doubts about the faith, having a beer, going fishing. I'm sorry Victor, you live in a perverse world if this what you remember.

bmiller said...

Wow. Sad.

Ilíon said...

LoL: "Basically, if someone can say in their mind that one party is good and the other is evil, then they have lost touch with reality."

That's not true. In fact, the very claim is wicked.

What is true in American politics is that one party of the two major parties -- specifically, the Partisans of the Ass, the leftists, the ones whom Victor makes excused for and thereby endangers his immortal soul -- *is* wicked, and has been for a long, long time.

Joe Hinman said...

Ilíon said...
LoL: "Basically, if someone can say in their mind that one party is good and the other is evil, then they have lost touch with reality."

That's not true. In fact, the very claim is wicked.

What is true in American politics is that one party of the two major parties -- specifically, the Partisans of the Ass, the leftists, the ones whom Victor makes excused for and thereby endangers his immortal soul -- *is* wicked, and has been for a long, long time.

you don't know Jesus. you teach a false gospel. Last time you were here you actually said one could not be saved if one was not republican. Now you toned it down to just saying democrats are totally evil.when you were here before

the claim itself that one party is evil; that is a political invective and not a theological truth. Thus you are putting politics before relationship with God. That is a false gospel.

Joe Hinman said...

Blogger Dave Duffy said...
You have no memory of helping the guy move, visiting him in the hospital, talking to him about his doubts about the faith, having a beer, going fishing. I'm sorry Victor, you live in a perverse world if this what you remember.


where did he say that?

you totally missed the point, Everything the guy did everything his life depends upon was given him by government yet he convinced himself he's self made takes no help from anyone

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Legion of Logic said...
Too bad those liberals are not today's progressives.


yes the true progressives are those who are busy destroying the endangered species act giving away public lands destroying all environmental regulations rolling back every bit of progress made in the 20th century, trying to take us back to 19th century bootstrap economics. so progressive,

Joe Hinman said...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-clean-air-policy-trump-administration-fossil-fuel-companies/



"The Trump administration announced Thursday it is doing away with a decades-old air emissions policy opposed by fossil fuel companies, a move that environmental groups say will result in more pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it was withdrawing the "once-in always-in" policy under the Clean Air Act, which dictated how major sources of hazardous air pollutants are regulated."

you can find the following examples on this page where they are linked to the articles supporting them;



http://resistance-not-futile.blogspot.com/2017/12/trump-balance-sheet-what-trump-costs-us.html


* 13 thousand /year die from air pollution due to roll back of regs on coal fired plants
(Trump's war on breathing: Resistance is not Futile)


*50,000 lives / year lost due to roll back auto emission stadards
(Ibid, see also "Trump has started the roll back" the Guardian)

* Roll backs on regs that protect drinking water for 117 million
("Trump wrecks nation's clean water," Resistance...)


*cut food and formula for nearly 390,000 participating women, children and infants.()
Proposed slashing the WIC program. President Trump’s proposal to slash funding for the WIC program puts basic food security at risk for thousands of families. At an annual food cost of about $513 per person, the $200 million cut could help pay for a year’s worth of food and formula for nearly 390,000 participating women, children and infants. (100 ways 100 days; center for American Progress)


Joe Hinman said...

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) has studied the effects of fine particle emissions from power plants since the year 2000. These are empirical scientific epidemiological studies. There are now 7,500 deaths each year from power plant emissions. [2] This may sound like a lot but its actually down by 50% from the time before the Obama regs,

In 2000, 2004 and again in 2010, the Clean Air Task Force issued studies based on work by Abt Associates quantifying the deaths and other adverse health affects attributable to the fine particle air pollution resulting from power plant emissions. Using the most recent emissions data, in this 2014 study, CATF examines the continued progress towards cleaning up one of the nation's leading sources of air pollution. This latest report finds that over 7,500 deaths each year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants. This represents a dramatic reduction in power plant health impacts from the previous studies....Our 2004 study showed that power plant impacts exceeded 24,000 deaths a year, but by 2010 that had been reduced to roughly 13,000 deaths due to the impact that state and federal actions were beginning to have. The updated study shows that strong regulations that require stringent emission controls can have a dramatic impact in reducing air pollution across the country, saving lives, and avoiding a host of other adverse health impacts. The study also shows regrettably that some areas of the country still suffer from unnecessary levels of pollution from power plants that could be cleaned up with the application of proven emission control technologies.[3]
The 2004 study showed 24,000 deaths a year, I show above its down to 7,500, that's 17,000 lives a year saved by the regs!. [4] Market forces are moving us away from Coal. There is no question this will be, power plants are closing and the large industry is committed to it. Coal Fired energy in US has fallen from 51% in 2008 to 30% in 2016. [5] The market story creates a complex issue. The question becomes how much, how soon? We can retard the drift away from coal as Trump is trying to do,or we can facilitate moving to more healthy sources of energy that furnish employment. Neither candidate in the election had the presence of mind to say that. The shift has meant 80% less sulfur dioxide, 64% less nitrogen oxide, 34% less carbon dioxide [6] For those who don't know those things are not good to breath.


Sources


[2] Clean Air Task Force, Clean Air Task Force 114 State Street 6th Floor Boston, MA 02109
Joseph Chaisson, Research and Technical Director, http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/
(accessed 10/11/17)
board of directors: http://www.catf.us/about/board/
(accessed 10/11/17)
Jeff Gleason, Board Chairman, Deputy Director, Southern Environmental Law Center
Charlottesville, VA
Deputy Director, Southern Environmental Law Center
Charlottesville, VA
[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid
[5] Union of Concerned Scientists, "A Dwindling Role for Coal." UCS website, no date or author given.http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/coal-transition#.Wd9twvlSzIU
(accessed 10/11/17)
[6] Ibid
[7] Patrice Tadonio, "War o EPA," Fontline, PBS aired Oct. 11,2017

Chad Handley said...

"A rational person would not say that Republicans want dirty water, dangerous medications, no medical insurance, unsafe food, unknown products, polluted air, no public transportation, terrible jobs, no worker's compensation, at-risk money, no education, lethal cars, no electricity in rural areas, and no retirement."

A rational person would realize the OP doesn't claim that Republicans want any of those things. It only claims they do not realize the role government has played in preventing them.

"They would have known that opposition was not in the goal ("We hate clean water!"), but in the method and process of achieving the goal ("This bill overreaches and will infringe upon basic freedoms.")."

A rational person wouldn't conceive of making dangerous medicine or lethal cars or polluting the air as a "basic freedom" that anyone possesses.

Joe Hinman said...

Triblog

DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE DEMOCRAT

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. He can only afford to drink four ounces a day because his tree-hugging governor raised the sales tax for the fifth time in four years to pay for gov't run Daycare,

Here in the great lone star state our old prole can't afford their meds because governor stupid wants to show the feds they can't control him. water is totally polluted. In Farmers Branch where I lived from high school and thorough graduate school we had 24 cases of dementia and cancer in four mile radius, a local near by chemical plant was eventually forced to shut down but only after a major battle, the state only dragged their feet, the Feds shut them down



the Playboy channel for incarcerated sex-offenders, free needle-exchange programs, social services for illegal aliens, and condom-vending machines in preschool.

yes drug addict don't deserve to live, we should just shoot them,that's what Jesus said,hate your enemies shoot them on sight, attempts to be compassionate are really just sexual perversion

But he savors every drop, for next year he'll only be permitted to buy decaffeinated coffee because FDA testing found that force-feeding lab rats 20 gallons of coffee per day raised their cancer rate by .0003% per thousand.

that has not happened has it? you are spreadeagled hysteria because you are hysterical.,

With his first swallow of water, he rations his daily intake of medication. He can't afford all his meds because some stupid commie liberal ambulance-chaser drove pharmaceutical costs through the roof with frivolous lawsuits.

you are totally detached from reality if you think the feds keep old people from getting meds, the state sure as hell is no help.

His meds are subsidized by his employer's medical plan because some liberal closed shop union workers fought their employers in order to garnish employee wages so that Joe would labor under the illusion that someone else is picking up the tab when in fact his employer is reaching into Joe's own back pocket.


that so stupid.what planet are you living on? I was an employee of state of Texas and I got 39$ to cover three day hospitals stay,
5
you are right capitalism is great if you are in that 1%

sucker!

Legion of Logic said...

Ilion: "That's not true. In fact, the very claim is wicked."

The claim is absolutely true. Yes, the Democrat Party is hideous. You think the Republicans are GOOD? That's delusional level of thinking, if so.

I didn't say that it's irrational to think one party is better than the other. Getting shot in the kneecap is superior to getting shot in the skull, but it's still not good in of itself by any objective measure. Obviously I think conservative values are (mostly) far superior to what the Democrats are wanting to implement, and Republicans are unfortunately the primary tool we have to work with in order to get conservative principles in place. But to say the Republican Party is good is an absolute denial of reality. They often abandon conservative principles themselves. They are not good.

Legion of Logic said...

Chad: "A rational person would realize the OP doesn't claim that Republicans want any of those things."

Never said it did. Glad we are on the same page.

Chad Handley said...

So you were again making a totally irrelevant comment directed towards strawmen of your own making. An oddly persistent habit of yours.

You're really good at arguing against people who aren't present and who say the things you put in their mouths.

Joe Hinman said...

"They would have known that opposition was not in the goal ("We hate clean water!"), but in the method and process of achieving the goal ("This bill overreaches and will infringe upon basic freedoms.")."

A rational person wouldn't conceive of making dangerous medicine or lethal cars or polluting the air as a "basic freedom" that anyone possesses.

No one wants those things but Republicans are willing to live withy them.

Legion of Logic said...

Chad,

I referenced who I was talking about in that post. You aren't very good at this.

Chad Handley said...

Yes, you referenced a strawman of your own creation. Who in the political spectrum is saying Republicans WANT all of the things you mention? The most common critique of Republicans on the issues raised in the OP is exactly as the OP stated: that Republicans are inconsistent or dishonest about how much of the safety and benefits they enjoy are due to large scale government interventions which were originally proposed by liberals and opposed by conservatives.

But there's no hay for you to make on that, so you change the subject, as you always do, to complain about imaginary progressives.

Here's roughly the conversation flow:

OP: Republicans complain about big government despite the fact that they, and society as a whole, benefit massively from many big government programs.

Legion of Logic: Liberals are mean to us sometimes and hurt our delicate feelings! MOMMY!

Your username should be Legion of Non-Sequitor.

Ilíon said...

lying liars gotta lie: "you don't know Jesus. you teach a false gospel. Last time you were here you actually said one could not be saved if one was not republican."

Every claim in that quote is a lie ... and a projection.

And the rest of the post from which the above is quoted is also false, and (considering the source) probably also lies.

Ilíon said...

LoL:

You're on your own.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Ilíon said...
lying liars gotta lie: "you don't know Jesus. you teach a false gospel. Last time you were here you actually said one could not be saved if one was not republican."

Every claim in that quote is a lie ... and a projection.

And the rest of the post from which the above is quoted is also false, and (considering the source) probably also lies.

so you deny saying Dems ae evil? it's right up there we all see it, you said it

you sure as hell did say ifyoiu don;t vote republican you are not a Christian

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Ilíon said...
LoL:

You're on your own.

no my candidate won thepopular vote.

I posted maltreat on the study showing Trump's taking donw the regs will kill 13000 people a year,I don't see any refutation

Legion of Logic said...

Chad: "OP: Republicans complain about big government despite the fact that they, and society as a whole, benefit massively from many big government programs.

Legion of Logic: Liberals are mean to us sometimes and hurt our delicate feelings! MOMMY!

Your username should be Legion of Non-Sequitor."

And you accuse me of fallacies? This "summary" of yours has absolutely no relation to anything I said, nor any of my motivations for saying it. I seriously can't fathom why so many people think that pointing out childish behavior is crying.

As for it being an alleged non-sequitur (unlike your definite strawman), I read the OP as an implied "because of liberals and in spite of conservatives." Which, again, would wrongly suggest that conservatives don't care about those things or are actively opposed to them, which only the irrational would believe. If I read an implication into that where none should have been read, then Victor (not you) can tell me I saw things that weren't there, and I will agree and apologize to him.

However, when Nancy Pelosi says

"I don’t think your opponents should choose your party leaders. I think that we have an important case to make. They are coming after me because of my city, and they are against LGBT, and they are against poor children. That has been my mantra, the poor children of America that I am here to support. Yes, I am a liberal"

then here I have one of the highest ranking Democrats in the country saying that Republicans are "against poor children". This isn't exactly an isolated event in how Democrats and prominent progressives characterize conservatives and Republicans as being guilty of every form of selfishness and bigotry in existence, as if Democrats and progressives aren't. So whether or not I read too much into the OP, I don't find my characterization of prominent modern leftists to be inaccurate, and I won't apologize for telling the truth about them. I'll just apologize for telling it in the wrong forum.

But again, that will be Victor's call. Not yours.

Ilíon said...

Isn't it rather LOL that you're complaining because Hanging Chad is doing the same thing toward you that you did toward me?

Joe Hinman said...

then here I have one of the highest ranking Democrats in the country saying that Republicans are "against poor children". This isn't exactly an isolated event in how Democrats and prominent progressives characterize conservatives and Republicans as being guilty of every form of selfishness and bigotry in existence, as if Democrats and progressives aren't. So whether or not I read too much into the OP, I don't find my characterization of prominent modern leftists to be inaccurate, and I won't apologize for telling the truth about them. I'll just apologize for telling it in the wrong forum.

Give me one example of how the reps in congress have done anything in the last decade to help a single chili in poverty?

Joe Hinman said...

Republicans said things like sick people don't deserve health care because they don't live right.

SteveK said...

Legion: "You aren't very good at this."

Chad has a well established history of misreading and misunderstanding what is written.