There are two kinds of Republicans that I can see -- perhaps more. But the majority of them fall into two Categories -- THE RICH ONES and THE GULLIBLE ONES.
Rush Windbag takes every opportunity to tell us "How liberals think," as if he could actually think himself. He's usually wrong. So I would like to return the favor and imagine how Republicans think that motivates their recent attempt at destroying the Stimulus Bill.
The rich ones are in the Senate, or own other Republicans who are in the senate. And here is why they destroy everything they can that help the American People: 1) Educate their children, and 2) keep from having more children.
A good education usually teaches people to research and think for themselves. But then they wouldn't be Gullible, would they? And if they went to school, they might be taught about the bloody, greedy mess George W. Bush got us into and they might remember when another election comes around and might vote for the Bush opposite for the good of our country. As it is, the Rich Ones inherit Harvard and Yale and now attempt to make it impossible for the children of Ordinary Gullibles to attend those institutions. This the ancient "Keep your heels on the necks of those serfs," tradition so beloved by monarchs in the dark ages.
The Republicans cut the funding of Birth Control as the first disposable item in the package. They have to get rid of that lest they run out of serfs. They need those unwanted babies as cannon fodder for any other unjustified wars they want to send dispensible bodies to fight.
They need for those uppity women to be hobbled by pregancies and dirty diapers and low-wage jobs to feed their children, so they can't invade the hallowed halls of congress and corporations and Harvard and Yale, etc. and make policy in a different, compassionate language.
They need to keep women and their many children bound in the depths of poverty, uneducated and desparate so they can't go to school and learn history so we can carry civilization forward and will never be doomed to repeat such calamitous errors as the Bush debacle. And those children will be so crowded and desparate, if Republicans and corporations have their way, that wages can be lowered and lowered and all those CEOs can keep that money while our children are enslaved once again.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
L'heure bleue
Sandy Fox
Dave Cullen
Maureenow
nolalibrarian
LiJingJing
Salon.com
Comments
the thing is, large numbers of people supported dubya, twice, but didn't support mccain. can you tell us, one: did they suddenly become smart, and two: do we actually need two wars and economic catastrophe to raise the national iq from 'republican' level to 'democrat?'
we need to know this, as winning elections at this cost is an expensive victory.
relax. lot's of much nastier people around here, nsa hardly bothers with anything that doesn't sound explosive.
I think the recent election was primarily a result of a larger liberal voter turnout combined with lower Republican turnout. I think MOST of the same people who supported Bush also supported McCain/Palin. I personally know of a number of people who supported Bush, and said they might vote against McCain, but in the end voted FOR him instead. I think the difference was that more people, new voters, made it to the polls and turned the tide just enough. The numbers seem to support this thesis, but this is just my perspective.
The following was found at:
www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
In 2008 total voter turnout was 132,618,580, which represented 56.8% of the voting age population.
In 2004 total voter turnout was 122,294,978, which represented 55.3% of the voting age population.
One has to go back as far as 1968 to find a larger ‘percentage’ of population, and that total number was 73,211,875 as compared to 132,618,580 in the 2008 election, which was the largest total voter turnout in history. I think this is why Republicans are always the ones who are involved in trying to limit and restrict voters and total turnout; they know they really represent the minority view.
The following is from:
www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/06/report-08-turnout-same-or-only-slightly-higher-than-04/
“A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout,” the report said. Compared to 2004, Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent, while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008.
McCain: 58,343,671 votes
www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
Bush: 62,040,606 votes (2004)
www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/
The above indicated drop in total votes would coincide with the drop in Republican voter turnout nationally. It seems that there really isn’t much difference in the Republican support for McCain or Bush, just that they did not vote this time.
The issue often seems to be one of “organization”. And it has been widely discussed that this recent election represented one of the most organized campaigns on the part of liberals. Of course, money/funding is an important element in “organizing” on a national scale, which is why there has been such a push from the conservatives to allow more consolidation of media.
Restricting voting and education does seem to be a Republican tactic, regardless of where we see it implemented.
I'm also amazed that to so many Christians, the focus of their faith is legislating an end to abortion and birth control, and legislating an end to homosexuality. Where is the concern for ending poverty? ending injustice? ending war? I just don't get it, and I never will. And if Jesus really does one day separate the sheep from the goats, these hypocrites are going to have to swallow their pride and fling themselves on his mercy.
Now that's a scene I'd love to witness.
You want to weep for the gullibles, being led by the nose to their doom and they don't have a clue.