Rush, Ann, Laura, and Sean Can Suck It
I know a few good and decent Republicans.
They live in Florida and Massachusetts. They do not live in Colorado Springs.
Republicans I've met here are simply aligning themselves with whomever will help them bring on a religious revolution.
However misguided, Real Republicans are wonderful people who always have our country's best interests at heart.
And I prefer their logic to all the assbags in this town who couldn't put a thought together if Jesus himself came back and demanded it.
Real Republicans don't approve of the Taliban's God. They don't approve of Israel's God or James Dobson's God either.
They prefer their own God and they visit Him in church or when they close their eyes at night to pray.
They don't want god in government and they don't want government in our wallet, bedroom, doctor's offices or family decisions.
Real Republicans are consistent. And logical. And although I disagree with most of their choices, I respect them.
I couldn't summon an ounce of respect for most of the assbags in this town if Jesus himself came back and demanded it.
Real Republicans prefer Abraham Lincoln and (gulp) Ronald Reagan to George Bush and Karl Rove. They know their history. And they won't be manipulated by divisive pundits who have a stake in keeping America divided. And they won't be manipulated by evangelicals or moronic Mormons who are attempting to turn this country into a Christian Afghanistan.
Jon Stewart was right, Mitt.
Fuck. You. And every one of your supporters. Especially here in the Springs.
Whatever decency existed - is gone. Not an ounce left.
And so real Republicans sent your ass packing, didn't they?
Because they want their party back.
John McCain is their nominee.
Cry and pray all you want, assbags. And then handle it.
I'm just relieved that not all of you are fucking insane.
posted by kate @ 11:13 AM
19 comments
19 Comments:
I think this post would be even more entertaining if you relayed exactly what it was that set you off :-) ... You should probably go for a run, makes me feel better.
Say, nice picture of Andy Rooney! ("You know what makes me angry? ... ")
Kate,
I have thought much lately about Republicans, and their why they think the way they do, and you said much of it. Most just want what's best for the country, we just disagree on what would work best. I've really toned down my criticism of both parties. That said, get SuperDave to post the tirade that Garrison Keeler does with name calling of Republicans, it's very nice, and in a good fun spirit. Thanks and hang in there (unlike Chase's toenails!)
Kate: I'm with Chase on this one, what exactly set you off?
Chase, listen to the jon stewart link. I think Mitt Romneys speech is what set Kate off. He's sad sad man.
Perhaps Republicans don't want what's best for the country (a highly debatable statement), but it's now a scientifically proven fact that they are happier than liberals. There's a poll and everything and, as we all know, if there's a poll, it absolutely has to be true.
Proof that Dems are miserable bastards and Reps crap rainbows.
Is it that goiter thing that pisses off his critics?
Thanks, Tam, I'll check it out .. btw, Andy's right, have you seen my toenails? Just axin ...
http://dirtyrunningthoughts.com ..
eww.
It's Mitt and the fact that I'm surrounded by idiots who want us to return to the Dark Ages - that's what set me off.
And if one more person brings up immigration - but that's another post for another time.
Too bad the decent Repubs are so few and far between. But let the nasties continue to show their true colors and then the election is OVER.
Thanks for the link QJ - perfect timing considering tomorrow's topic.
And Caleb - what can I say? While not for me, at least John McCain isn't fucking insane.
AndyMan, I think I gave you (back) the Garrison Kieler book (Home Grown Democrat- really good stuff). In What's the Matter with Kansas, the author opines that the Republicans made a conscious effort to take the populist base that comprised the Solid South for Democrats by pandering to religious groups. It was the only way to get poor and middle class people to vote against their financial best interests. It's been very effective, but it means that well meaning Republicans have to pander to groups they don't really agree with, because that's the Party line. John McCain is what Republicans used to look like (think Eisenhower).
So, after eight years, THIS is what we get....
Rallying around corporatist candidates who are not even PRETENDING to offer any kind of substantive change, in the name of hope.
Hope.
It is like we are trying to pretend the last eight years didn't even happen. Our treasury is bankrupt, our military is broken, and we have lost our place in the world economy. We have financed the mass killing of over a million innocent people in Iraq. We have set fire to a new generation of anti-american extremists. The global corporate machine is turning all of humanity into slave labor. Our health cares system is broken.
Jesus tap dancing Christ. My fellow Democrats are supporting candidates who won't even TALK about the real issues. Kucinich tried - he was ignored & dismissed by the progressives as unelectable (hell, if WE can't rally behind a candidate who speaks truth and allow the media to dictate our candidate, how our we different from the repukes???). Let's post on a message board & clap our hands for what he said, but elect candidates who will not practice or implement ANY of it.
Granted, Edwards was addressing a key factor in the broken system - corporate ownership. However, the media shut him off, & I see people on liberal boards or blogs defecting to one of the 'electable' canidates. The corporate powers that be must be wetting their pants laughing at us. All they have to do is change the look & the message, & offer candidates who we can FEEL good about. And, that is what this is about, isn't it? Because, it is certainly not about anything substantive like talking about reality, consequences, sacrifices, & sufferings. It isn't about addressing a accelerated global warming that threatens to destroy all life on the planet within the next five to ten years.
We must ask ourselves, what is our GOAL? And, how do we accomplish it? Are we really committed to changing the healthcare system so that everyone has access to decent affordable care? How exactly do you do that with candidates who won't address the core issue of what is destroying it (PROFIT OVER PEOPLE)? And, do you really think we stand a snowball's chance in hell of addressing the crisis of energy & global warming with people who believe that NUCLEAR power plants can be part of the solution? The reality: you DON'T.
What is happening right now is incredibly dangerous. If we allow the corporate fascist powers that be to place a person in the White House that will give the ILLUSION & not the action of change, we will have been complacent in a masquerade that could set the progressive movement back years.
But, hey, as long as we can hope and feel good? Who cares about reality?
Immigration.
There. I said it.
Because, no matter how low the retaining wall, some of us just have to poke the tiger...
It is the quality and quantity of immigration that is the problem.
To simply say immigration misses the issue.
To compensate for our miltary presence world wide, the world wide is coming to our country. They will hasten the failure of our treasury, our health care system, our economy, our corporations, our schools, our churches and our families.
Not only is no one stopping it, it is being encouraged. Immigration will get us before global warming.
Live with it. Or better yet, die with it.
The notion that people "vote against their own interest," financial or otherwise, is arrogance at its highest. Not a single person can know for certain what another considers to be in their own best interest. Life is a series of trade-offs and there are people who place their religious convictions above financial matters.
So if someone votes for their "financial interests," it might be they're voting against their own interest when it comes to social issues. There are no perfect candidates that meet each voters "in their own best interests" perfectly, so individuals are left to decide how they wish to prioritize. Because it doesn't agree with what you might wish for them to choose as being in their best interest doesn't mean that it is.
And there's no comparing Democrats and Republicans of today to those of the 1950's. For instance, in the 50's both parties were predominately social conservatives and were strongly supportive of the military. Abortion rights, GBLT rights, and the anti-war movement, to the degree that these issues were even mentioned, were shunned by both parties. The issues were labor vs. management.
Just out of curiosity, did you even bother to LISTEN to what the radio talk show hosts actually said? Or are you listening to others tell you what they claim they said....or their interpretation thereof?
Never mind, I think I already know the answer.
Aaaargh!
I'd say Anonymous has a good point but you'd never know who the hell I'm talking about.
If you're gonna write something that you think is insightful and/or relevant, the fact that you can't grasp the hinderance of having a give and take with umpteen other Anonymous'ses'es in this type of forum kinda detracts from the whole "insightful and/or relevant" thing.
Give yourself a damn nickname.
...thus proving my point.
See, that's why I've started identifying them by their time-stamp. That way, at least people can see which anonymous post I'm referring to. If you don't claim a nickname, one will be provided for you.
And it'll probably end in "Von Poopypants".
QJ - First let me say thankles for your suggestion. I can usually tell by the tone, political tilt, or general penmanship.
But...
That works to a point. After the third Anon the task then begins of guessing if it's the first responding to the second or the second adding to their previous or a completely different Anon. A fourth compounds things exponentially. And so on. And so on. And so on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgDxWNV4wWY&feature=related
It's always about the Benjamins (money), which is why it is better to be able to decide who gets nominated than it is to decide who wins a general election. Seriously, there were stylistic differences between Bush and Kerry, but their backgrounds were quite similar. Kucininch couldn't win because he is really different. Abortion rights, prayer in school, flag burning. Corporate interests and CEO's don't give a damn about those issues. George Bush says "traditional values" are important, but Dick Cheney's daughter's gay. Does he really care? Probably not, but Joe Sixpack, who helped elect Bush does. Running a government costs money. If you get less from the rich guys, then who carries the freight? Well, for awhile, nobody, but ultimately Joe Sixpack will have to toss in his two mites extra to pay for the rich dude's tax break. He votes for Bush because Bush says things like "They think they can whup us. But they can't whup us", and tells us he prayers just like Joe Sixpack does. See, he's like me, Mabel, and that Kerry fellow's a snob! Read What About Kansas. Populism has, indeed, been used by Republicans to get poor people to vote to help rich people.
Post a Comment
<< Home