A Day In The Life of A Middle Class Republican Conservative

[mikewrona]

"Joe gets up at 6:00 am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of 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 they are safe and work as advertised.
All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers 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 of its contents because some 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 tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
Joe 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, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation days because some 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 liberal didn't think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It's noon time, Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposits are 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 life-time.
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.
Joe 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. His 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 he gets back in his car for the ride home.
Joe turns on a radio talk show, the host's 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".
by John Gray, Cincinnati, Ohio - jgray7@cinci.rr.com -
A TvNewsLIES Reader contribution - Published July - 2004

[yokes]

:rolleyes: boring.

Sorry Mike when you have an original thought feel free to post

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by yokes
:rolleyes: boring.

Sorry Mike when you have an original thought feel free to post

I'm sorry there were no pictures for you.

[yokes]

dont need pictures but I also dont pass on spam chain letters.

but thanks

you are enlightened for posting this. Im sorry I scoffed at you oh enlightened one.

[yokes]

click me (http://watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001505.html)

or me (http://www.otwa.com/community/showthread.php?t=17686)

or me (http://www.racergarage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=485)

ah hell just click here

clickmeclickme (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=A+Day+In+The+Life+of+A+Middle+Class+Republican+C onservative&btnG=Google+Search)

But hey Mike at least you can say you had an original thought right? Because you made this up originally right?

[therising]

Lots of people here do the copy and paste schtick.

While I'm not particulary fond of it, I do like this one.

And I look forward to the likes of LHardy/Biker et al with their responses.

I'm sure they'll have Joe going to bed at night safely because Conservatives have kept us free of terrorists. :rolleyes:

Or, some crap like that.

See y'all at the party! :) (which we're able to attend due to the fact that we have not yet been murdered because conservatives have enacted the death penalty)

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by yokes
dont need pictures but I also dont pass on spam chain letters.

but thanks

you are enlightened for posting this. Im sorry I scoffed at you oh enlightened one.

No spam or a chain letter. It's from a Cincinnati website on Republican Christian politics.

The author's point is valid. Conservative Republicans think they owe nothing to nobody.

[LaNdReW]

Originally posted by therising
Lots of people here do the copy and paste schtick.

While I'm not particulary fond of it, I do like this one.

And I look forward to the likes of LHardy/Biker et al with their responses.

I'm sure they'll have Joe going to bed at night safely because Conservatives have kept us free of terrorists. :rolleyes:

Or, some crap like that.

See y'all at the party! :) (which we're able to attend due to the fact that we have not yet been murdered because conservatives have enacted the death penalty)

I like this one too.... Do you think its the "Liberal Media" spreading these lies?:rolleyes:

[tronix75]

So this is some kind of Liberal propaganda trying to be funny?

mikewrona, this piece is just as stupid as the Libertarian vs. Anarchist post you pasted. Maybe it was written by the same moron.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by tronix75
So this is some kind of Liberal propaganda trying to be funny?

mikewrona, this piece is just as stupid as the Libertarian vs. Anarchist post you pasted. Maybe it was written by the same moron.

This isn't propaganda. This is the way you guys are. I agree with the gentleman from Cincinnati. You use of the word moron rather than agrue the point is typical of conservative intelligence in dealing with pepole who don't agree with you.

[tronix75]

Originally posted by mikewrona
This isn't propaganda. This is the way you guys are. I agree with the gentleman from Cincinnati. You use of the word moron rather than agrue the point is typical of conservative intelligence in dealing with pepole who don't agree with you.


Oh I see, so you interpret this essay as be being completely factual and not propaganda.
OK…you want to argue a point? I let you pick a paragraph from the essay and explain to me why it is not baloney.
And then we’ll see if my lower conservative intelligence can debunk it.

[Jim Ostrowski]

Of course it's propaganda--very good propaganda.

Here's where it begins to break down.

We're too stupid to buy shampoo without help from the government. The people in the government are really smart.

Who elects them?

The stupid public which can't even manage to buy shampoo that won't killed them--the pathetic morons.

How can those same pathetic morons select really smart people who can tell them which pant leg to stick their leg into first thing in the morning.

Surely, running the federal government is more complicated than buying shampoo and picking the man who runs it is also quite complicated. How does someone who can't buy shampoo pick someone to run the federal government?

The opposite is the case. People are generally capable of making the decisions they need to make in their own personal, lives, but they are not capable of running other people’s lives, or running the economy, or running the world, or even picking others who will do those things.

Which is why I say, Free Buffalo!

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by Jim Ostrowski
Of course it's propaganda--very good propaganda.

Here's where it begins to break down.

We're too stupid to buy shampoo without help from the government. The people in the government are really smart.

Who elects them?

The stupid public which can't even manage to buy shampoo that won't killed them--the pathetic morons.

How can those same pathetic morons select really smart people who can tell them which pant leg to stick their leg into first thing in the morning.

Surely, running the federal government is more complicated than buying shampoo and picking the man who runs it is also quite complicated. How does someone who can't buy shampoo pick someone to run the federal government?

The opposite is the case. People are generally capable of making the decisions they need to make in their own personal, lives, but they are not capable of running other people’s lives, or running the economy, or running the world, or even picking others who will do those things.

Which is why I say, Free Buffalo!

Wow, you are probably the only person to have read this that has gone off the deep end in their interpretation of what the man wrote.

He's talking about safety labels, standards, and pay levels. And you come up with being told how to do things by the government.

I suppose you want the coke put back in the Coca-Cola.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by mikewrona
Wow, you are probably the only person to have read this that has gone off the deep end in their interpretation of what the man wrote.

He's talking about safety labels, standards, and pay levels. And you come up with being told how to do things by the government.

I suppose you want the coke put back in the Coca-Cola.

P.S. And as far as propaganda goes everything you write is propoganda but you don't want your followers to believe it. So here's the definition from Dictionary.com:

"The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause."

You very definitely advocate a cause as does everyone else, including me. So please be honest and admit you are a propagandist for the views you present. You will present only the good things you have to offer and none of the negative. Correct?

[Usually Right]

Mikey, Mikey,

Now you see it isn't just me that thinks your family tree goes straight up!

For those of you who don't know Mikey, his motto is "If at first you don't succeed, blame someone else and seek counseling"

[Jim Ostrowski]

So I've gone off the deep end and "everything I write is propaganda."

Good arguments!

How would you know if everything I write is propaganda when you haven't and don't read everything I write?

Here's how I used the word "propaganda"--from Wikepedia:

"Some propaganda includes significant and deliberate falsehoods. However the message does not have to be untrue to qualify as propaganda, but it may omit so many pertinent truths that it becomes highly misleading."

For example, regarding unions. The economic facts are clear: they raise their own wages at the expense of non-union workers, businesses and consumers. Historically, wages rose before the union movement reached its peak. Wages follow productivity which follows capital investment which follows low taxes.

That's part of a legion of facts you left out. I could literally spend hours on what you left out. That's why it's propaganda.

[tronix75]

Originally posted by mikewrona
P.S. And as far as propaganda goes everything you write is propoganda but you don't want your followers to believe it. So here's the definition from Dictionary.com:

"The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause."

You very definitely advocate a cause as does everyone else, including me. So please be honest and admit you are a propagandist for the views you present. You will present only the good things you have to offer and none of the negative. Correct?

Thanks for the definition Mike, but the definition of propaganda on dictionary.com is incomplete.

Britannica defines propaganda as:
dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion.

That's the definition in the political sense of the word, which applies here.

Since the authors claims are based on deceptions, half truths and lies and he has no facts to back up his words...we call it propaganda.

[tronix75]

Originally posted by Usually Right
Mikey, Mikey,

Now you see it isn't just me that thinks your family tree goes straight up!

For those of you who don't know Mikey, his motto is "If at first you don't succeed, blame someone else and seek counseling"

I see what you mean, a product of the welfare-state government schools huh?

[Usually Right]

One man's propaganda is another man's Bible!

[LHardy]

He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards.
FACT:

What is the current status of H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act Amendments (CWAA)?
The House of Representatives passed H.R. 961 on May 17, 1995 by a vote of 240-185. The measure had the strong support of a coalition of House Republicans and conservative Democrats. The fate of the bill is uncertain since Senator John Chafee (R-R.I.), Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee which has jurisdiction over the legislation, has put Clean Water low on his committee's legislative priority list. There are also strong possibilities of a Democratic filibuster should the legislation come to a vote on the Senate floor, and a Presidential veto should the bill pass both houses. http://www.p2.org/inforesources/nppr_cwa.html

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972
is commonly known as the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500). Its purpose is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. The Act consists of two main areas of emphasis: (1) regulatory provisions that impose progressively more stringent controls on the discharge of pollutants, and permit the discharge of dredged or fill material into waterways and wetlands, and (2) funding and planning provisions that authorize Federal financial assistance for municipal wastewater treatment plants, state administration grants, nonpoint source programs, the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay Programs, the National Estuaries Program, and other purposes.
The most recent reauthorization of the Act became law after Congress overrode President Reagan's veto by votes of 401-26 in the House and 86-14 in the Senate. Since the bill became law on February 4, 1987 (PL 100-4), authorization for many of its programs has expired, particularly the capacity for states and localities to receive federal funding for clean water projects which lapsed in 1991. The authorization for grants for State Revolving Funds (SRFs) expired in 1994. Funding has continued to be provided through annual appropriations. More information on reauthorization efforts is available in a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report.

Under the SRF program, states must deposit into the SRFs at least 20 percent of the amount of federal grants in matching funds. The SRFs are available to make low interest loans, buy or refinance local debt, subsidize or insure local bonds, make loan guarantees, act as security or guarantee of state debt, earn interest, and pay administrative expenses. All projects must be those which will assure maintenance of progress towards the goals of the Act and meet the standards and enforceable requirements of the Act. After states achieve those requirements, SRF monies may be used to implement other water pollution control programs such as nonpoint source pollution management and national estuary programs. EPA has approved 57 states and territories for funding under the SRF program. A CRS report on implementing the Clean Water Act is available on the National Council for Science and the Environment website. http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/cwa106.html

Looks like some of those liberal Dems don’t want clean water.
Damn those conservative Dems!
I was going to rip this thing to shreads but after better thought and just this one bit of info, I thought Nah why bother. Why let the facts get in the way of some good liberal propaganda.

[steven]

Real men drink dirty water anyway.
:D

[moonshine]

He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee.

Likely a cocktail of anti-depressants and erectile dysfunction meds that some liberal politician claims Joe can't live without.

[LaNdReW]

Whenever I think of clean water I think of..
Bush and MTBE

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration quietly shelved a proposal to ban a gasoline additive that contaminates drinking water in many communities, helping an industry that has donated more than $1 million to Republicans

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/16/fuel.fight.ap/

I think he called it the clean water inititive or something witty like that.

[tronix75]

Originally posted by LaNdReW
Whenever I think of clean water I think of..
Bush and MTBE

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration quietly shelved a proposal to ban a gasoline additive that contaminates drinking water in many communities, helping an industry that has donated more than $1 million to Republicans

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/16/fuel.fight.ap/

I think he called it the clean water inititive or something witty like that.

Well that just proves what I knew all along...Bush is a Liberal Republican propagandist.

Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary,1911

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by Usually Right
Mikey, Mikey,

Now you see it isn't just me that thinks your family tree goes straight up!

For those of you who don't know Mikey, his motto is "If at first you don't succeed, blame someone else and seek counseling"

For those who don't know the wise Usually Wrong. Please read this knowing that the winners of the Amerst town elections were Mohan, Bucki, Ward, Schratz. Let's see how this wizard of Amherst politics used his keen political intelligence to interpret a large candiates forum that had an impact on the town elections.

[Quote]
Usually Right
Senior Member

Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Amherst
Posts: 482
Sinking Homes Forum
If you ever wanted to see a display of "beat around the bush", you should have been at the forum at St. Mary's Parrish yesterday for the sinking homes group.

Rules were set up ahead of time to try and maintain civility and both Dan Ward and Dirk Rabenold went on the attack and had to be told to stop it or sit down.

Those that attended were only interested in hearing solutions to their problems; not political infighting. Those that did a great job were Grelick, Woodward and Brownrout. Mohan, Marlette and Bucki did their same thing again as they do at all forums. Schad and Mohan were blah as usual but the best BS statement given was by Shelly Schratz. She told why she didn't pay her taxes. I think she forgot she was in a church. Not a person believed her. [Quote]

He supported four losing candidates out of four possible elections. A monkey tossing darts would have gotten at least one correct.

My apologies to the regular readers for the "cut and paste" this person is bizarre.

[Usually Right]

Mikey, Mikey,

Who lit the fuse on your Tampon?

[LHardy]

posted byLandrew
Bush and MTBE


I read the article and it is very vague leaving one to believe that it is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation with MTBE.

No hard figures just political rhetoric from both sides.
No vote stats to see Dem versus Rep count.
No fact of where the leaks had accured or how the MTBE was getting into the water.

It also failed to state how much money prior to the Bush admin. these companies donated to the Clinton and Dem campaigns.

It is easy to give recent history but not to give a complete history is just bending fact.
Landrew that is not your fault in this case. It is the fault of CNN and it's agenda agianst the Bush administration.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by LHardy
FACT:

The most recent reauthorization of the Act became law after Congress overrode President Reagan's veto by votes of 401-26 in the House and 86-14 in the Senate. Since the bill became law on February 4, 1987 (PL 100-4), authorization for many of its programs has expired, particularly the capacity for states and localities to receive federal funding for clean water projects which lapsed in 1991. .[/i]

I believe it says her that the Republican Conservative god Ronald Reagan vetoed this bill. Only to have the congress override it.
The Congress had a Democratic majority.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

[LHardy]

posted by mikwrona
I believe it says her that the Republican Conservative god Ronald Reagan vetoed this bill. Only to have the congress override it.
The Congress had a Democratic majority.



In context with this thread this does prove that it is not the "Liberal" who has given us everything as stated in the first post of this thread.
Also, yes the Dems where the majority but there was not, 26 house and 14 senate Republicans in congress at that time. there where many more. Proving that even conservative republicans will vote in favor of what they feel is right.
Agian not single handed did the Liberals give us these laws.

Then you forgot to include the main fact that -

What is the current status of H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act Amendments (CWAA)?
The House of Representatives passed H.R. 961 on May 17, 1995 by a vote of 240-185. The measure had the strong support of a coalition of House Republicans and conservative Democrats. The fate of the bill is uncertain since Senator John Chafee (R-R.I.), Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee which has jurisdiction over the legislation, has put Clean Water low on his committee's legislative priority list. There are also strong possibilities of a Democratic filibuster should the legislation come to a vote on the Senate floor, and a Presidential veto should the bill pass both houses.

Who would that be? Oh yeah Billy Clinton! The Liberal god!

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by LHardy
In context with this thread this does prove that it is not the "Liberal" who has given us everything as stated in the first post of this thread.
Also, yes the Dems where the majority but there was not, 26 house and 14 senate Republicans in congress at that time. there where many more. Proving that even conservative republicans will vote in favor of what they feel is right.
Agian not single handed did the Liberals give us these laws.

Then you forgot to include the main fact that -


Who would that be? Oh yeah Billy Clinton! The Liberal god!

The Republican Conservatives abandonded Teddy Roosevelt's opening moves to clean up the environment, make parks, break up monopolies for the public good, etc. For that matter, it got so bad that Roosevelt left the Republican Party entirely to start the the Bull Moose Party.

Since that time Conservatives have no major environment issues that they champion. They even consider the Kyoto Accords to be crap when virtually the rest of the world accepts it. The U.S. is joined by two growing world polluters China and India.

Conservatives did not introduce any consumer protection legislation leading to: product safety labeling, clean water requirements, waste management and treatment, wet lands protection, automobile crash barrier testing, airbags, meats inspection, highway traffic safety. They came about because some progressive felt it import to protect the public, and that progressvie was fought every step of the way by a conservative who was more interested in protecting his ability to make a buck unimpeded.


FACT SHEET:
Republican Budget Undermines Clean Air, Clean Water, Open Spaces

It shortchanges education, health care, veterans' benefits, small business, and the environment. Instead of helping working families, it provides additional tax breaks for those who need them least, and provides billions of dollars in new giveaways to HMOs and other wealthy corporate interests.

Here's your highlights over the past year.

1. Like the Bush budget, the House Republican budget cuts environmental protection.

2. Cuts overall funding for EPA by 7 percent.

3. Assumes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

4. Abandon the principle of "polluter pays" for Superfund toxic waste site cleanups.

5. Slashes Clean Water funds by 37 percent and freezes funding for safe drinking water.

6. Underfunds Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) programs by $586 million.

7. Shortchanges National Parks.

8. Shortchanges clean, renewable energy & energy efficiency programs

BudgetWatch

The Conservatives could care less about the current and future environment because it interferes with making money now.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by tronix75
Oh I see, so you interpret this essay as be being completely factual and not propaganda.
OK…you want to argue a point? I let you pick a paragraph from the essay and explain to me why it is not baloney.
And then we’ll see if my lower conservative intelligence can debunk it.

It is factual. If it wasn't for the progressives in this country there would be no reason for you. Progressive have a view of the future and believe in promoting the general welfare. You guys don't. You hate everything. You complain about everything and everyone.

Conservatives have nothing to offer this country. You people are not thinkers for the future. You don't like the "vision thing" because you have no vision.

Let's put it simply. A conservative did not:
Invent American Democracy
Free the Slaves
Allow Labor Unions
Start Social Security
Build the Panama Canal
Start the National Parks System
Establish Public Education
Enact the G.I. Bill
Start the Student Loan Program
Demand Universal Civil Rights and Suffrage
Enable Anti-Trust Legislation
Monitor the banking industry
Break up the oil monopolies
Put a man on the moon
Found the United Nations
etc.

You tell me what great things your people have done except complain about the cost of something and how in the greatest, richest country in the world they are still getting screwed and have a terrible life because of a government they hate.

[tronix75]

What are you Mike? A Teddy Roosevelt Progressive or a FDR Liberal Socialist? Probably both, you seem to like anything that is related to big government statism. Your idea of democracy is mob rule, democracy in it's worst form. Shoving your goofy ideas down everyone else’s throat without concern for economics, common sense or the constitutional limits on government set by the founders. Of course you don't care how much things cost, your kind believes in robbing other citizens of their earning to pay for those egalitarian fantasies you call visions that always fail.

Invent American Democracy - Where'd you get this from? You really think people of the modern liberal mentality founded this country? HAH! Please explain that one.

Free the Slaves - Again, so people of the modern liberal mentality freed the slaves huh? I thought big government Lincoln Republicans took credit for that. Not that that is anything to brag about, every other country abolished slavery peaceably, in the U.S. it cost the lives of over 600,000 Americans. And most of those dead Americans didn’t know they were being lead into war to abolish slavery. Go fiqure.

Allow Labor Unions – Oh yes, the primary source of anticapitalistic propaganda. We can see how well that has worked, their greed and corruption has lead to their great decline in the private sector. Only one problem though, how do we get rid of the corrupt public employee unions?

Start Social Security – Oh Great! Thank you liberals. A New Dealer socialist redistribution of wealth scheme masked as an insurance program. Sure fooled a lot of people, take a look at your paycheck is see what a fool you are.
Even FDR’s mother said it was abhorrent and refused to pay. FDR had to pay it for her to keep his SS police off her back.
I have only one question about Social Security…how do I get out?!

Build the Panama Canal – OK…a pet boondoggle of the war mongering imperialist president Teddy Roosevelt. When he couldn’t negotiate a peaceful treaty with the Columbians, he flew off the handle and instigated a revolution in the Panamanian province, even sent gunboats down there to insure he could steal their land.
Typical Teddy, a man that Mark Twain described as insane.

“We are insane, each in our own way, and with insanity goes irresponsibility. Theodore the man is sane; in fairness we ought to keep in mind that Theodore, as statesman and politician, is insane and irresponsible.”
Mark Twain - Letter to J. H. Twichell, 2/16/1905

Start the National Parks System – Another Teddy Roosevelt scheme, he didn’t believe that resources should be in the hand of private interests, but should be controlled by government. It’s funny that some of his biggest supporters were big timber interests, who supported the government confiscation of land for national parks. Because it reduced the competition!
It’s also odd that whenever there is great destruction by forest fire, it always starts on government mismanaged land. Coincidence?

Establish Public Education – congratulations, thanks to the great success of government schools we turn out incompetent adults in unprecedented numbers at the highest possible cost.

“The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.”
- Thomas Sowell

Enact the G.I. Bill – You should read this, it might straighten you out with some history and facts about the G.I. Bill.
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=104&sortorder=articledate

Start the Student Loan Program – aka, program to raise college tuition so no one can afford it. Turned an efficient affordable free market industry into a inefficient, expensive government bureaucracy.
That was actually started by a Republican, Dwight Eisenhower.
See, you liberal progressive reformers aren’t alone, conservatives can be just as dangerous to the general welfare of the people.

Demand Universal Civil Rights and Suffrage – You know, you liberals sometimes start out with good ideas, ideas that even embrace the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but then you always debase those goals of eliminating discrimination by discriminating against someone else. (Affirmative Action, compulsory integration and school bussing)

Enable Anti-Trust Legislation – Great job, another government program disguised as being in the public interest, but it really is for the benefit of the special interests.
http://www.mises.org/story/436

Monitor the banking industry – That’s funny since the banking industry is controlled by the government. Another 20th Century progressive scheme to debase the value of our money and give the government a free hand at the printing press. The U.S. citizen used to have real money backed up by gold and silver reserves and inflation was something unheard of by the man on the street. Thanks to Woodrow Wilson and his special interest gang of thieves, the Federal Reserve System has gotten worse over the decades and given us money based on nothing but debt and hot air. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve the real value of $1.00 in 1913 has eroded due to inflation to a meager 5 cents in 2005.

Break up the oil monopolies – If you understood the article on Anti-Trust, then you would know that a monopoly cannot exist in a free market capitalist economy. It’s a fantasy boogeyman meant to entertain children and voters. Only government can create monopolies, which it has been known to do. Can you say NFTA?

Put a man on the moon – Dwight Eisenhower started NASA but I’m still waiting for my free vacation to the moon base, since I’ve paid enough in my share of taxes to cover it. Oh well, I’ll just have to wait for some capitalist private space company to get the job done more efficiently and cheaply. All we got from NASA was a box of rocks and a junk yard on the moon.

Found the United Nations – Congratulations, one of the most corrupt organizations in the world, and we U.S. citizens get the honor of paying for most of it operations. Now if they could only Lose The United Nations, that would be a real positive accomplishment.

[LHardy]

You tell me what great things your people have done except complain about the cost of something and how in the greatest, richest country in the world they are still getting screwed and have a terrible life because of a government they hate.

Look in the mirror mike that is exactly what you have just got done doing.

Progressive is the new liberal word for Socialist.
Everything about buisness and profit is evil. No one is allowed to have either in your eutopia. Yet you guys bitch about those evil capitialists increasing the wealth of third world countries. Raising the poor up and putting them to work. At the same time chasing them from the US because of your own greed for higher wages and redistribution of wealth. Wealth to those who won't work for themselves.
Mike- living in Amherst must be a burden on your sole. Knowing that there are so many poor and under feed out there that you could help if you only gave back more of your income. You don't need your 2 cars, cable/sat tv, 2 bathrooms, swimming pool or whatever toys you have. Sell them and give away your money . Save yourself from yourself! Bet you won't do it! But you sure know how to tell everyone else they should.
You lie to yourself believing as you do that there are not any conservatives who are fiscally and envirometally responsible.
There are also no such things in government as cuts either. They just are not increased to the rate that is proposed. Yet your parties scare tactics want to call something a cut that truely is not. Evidence- Erie county - run by democrats,
Your no Buddist- Your not even a budd - your just an ist - Socialist.

[LHardy]

Well said tronix75!

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by tronix75

Invent American Democracy - Where'd you get this from? You really think people of the modern liberal mentality founded this country? HAH! Please explain that one.



Yes, the founding fathers invented American Democracy 229 years ago when Monarchial rule was standard throughout the world. At the British surrender at Yorktown the British Fifers played " The World Turned Upside Down." The founders were definitely progressive.

And, yes, you really do hate American democracy and hate everything about it. Your simple comment about "mob rule" shows you are against the American constitution.

You are either a facist or a communist. Both philosophies called democracy mob rule.

[mikewrona]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LHardy


Look in the mirror mike that is exactly what you have just got done doing.



This country is what it is because of forward thinking men and woman who looked at the capitalistic excesses of the Gilded Age in the late 1800's. A time of Robber Barons, Railroad Barons, Meat Packing Scandals, the military being called out to shoot laborers, and the top 1% of the population controlled 54% of the wealth.

You may think you are smart, but, you are not. Progressivism started over 100 years ago by former Republicans who didn't like the way the Republican Party treated the people and the constant money scandals. The individuals were Robert LaFolette and Theodore Roosevelt.

It then became the heart of the Democratic Party under FDR.

So when you knock us, at least do it historically accurate.

You have a right to your personal opinion. You don't have a right to your person truth.

It must be very difficult for you to live in a country in which you simply can't have your way unless it is chosen by a majority of the voters.

[WestSideJohn]

Come on Mike, you have to go easy on folks like LHardy. They revise and misrepresent things that are happening right now (we invaded Iraq to liberate the people! Liberals hate Christmas!), so the chances of getting an accurate historical perspective out of them is basically slim to none. Their idea of rational discussion is calling anyone who disagrees with them a socialist.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by Jim Ostrowski
So I've gone off the deep end and "everything I write is propaganda."

Good arguments!

For example, regarding unions. The economic facts are clear: they raise their own wages at the expense of non-union workers, businesses and consumers. Historically, wages rose before the union movement reached its peak. Wages follow productivity which follows capital investment which follows low taxes.


Stick to being a lawyer. The economic truth is that Labor Unions caused wages to rise across the board because non-union companies didn't want to have to deal with a union.

Your idea of good wages is WalMart the prototypical business model of people like you. Low wage, part time worker and high wage full time manager.

If American business seeks to pay a decent wage, why do they spend so much time looking for illegal alien workers, or, seek $1.00 and hour Chinese labor.

You are a great propagandist for your cause. You take a person who is paid poorly by their employer and tell them they are paid just right and the unions are paid too much.

I don't need to read all your stuff. You are a reactionary plain and simple. R E A C T I O N A R Y.

[tronix75]

Originally posted by mikewrona
Yes, the founding fathers invented American Democracy 229 years ago when Monarchial rule was standard throughout the world. At the British surrender at Yorktown the British Fifers played " The World Turned Upside Down." The founders were definitely progressive.

And, yes, you really do hate American democracy and hate everything about it. Your simple comment about "mob rule" shows you are against the American constitution.

You are either a facist or a communist. Both philosophies called democracy mob rule.

Hmm..I've got my U.S. Constitution right here on the computer, and you know...the words Democracy or Democratic don't appear even once in that document...but the words “Republican Form of Government” does.

I guess Thomas Jefferson hated the idea of an "American Democracy" too...

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson

I suppose according to your way of thinking that Thomas Jefferson was fascist or a communist.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by tronix75
Hmm..I've got my U.S. Constitution right here on the computer, and you know...the words Democracy or Democratic don't appear even once in that document...but the words “Republican Form of Government” does.

I guess Thomas Jefferson hated the idea of an "American Democracy" too...

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson

I suppose according to your way of thinking that Thomas Jefferson was fascist or a communist.

Dictionary.com (A Democracy can be a Republican System. A Democracy can be a Parliamentary System.)

re•pub•lic P Pronunciation Key (r -p b l k)
n.
A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.


de•moc•ra•cy P Pronunciation Key (d -m k r -s )
n. pl. de•moc•ra•cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

[WNYresident]

To end this whole arguement all we really need are politicians in the middle. They also have to realize you can't make everyone happy.

[WestSideJohn]

Tronix, our Representational Republic is a form of democracy. It's not pure democracy where one person = one vote. But it is democracy nonetheless.

I'm amazed that I have to explain this to an American citizen.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by WNYresident
To end this whole arguement all we really need are politicians in the middle. They also have to realize you can't make everyone happy.

You are ever the peace maker :-)

[WNYresident]

Not a peace maker. Just sort of seeing the big picture.

You know if are elected officials were "middle of the road" the community would be healthier. I think over all more people would prosper with less way left and way right people in politics.

[tronix75]

Originally posted by WNYresident
To end this whole arguement all we really need are politicians in the middle. They also have to realize you can't make everyone happy.

Got any politicians available? That'll be more fun!

[tronix75]

Originally posted by WNYresident
Not a peace maker. Just sort of seeing the big picture.

You know if are elected officials were "middle of the road" the community would be healthier. I think over all more people would prosper with less way left and way right people in politics.

Come'on Rez, Grover Cleveland wasn't "middle of the road"

That's the problem we have now, the one's we have now are for sale to the highest bidder, left or right.

[tronix75]

Originally posted by WestSideJohn
Tronix, our Representational Republic is a form of democracy. It's not pure democracy where one person = one vote. But it is democracy nonetheless.

I'm amazed that I have to explain this to an American citizen.

Thank god WestSideJohn we don't have a pure democracy, because the ship of democracy would have already sunk a long time ago.


"The ship of democracy, which has weathered all storms, may sink through the mutiny of those on board."
- Grover Cleveland

[mikewrona]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tronix75
[B]
Enact the G.I. Bill – You should read this, it might straighten you out with some history and facts about the G.I. Bill.
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=104&sortorder=articledate

I read your article. Reminded me of some family history. My father dropped out of school in the 9th grade because he had to go to work. My mother did the same after the 10th. He worked in a steel plant, she sewed clothes.

Both worked and never got promoted because they never had an education in the 1930's education was only for the wealthy. My father died young. My mother made it possible for 3 children to get a college education, and, at age 86 she still wishes she had the opportunity to get a high school diploma rather than work to help put bread on the family table.

The G.I. Bill made it possible for millions of people to better themselves and this country. My father couldn't take advantage of the G.I. Bill because he was screwed up from World War II including an Omaha Beach landing, and losing some toes to frost bite during the Battle of the Bulge. Too bad it cost your old man a couple of dollars in the process.

What you appear to want is a return to the good old days where education and good paying jobs were only for the wealthy.

Thank goodness there were progressive people in the Truman administration who actually believed in the constitutional desire to "Promote the General Welfare."

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by LHardy


Look in the mirror mike that is exactly what you have just got done doing.

Progressive is the new liberal word for Socialist.
Everything about buisness and profit is evil. No one is allowed to have either in your eutopia. Yet you guys bitch about those evil capitialists increasing the wealth of third world countries. Raising the poor up and putting them to work. At the same time chasing them from the US because of your own greed for higher wages and redistribution of wealth. Wealth to those who won't work for themselves.
Mike- living in Amherst must be a burden on your sole. Knowing that there are so many poor and under feed out there that you could help if you only gave back more of your income. You don't need your 2 cars, cable/sat tv, 2 bathrooms, swimming pool or whatever toys you have. Sell them and give away your money . Save yourself from yourself! Bet you won't do it! But you sure know how to tell everyone else they should.
You lie to yourself believing as you do that there are not any conservatives who are fiscally and envirometally responsible.
There are also no such things in government as cuts either. They just are not increased to the rate that is proposed. Yet your parties scare tactics want to call something a cut that truely is not. Evidence- Erie county - run by democrats,
Your no Buddist- Your not even a budd - your just an ist - Socialist. [/B]

You certainly have all the answers. You got me.
My home would sell for about $68,000
I have 1 bathroom and 1,000 sq. ft.
I make less than $37,000 a year.
I work on an annual contract.
I have 1 car with 85,000 miles on it.
I have no boat, no camper, no toys. My last vacation was a trip to see my daughter in San Francisco 4 years ago.

With that said. I'll add. Life is good. Friends, family, and wonderful co-workers make sure of that.

And I have no doubt you do better. The difference between the two of us is that you hate everyone and everything because there is something wrong with your life and you will blame everyone else for your problems rather than dealing with them yourself.

That's why you run with this goofy money oriented conservative libertarian crowd. The Lincoln on your pennies have bruised cheeks from being squeezed so hard. Your crowd enjoys wailing together on this blog about how terrible you have it.

Maybe you should take the advice of your conservative brothers from the 60s-70's: "America, Love It or Leave It."

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by WNYresident
Not a peace maker. Just sort of seeing the big picture.

You know if are elected officials were "middle of the road" the community would be healthier. I think over all more people would prosper with less way left and way right people in politics.

Well the British are trying that with a middle of the road Democratic Party. All they need is for the next British general election to end up with either Labor or Conservative parties winning less than a majority of the parliamentary seats.

That may happen soon. I sense Tony Blair is in trouble over Iraq.