GOPMOM Note: Liberal = Child
So it’s been a week, sort of, and the bombardment from the Left has not let up. What is wrong with these people? They remind me of ungrateful, spoiled brats on Christmas morning that got everything they wanted but are angry that someone else got something they forgot to ask for. They got what they wanted and they’re still b@$%#ing and moaning because two third of us are still not on board. After the last eight years of constant attack and reproach, you would think they would have expected this. But the thing about Liberals is this: they have no basis in reality, which is why they handle difficult situations so badly. And now they’re in charge?
There is nothing more unattractive than an ungrateful child – unless it’s an ungrateful adult. I can’t believe I have to keep repeating this: we live in the most successful, most wealthy, most secure, most prosperous nation in history – right now. There is very little to complain about. Yes, economies go up and down - especially when the government gets involved by forcing though suicidal lending policies – but it is attributable to the strength of our economy that we’re not in a depression right now. Yes, some people are having a tough time of it – mostly those whose recent prosperity was a false pretense. And the fallout of this is affecting others who have done everything right and followed the rules. But could we please just take a moment to gain a little perspective?
Have the Liberals forgotten life under Carter? Geez, I was born in 1970 and even I remember how tight things were as a kid. Which is probably why I’m so grateful for my family’s economic stability today. Why doesn’t everyone learn this lesson? Is it all in their minds or their DNA? I’m sorry, but I believe there is a fundamental difference between Liberals and Conservatives. And putting Liberals in charge, with all their insecurities and ineffectualness, is idiocy. They don’t do well without supervision and praise. They want someone else, preferably government, to take care of everything for them. Now they are going to be the government. This administration is going to be a disaster. Who is going to oversee these people? The media has surrendered.
You can see examples of this right here. Read some of the comments that come in. I am badgered left and right with demands for acquiescence. How many times have I been asked, “Why can’t you just accept that Obama is a good guy?” “Why can’t you accept that W messed up everything, is the worst thing since gas-powered vehicles and should die?” ”Why do you keep insisting that white is white and black is black and the sky is up and the ground is down…” What’s the quote? “Stuck on stupid?” That’s what these Liberals are – stuck on stupid. Just because they are easily swayed and convinced does not mean everyone is. With the risk of being repetitive, true grown-ups don’t change their morals, values and ideology when the wind shifts. If anything, we hang onto to them tighter in a storm. And the Obama administration is going to be a perfect storm. They are coming at us from all sides – government, media, 1/3 of the population. (Yes, I said 1/3 – that is after all, the number that voted for him.)
And you’ll love this. After all the populist BS of the Obama campaign – which 1/3 of the population bought hook, line and sinker – there is now a mad scramble for Inauguration tickets. Apparently all those ACORN ‘volunteers’ want payback. And they are hopping mad that they can’t afford the tickets. Yes, I know. They’re supposedly “free”. This is just perfect. All these “we’re all equal, we’re all the same” Obama liberals are about to figure out what we’ve known all along – Obama doesn’t think anyone is his equal. And he doesn’t want any riff raff messing up his moment in history. And he owes a lot of people a lot of favors for his successful rise to power. And these are not little people - they are scary, mean, corrupt people, who now have a key to the hen house. Little people just get to pick the bones. I have faith that many of them will figure this out, if not by 2010, 2012 for sure. Nothing could be sweeter than a divided house of Obama.
For all the criticism and accusation I’ve directed at Obama, I never gave enough attention to the little people – the grassroots network of supporters who so want to believe this is all about them. Just like children - the kids on the bench always expect a trophy at the end of the season, even though all they did was suck on oranges. And just like a Liberal, Obama will try as hard as he can, I’m sure, to produce all those trophies. What he will probably never understand is that for Liberals, a trophy is never enough. They’re going to want a ribbon, too. And a trip to DQ – for the biggest sundae on the menu.
Popularity: 16% [?]
Comment by Babba on 11 November 2008:
Hmmm. I didn’t realize I was attacking you. I thought I was just debating and discussing. But I guess I’m too stupid and childish to know the difference. I will continue to avoid calling you stupid. But you are certainly mistaken about some things.
By your logic only a 1/3 of the population voted for Bush. But he sure thought he had a mandate. And he sure behaved like he did.
Obama has nothing to do with the people selling the inauguration tickets. So I don’t know what your point is on that.
And now Obama may feel as though he owes the little people. After 8 years of a president who thought he owed the big people and big business I find that to be a refreshing change. That’s awfully elitist of you to think that it’s a bad thing that a president owes the little people.
Comment by ATG on 11 November 2008:
You’ll enjoy this gopmom:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive
Comment by gopmom on 11 November 2008:
Babba, I didn’t say Obama felt he owed the little people. I was saying the exact opposite. The little people may feel they are due, but as Obama has shown us in the recent past, if you even appear to stand in his way or threaten his ambitions, he will throw you under the closest speeding vehicle. I think we will see a lot of backlash over this.
Now, sit down for this. I agree with you that Presidents should feel they owe their time in office to the population, not the party leaders and Congressional elite. I have seen in W much more appreciation for the average American than I have seen yet in Obama. The Left likes to point out that W is wealthy with wealthy friends. What everyone fails to remember is that conservative/Republican policy says that wealth trickles down - if big business does well, everyone does well. So, it is only expected that the Bush admin would have pursued policies that favor the economic success of large corps. If it turn the corps are run by corrupt people, blaming the President for that is ridiculous. Everyone knew that W was a big business guy. So stop whining about it already. You know, Babba, if you’re bitter about W, just admit it. Admit your vote for Obama was really a vote against W. But stop beating the dead horse. It’s not like he ruined your life.
I don’t think you are attacking me, just badgering me. You’re kind of like the people I meet in the Trader Joe’s parking lot who stop, read my bumper stickers and then try to enlist me in a debate with the belief that they will say just the right words that will change my mind. I do not post opinions unless I am very firm in them. This is why I’m often late in responding to a news story. I think before I write (mostly). And this is just a hobby and I grow tired of it quickly - which is why I stopped posting at the other site you’re from. This is supposed to be fun for me - when it’s not, like “debating” the Soros army of blog trolls, I stop. And what are we debating anyway. Not policy. Not legislation. Just the warm fuzzies you have for Obama that I don’t - not worth it.
Comment by Babba on 11 November 2008:
As one of the little people, I don’t think he owes me. I think he owes the country to do the best he can. Which is all I expect of any president.
And I never intended to make you feel badgered or any other negative feeling. I just think it’s good for us all to look at things from the opposite perspective. That’s why I started coming here. I know there are people like yourself that see things very differently than I do. You and I have different world views. There’s certainly no doubt about that.
But I’ll bet there are things that we agree on.
And I’ve never been to a Trader Joe’s. I do try to buy organic at the Safeway, though.
Comment by ATG on 11 November 2008:
Gopmom, remember that it is possible to vote against W and for Obama (I personally did both with gusto).
Also, your logic train about conservatives help business because they think wealth trickles down, therefore conservatives intend to help little people, therefore Bush can’t be blamed for the effects of the corruption of business leaders only holds if Bush/the conservative movement was naive enough to believe that business leaders would put the economic health of the nation’s citizens ahead of their own bottom lines.
In fact, since conservative theory expects that businesses putting their bottom line first is what leads to nationwide economic success in the first place, AND we know that corruption of these businesses can have the opposite effect, it would logically follow that there is a strong role for government regulation after all, no? Even if you do buy into “trickle-down” economics.
Comment by LOUDelf on 14 November 2008:
“Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.” -Sir Winston Churchill.
Comment by Babba on 14 November 2008:
John F. Kennedy:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then … we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” [September 14, 1960]
Comment by a young female farmer from Tennessee on 14 November 2008:
GOPMOM:
A couple of rules you must remember the next four years:
1. You can not have an original thought.
2. You must not make any derogatory statements about “THE ONE”.
3. You must accept that Republicans are just plain “ate up with stupid”.
4. Capitalism is bad. I repeat bad.
5. If you disagree with the far left liberals,you’ll be attacked by “THE ONE’S” millions of bloggers.
6. George Bush is “THE DEVIL”. He’ll be in Texas,but he is responsible for EVERYTHING bad in the world.
7. The military is even more evil. (As a military spouse, it’s very offensive to hear statements from the liberals like “I support the military, not the war.” What they are really saying is that, they just don’t like the military. I believe the prescription for military haters is to be required to join the military for a couple of years. Oh, that’s right, they are too sissy to join. Sorry, I digressed.)
8. Lucifer operates all organized religions. For example, Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists. However, Black Liberation theology is exempt.
If you follow these rules, you’ll have the following benefits:
free health insurance (you’ll have to wait two years for an operation, but,hey, it’s free.)
free government housing (I can’t wait to move in government housing, soooo upscale)
free food (All the cheese, milk and butter you can eat)
free gas (to attend the Community Military Force meetings)
free automobile (Only a Ford,GM or Chevrolet)
See how easy the next four years with be!
Comment by Babba on 15 November 2008:
Wow young farmer, you’ve been eagerly gulping that kool-aid down, haven’t you?
1.Why can’t you have an original thought? Who’s stopping you?
2.You’ll hear plenty of derogatory statements from me if I think Obama is making mistakes, I don’t know why I’d want to stop anyone else.
3.I know plenty of Repubs who aren’t stupid. And they know the Bush years were a mega failure and they’re willing to give Obama a chance.
4.Capitalism is good. The best economic system yet devised, but it has to have rules. And supply-side economics doesn’t work. We’ll be operating under demand-side economics for a while. Get used to it.
5.Yes, I get my orders via email everyday from Obama to go out and defend him. Bwahhahhahaaa!!!
6.Bush isn’t the devil, he spent 8 years giving us the devil, though.
7.Liberals do not hate the military. Why is it if we criticize the Commander in Chief’s actions we hate the military?
8.Some religious people have spent a lot of time in the past several years trying to impose their religious views and beliefs on everybody else. I have my own beliefs, I don’t need them to impose theirs on me.
And your list of rules is silly.
Free health insurance that you have to pay a premium for by paying a private insurance company.
I have no idea where you came up with the free housing thing. If you explain what you mean maybe I can respond.
Same for the free food.
As far as Obama’s civilian corps, “The Obama transition team declined to comment on Broun’s remarks. But spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama was referring in the speech to a proposal for a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure — an idea endorsed by the Bush administration.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27655039/
Again, I don’t know what you’re talking about as far as the free car stuff.
Actually, your next four years will be easier! And I’ll bet more profitable!
Is Rush Limbaugh plug directly into your brain?
Comment by gopmom on 15 November 2008:
Farmer, Just disregard the noise in the back of the theatre. If you need any confirmation of how ridiculous the Liberals are, look at California. The people voted, a few don’t like it so they protest, shut down traffic, cause riots - well, marching in drag isn’t quite the same as third world political riots, but riots nonetheless. Geez, they’re even beating up old ladies. How offensive. And all because they don’t like the outcome of a vote - the same vote that elected Obama. Apparently if you don’t like the vote, you just make enough noise and some wussy judge will overrule the will of the people. I say we organize a march on Washington. I don’t like how the vote turned out and I want my moment on TV. I mean, that is what they’re teaching us, isn’t it? If we just shout loud and long enough, the majority will just tire of it and look away.
Well, I have news. It’s not gonna happen this time. What Obama and his cohorts are proposing is the complete opposite of the fundamental beliefs this country was founded on - self reliance and self-responsibility. It’s why Babba doesn’t get it. He’s all for the Feds bailing out all those people who can’t afford their homes, cars, credit cards, health care, food, etc… He’s unwilling to recognize that maybe they hold some responsibility for the difficult situations they are in. (I’m living in the same economy as everyone else and somehow I’m managing to get by.) And it’s not because it’s good for them. It’s because it’s good for him. Then he doesn’t have to worry about it - he can just continue to believe all is well because someone else is in charge. It’s the lazy way out. And that’s what many have become in America - lazy. Life got easy there for awhile and now too many are too complacent and too stupid to do anything to help themselves - they want life to continue to be easy, just like it is on TV. They are children. Babba said it himself, “Actually, your next four years will be easier! And I’ll bet more profitable!” How can he even say that? And what is in his water? He’s lost all credibility with that statement. He has bought into the Obama hype. He’s officially one of them. Well, I’m not looking for easy. And if it means I have to give my profit to the government to redistribute, I’ll take less profit.
Luckily, it looks as if the children are still in the minority (not a pun or reference, just a numbers term), so we have a real chance of turning things around - soon. The Liberals just don’t get it. It’s not about money and taxes, it’s not about health care, housing, jobs, cars, credit, food, etc… Conservatives understand that tough times require us to sacrifice, cut back and give more. We understand that we are required, as humans, to help our neighbors, our community, our country. We don’t need to be compelled to do it by a government. It’s all about principles. We understand that you do these things because it is good for all - but only to get people over the hump. Setting up a welfare/nanny state helps no one except those in power. And it is an unending cycle. We see that. If you take responsibility away from someone it’s very difficult to eventually give it back to them.
Comment by a young female farmer from Tennessee on 15 November 2008:
To Babba:
Blah,Blah,Blah
Comment by gopmom on 15 November 2008:
Yes, by all means, speak to them in language they can understand.
And a note to all Libs out there - we don’t want Lieberman either. You can keep him.
Comment by Babba on 15 November 2008:
Gopmom, what if blacks hadn’t protested and marched and made a lot of noise and brought attention to the raw deal they were getting. I agree that some of the protesters in CA are hurting their own cause, but the majority are simply exercising their rights to free speech and assembly. And I would support your right to march on DC.
Please explain to me in what way Obama is suggesting that people should not be self-reliant and self-responsible? And I only meant easier in the sense that we don’t have to worry about the economy being in the crapper. I work hard and I think it’s good for me and I think it’s good for everyone who can work to work. What Obama wants to do is make sure people have decent jobs. What Dems want is for as many people as possible to have decent jobs so they can buy lots of stuff. Because that’s how a capitalist economy works. Just because you and the rest of the top 5% can buy stuff it doesn’t translate into a healthy capitalist economy. The vast majority of the population have to be able to buy lots of stuff. But there has to be a safety net for those who are unable to work. I’m speaking of the physically disabled, mentally disabled, the elderly, not healthy people. If you’re healthy you should work. It’s the basis of our economy. And there are times when healthy people lose their jobs through no fault of their own. In that case, there needs to be a safety net to help until they find gainful employment again. Your belief in the mythical crap you’ve been fed about Dems is sad. You’re an intelligent person. Get a clue.
And I’m all for sacrificing for the country. That’s something Bush never asked of us. He just told us to go shopping. So, many Americans did just that. Only they did it on credit. The oh so easy credit offered by the banking industry. Over the years those idiots offered me ridiculous amounts of credit. I didn’t take them on up on it, but Bush said go shopping and a lot of people took him at his word. And as far the unemployed, disabled, etc., depending on people like you for charity, please. If you don’t like their politics, or if their gay, or if they’re the wrong color, or whatever your prejudices are, and we all have them, they may not get your charity. That’s why an entity like the government should step in in those cases. The government can’t turn you down for those reasons.
Life shouldn’t be brutish. You’d think we’d advance as a species beyond that. Working hard is fine, but it should afford you a decent life. NO matter what kind of work you do.
I’d appreciate it if you’d actually listen to what I’m saying rather than imposing your preconceived notions of what Dems are and what we believe. You keep telling me what I believe and I keep showing you you’re wrong and you refuse to acknowledge it.
And I’m a she, BTW.
And farmer girl, right back at ya.
Comment by Babba on 15 November 2008:
And I don’t blame you about Lieberman. He is not to be trusted.
Comment by gopmom on 15 November 2008:
For pete’s sake, are you actually trying to compare the fight for civil rights for blacks (which is over, by the way, a black guy is President - almost) with the absurd campaign for gay marriage, when civil unions already exist. Now, while I’m thrilled to share the joy and misery that is marriage with everyone, why, why, why, does it matter? And this is not just a little protest - the media has turned it into a circus - and we all know who they work for. Slippery slope, indeed.
Oh, hell, it’s been awhile since this site has garnered any hate mail from gays, so why not? There has been , IMHO, a concerted and possibly organized effort by the media, the liberals, the Dems, to make homosexuality appear the norm, and cool and hip and new and cool… Why? As I’ve said before, gay people are only 12% (BIG CORRECTION - < 2% or the population) of the population. What is the big deal? If the majority of the population says marriage is man-woman, that’s it, why the big push? Because Liberals are only happy when they have something to complain about, something to protest, some invented slight to torture us over, or so they think. Us social Conservatives don’t give a flying duck what you do and who you do it with. I just don’t want to hear about it - just like I don’t want to hear about anyone’s private life. Just stop pretending you’re the norm - and by that, again, I mean majority.
Are you seriously so deranged you think all this spread the wealth crap is about the mentally and physically disabled, the elderly and the unhealthy? You have got to get your head out of wherever it is and start paying attention. Obama is talking about black people and other minorities. He talks about working families (Oh, if you’re poor, don’t have children - that is responsibility!) and those who have crappy jobs -probably because they are uneducated - virtually impossible in America today unless you drop out or your parents are too GD stupid and lazy to make you go to school. If your career path tops off at fry guy at McDonald’s, you’ve got not much to look forward to - go back to school. Obama is trying to level a playing field that cannot be leveled unless you lower it. Some people will never make enough money to have a decent life - because they just don’t care, are stupid or just don’t care. And if you want health care to be cheaper, fix the legal system, don’t destroy our superior health care system. Too many Americans are fat, lazy, stupid, irresponsible, not-worth-my-time-or-effort. I will continue to help those that help themselves but I will fight for every nickel the government wants to take from me and give to someone unworthy. And yes, I said unworthy because some people are. How they got that way is beyond me - probably crappy parents in a crappy family/social circle. I don’t know because I didn’t grow up that way.
You do not “change” people who think/believe this way by giving them another hand-out - they have proven, through their inability to succeed in an already opportunity filled environment, that they can only turn gold to crap. Why hand them more gold? Why make things easier? Not everyone is going to be a CEO, not everyone should go to college, some people will top out as a cashier at the quickie-mart. There will always be inequality, there will always be unfortunate circumstances, there will always be poverty. Obama, if his proffered life story is actually true, which I highly doubt, has supposedly proven that a kid can go from nothing to something. Why is he interfering with the system that produced him? If he hadn’t had to work so hard, would he be where he is now? Or is it as I suspect - he is where he is because of other people’s sacrifice, other’s people power and influence and a bit of luck?
Life is ‘nasty, brutish and short’, even in America. You have to be tough to survive, you have to be even tougher to find the joy in it, and you have to be Marine tough to know that your success and failure is all down to you and you still succeed. If life wasn’t hard, we’d all have been starved into extinction eons ago. But the few have been carrying the majority for most of history. Maybe if more of us refused to pull the wagon any longer, a few more of the riders would get out. Economic crises come and go - it’s what’s left over afterwards that counts. Do you honestly believe that all the government freeloaders will give up their perks once the economy levels? Come on, they never have before. What you and the Liberals seem to want to call ‘progress’ in a modern nation is what could very well destroy all we’ve built and accomplished. Do you forget o easliy that there are millions of Muslims around the world that wants us dead? Can you think of a better scenario for a terrorist org than a bunch of fat, lazy, government dependent Americans that can’t be bothered to even defend their own right to their own money? Talk about ripe for the picking!
My husband and I give away thousands every year. First, to our Catholic school and church, next to food pantry that serves mostly illegal alien population (at Catholic church), then to major charities - Red Cross, cancer orgs, disease orgs, military family orgs… And yes, I think I should be able to choose where my money goes. If the government wants to offer me the opportunity to itemize where my taxes go, I’m all for it. You’re being ridiculous. Why should the money go to the Feds anyway? You surely must agree that your local government could better decide where to spend tax dollars. And I’m not part of the top 5%.
Oh, and sorry about thinking you were a guy, Babba. Don’t know where that come from.
Comment by Babba on 15 November 2008:
I was only saying that any individual or group that feels they are being denied their rights has a a right to protest and such. And why does it matter to you so much that gays not be allowed to marry. My husband and I cannot for the life of us think of how it affects us either way. We don’t really care.
And it’s not that being gay is new or cool or hip. It’s just that these people don’t want to have to hide it. And I don’t mean they should be able to do anything obscene in public, I hate it when heteros do that, I mean they should be able to live just like us heteros and endure the joys and misery of marriage just like we do.
What Obama is talking about is the fact that too much of the money is sitting in the hands of too few people. Too little cash is flowing through the economy. The middle class has to make up for the fact that the wealthy aren’t paying their fair share. That’s why our infrastructure is falling apart. The middle class can’t support it alone. And the middle class can’t support Social Security and Medicare on their own. The percentage of people who are actually lazy is such a small percentage that if that really was the problem, it wouldn’t be a problem. Most people want to work, but who the hell would want to work if they can’t earn enough to live off of. What’s the point? And why should so many people have to work 2 and 3 jobs? There was a time when one person could work one job and support their whole family. That’s not possible anymore for a large number of people. And how the hell can parents be good parents if they’re working so damn much?
Life shouldn’t be brutish and short. We should be beyond that. We made great strides throughout the 20th century in which wages grew, hours of work were reduced, and the middle class grew to astounding numbers. The entire planet was in awe of what we did. And we had, for the most part, a very healthy economy. And that was partly because the middle class wasn’t taxed to death. And it’s funny that during that time the wealthy were heavily taxed and yet it did not discourage investment and job creation. We did it before, we can do it again. And you’re right, not everyone is going to be a CEO. But why does that mean that whoever is doing the work on the factory floor or whatever, isn’t entitled to a living wage? I’m not saying that the person doing the grunt work should be paid like the CEO, I’m just saying he/she should be paid enough to live off of. And that includes health care. And it would be wonderful if everyone could afford a college education. There was time that people could work their way through college. That’s not possible anymore. Especially for young people. What entry level job will pay enough for you to afford college? Most entry level jobs don’t even pay enough for food and rent. You and I actually grew up under very similar circumstances. I come from a large, Catholic family, 7 kids. My father went out to work and my mother stayed home. When my parents could afford it, we went to Catholic schools. But without those terrible socialist programs like the GI Bill, there wouldn’t have been such a large middle class. And when there’s a large middle class, our economy does just fine.
As far as your fear of all those lazy people, well in some cases that’s because of racism. Do you have any idea how high the unemployment rate for young black men is? It’s not because they’re lazy. They’ll work their butts off to make money in ways you and would prefer they wouldn’t. It’s because of racism. And many of them grew up in families who never did well financially and so they don’t know how to go out and earn a living wage. Hell, they don’t even know how to fill out an application or write a resume or even how to dress for a job interview. They were never taught that. That’s something the government could help them with. First, make sure they get a decent education and then teach them how to get a job. If they’re offered a living wage you bet your butt they’ll work and earn an honest living. And crime is reduced at the same time. And I agree that a bunch of people sitting around not working is bad for our national security. We just disagree on how to make sure that the people who are able to actually do work.
And that’s okay that you thought I was a guy. I wasn’t insulted or anything. I just thought I’d mention it.
Comment by sonicninjakitty on 21 November 2008:
This is my first visit to this site and I’m really impressed with your gusto, GOP Mom! I feel your frustration and am wondering when this country is going to WAKE UP (and how, exactly, it fell asleep). The twisting and contorting of logic that liberals do makes my head spin. It seems they are like children on a path (in this case, a conversation path) and while we are all trying to get to the destination together, they run off the path saying things like (metaphorically) ‘me love butterfly’ or ’snakey make boo-boo’ or ‘mud fun!’ which are totally non-contructive towards the goal of getting to the destination and waste time and energy. Conservatives who try to redirect these children are wasting their valuable energy, for there is a heavy load to carry, and we must get there–I’m talking national security, economic stability, liberty and protection of freedom for all citizens. Maybe we should just let the children go….
Comment by GOPMOM on 22 November 2008:
Welcome snk - I made a promise to myself early in 2008 to, not matter what, not lose any friends over this election. I suppose it had something to do with my ultimate belief that the schmucks in Washington will continue use and abuse us no matter who we put in the WH, so going to the extreme of banishing people (or being banished) because of my political beliefs and affiliation was simply not worth it.
Of course, this was the first Presidential election I had to suffer through behind enemy lines - I was so naive. This morning I can count 4 people who I never feel the need to speak to again, 2 who refused to just let it go and badgered me from September to November and two who called on Nov 6th, to rub it in that McCain had lost. Now, I’m willing to concede that it is their abhorrent behavior that has caused the rift, not their Liberal leanings but I lump them into that specific category of “clueless, belligerent Liberal” that I also lump Cindy Sheehan in - not worth the time or effort. So, I’m down four Democrats.
But I’m up at least a dozen conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians included. This election and my participation in it as a volunteer and, dare I say it, community organizer, has introduced me to some truly wonderful people who believe in the same things I do - the greatness of the American tradition, the importance of the American “mission” and the sanctity of our freedom to live, work and raise our families as we wish. While I feel that all of these are threatened, I am encouraged by the sheer number of people I’ve met who feel just as strongly as I that Obama is a huge mistake, a critical error on the part of the American electorate and we will pay dearly for our collective lapse - both in cash and in security.
Thank you for your encouraging comment and please come back anytime.
Comment by sonicninjakitty on 22 November 2008:
Thanks, GOPMom, I will! I, too, have had differences with people–family members. I’m afraid my behavior has been alienating to them, but I just cannot understand why, when I was frustrated and angry at their refusal to listen to information that was out there to read about Obama, that makes ME the one who was “wrong”. If you are close minded, you can be the ‘peaceful’ one, and look upon the ‘internet wacko’ with disdain. I am going to see all my family at Christmas, and I know I’ll be disturbed about the dynamic going on. The effect Obama has had on my family is, I feel, a microcosm of the effect he’s had on this country. It’s very bad.
OK, now, against my better instincts, I would like to say something to Babba: Did you know that Obama does not approve of gay marriage? Straight (pun intended) from the horses’ mouth (just an expression, don’t go nuts). What’s up with that? Seriously, he’s such a politician (’poly’=many, ‘tician’ is related to the word “face”). I have yet to come across an Obama supporter who honestly critiques his many faults.
And…a strong middle class is the goal of everyone, liberal and conservative; how we develop and sustain it is the difference of opinion. Conservatives believe in equality of opportunities. The outcomes for everyone, however, are not going to be the same (the ‘level field’ of spreading the wealth around that Obama wants to achieve). Each person will have different interests, skills, foresight, work ethic, and luck. You are not entitled to a certain wage level–you are entitled to pursue any path of employment that will reward you with the wage level you target. You must supply the desire and find a way to prepare yourself for trying to get it. (As for skyrocketing college costs, I think we all agree that those need to come down. I’d love to see the academic elite in those very universities you are talking about address this situation. Most companies, when they are loosing customers due to the high cost of their product, take steps to reduce their costs thereby passing the savings on to customers. It’s how they remain in business.) You must also compete with others who want the position because there are only so many slots for said job you seek. The better it is, the more there are people who want it (I wanna be a rock star, personally), so you have to work for it, risk something for it, and hope for a smidgen of luck, too. The Constitution submits that everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness. It does not, and cannot, guarantee that happiness. This is life. That said, I have never come across any conservative who does not support a safety net for those who truly cannot take care of themselves. The arguments begin when you try to define who “needs” help.
Let’s take health care, for example. I know someone who declares that health care should be for everyone and it is the only humane option, so she voted Dem. I agree, actually, that everyone should have the opportunity to have it, but don’t think I should take away their freedom to choose something else over it (I think it’s stupid, for example, not to choose health care versus a bigger house, but I know people who do this). I definitely don’t want the government to go into the health care business because it will make things inefficient and reduce the quality of care offered. As for people who cannot afford it, there are already some systems in place for them–let’s bolster and improve those. By law, anyone who shows up in a hospital ER must be treated–free health care! And my neighbor has a brother-in-law, uninsured, who just discovered he has basal cell cancer, and will get an operation he needs (around $6000) because our county has a program to provide this care to uninsured–free health care! I am wondering why the heck I have been paying thousands over the years for my health care when I see someone else who didn’t have to…well, choices, I guess. I choose to sacrifice something else to get covered.
In closing, I’d like to say that throwing out the racism charge is a cheap shot, and one that many of us non-Obots are sick of. There are tons of successful black people out there–doctors, surgeons, lawyers, writers, columnists, politicians, CEOs, business people, media moguls–you name it! It is YOU who connected the term “lazy” with black people, so you are the racist one. Lazy people, my friend, come in a rainbow of outer colors–it is a state of mind that makes them lazy. When you look at the solid successes of a huge number of black people, and the crazy, unbridled successes of a handful, I fail to see how Obama becoming president is ‘the one’ reason black people have to aspire to anything. We should all be grateful to the sacrifices of the brave people–black AND white–of the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement because they have provided the freedom and opportunity for this whole huge segment of people to fully realize the fruits of their talents and hard work, and these are fruits we all benefit from. Just because conservatives want all able people to walk down their own paths on their own two feet does not make them racists, so enough with the mud slinging.
Well then, I feel better!
Comment by gopmom on 23 November 2008:
Nicely said.
Comment by Peg on 27 November 2008:
Just few enraged responses to your November 15 rant:
1. NO CHILD deserves to be hungry or go without quality healthcare, nomatter how “unworthy” you find their parents to be. I find your stance on this to be disgusting. Grab a heart. What kind of person are you?
2. Say your husband left you, you were laid off, your child got extrememly sick with a disease and his or her treatments were not covered by your healthplan… These things happen to the most hardworking of americans and they can mean the different between being in the thriving, gloating position you are now obviously in and needing foodstamps. Be careful, you are not immune from needing the help of others and your country as it is would offer precious little help for you.
3. Who are you to say that homosexuals should be happy with civil unions? Would you be? Oh, and by the way, you don’t need gays marrying to make traditional marriage laughable. Us heterosexuals are doing that all on our own (divorce rates, etc.). Hey, I am a straight women who is married. I dont find gays getting married to be threatening or to lessen the meaning of my union. Why do you?
4. Having lived in several other countries, I snort at your assertion that the US has the best healthcare in the world. Oh, maybe if you are rich it does. Truth for you: in Canada (which I know you are referring to), nobody goes bankrupt due to medical bills. We just don’t worry about it. And you have been fed lies about waiting times for surgery. My family has sadly been riddled with cancer and heart disease and none of them has EVER had to wait a considerable time for treatment (even of the expensive, experimental kind). Delays happen but it is far far less a problem than your universal healthcare opponents have led you to believe. And once again, no child goes without access to quality healthcare. And that, to me makes it all worth it.
Comment by gopmom on 28 November 2008:
Wow, Peg. There is so much I want to say… But I just don’t see the point in even attempting to debate(?) someone who identifies themself as a non-citizen yet feels they are entitled to any opinion whatsoever about the USA domestic and foreign policy. If things are so great in Canada, go home. Or are the opportunities just so good here, you couldn’t resist?
And just for clarification, W didn’t veto to give all children healthcare insurance, he vetoed a law that would allow children of families making more than enough money to buy it themselves government healthcare insurance. Congress knew W wouldn’t sign it and they knew they didn’t have the votes to override it but they sent it to him anyway as a political dig. No child in America is without “quality healthcare” unless their parents choose not to provide it for them. You might want to get your news from a source other than Kos and Jon Stewart.
Comment by Peg on 28 November 2008:
Hi Mom,
I am paying taxes here, and I feel that gives me a say. Besides, truth is that there is a whole wide world out there outside of the red states. Some might even think that what the rest of the world thinks matters… But see? There is that either/or thinking again. A person has some concerns about certain things in the US. Well! They must hate America! Nope, I don’t hate America. Like it in fact. Like the innovation, like the friendliness, like the vibe of your big cities. Not here out of choice (we move alot to various countries for hubbies work) but not sorry to be here.
Hey, the Bush administrations of what it takes to feed, cloth and house a family aside - there are an estimated 9 million uninsured children out there. Why their parents are not willing or able to get insurance for them, to me, is irrelevant. They are still children without proper healthcare. And no, a trip to the emergency room when things get bad is not proper healthcare. No country as rich as this one should allow that to happen.
Comment by GOPMOM on 28 November 2008:
I get it Peg. You want to paint me as an enemy-red state right wing nut job. Fine, if that makes it easier for you to create excuses for relieving yourself and every other Liberal of any self-responsibility, go right ahead. Yes, I’m the enemy, I’m what’s wrong with America, I’m the party pooper of your great socialist bureaucracy-fest. I have the nerve to believe in self-responsibility, self-reliance and self-sufficiency. I don’t want the government’s help or interference.
But remember, I’m just one. The are millions of us out here who believe that good luck and bad luck happen and everyone should be prepared for both. That you shouldn’t have children until you can afford them. That you should pay for the necessities before you buy a Wii. That the government cannot bail out everybody that chooses badly, everytime. That the government should be your last resort, not your first call. That people are good and bad but mostly stupid. That if you give most people the opportunity to shirk their responsibilities and duties, they will happily do it, so don’t give them the chance. I see the world for what it is and what it could be and what it should be - good, bad and ugly. I don[t need to be lectured or condemned by some ivory-tower elitist Liberal about how children, whales, owls and puppies are suffering needlessly. But I fully accept that I personally am powerless to change all of it. I do the best I can with my limited resources in my tiny micro-speck of the globe, to make difficult situations easier for a few, as all should do. And I take heart in the belief that if something unfortunate should happen to me or my family, we have built in protections and a network of those we are close to to assist us through bad times. This is the responsibility of everyone, not the wealthy, which I am not, but all. You may sleep better believing the government has it all wrapped up - the same belief keeps me up at night. I know what’s best for me, my family and my community. And that’s how it should be - local.
I’m curious, though, about how it works in Canada. Don’t you have to register for your health care somehow? How is that different from a low-income or struggling family in the US registering for health care? Please keep in mind that the definition of low income is, I agree, variable, based on geography, just as wealthy is. In Arkansas, I’d be sitting pretty - in Massachusetts, I’m just getting by.
And take a look at the Massachusetts model - put in by an evil bloodsucking Republican, BTW. It seems to be working so well, it’s bankrupting the state as consumers find out that they can fudge the system and dump employee sponsored care for state subsidized care. It’s working in that people are being covered (which I’ve never disagreed with) but the limits are being stretched as people get greedy. Excellent health care costs a lot of money to provide so it costs a lot to buy. Maybe if more people looked at this as a consumer issue, not a civil right, they would be smarter about it - educate themselves. I just had to pick new coverage for my family and it took weeks, as I researched and read all the fine print - about all those specialized areas and catastrophic illness coverage. In the end, I’m paying the same buying a policy for my self-employed family as I paid before through my husband’s former employer - with higher co-pays.
And I fixed this for you -
Read more: http://www.gopmom.com/2007/10/bad-legislation-1/
Comment by Charles on 28 November 2008:
“No decent parent should allow that to happen.”
I agree with you there Mom, but we don’t live in a place where rainbows shine out of our arses. In the real world there are bad parents. Agreed, people shouldn’t have children if they can’t support them, however it’s not the child’s fault that they were born, children should not suffer because they have stupid parents.
You can either do one of two things to protect these children:
1. Force parents to enroll in healthcare. (Big Government)
2. Provide healthcare for all children. (Big Government)
3. Don’t allow certain people to breed. (Huge Government)
I can see no reasonable way to keep the government out of this. The least intrusive and simplest way to go about this is to make healthcare available to all children. Personally, I think the government should make healthcare available to all people. I agree that it’s a way of managing stupidity, but as you say, the stupid will always be with us. We should do what’s least damaging to our country and our system, and in my opinion, that’s insuring that all people have healthcare - not just access to it.
Comment by Peg on 29 November 2008:
Hi GOPMOM,
Wow! Are you really lumping children in along with owls and whales in your little list of too-frivolous lefty bleeding-heart concerns?
Its great that you believe in self-responsibility, self-reliance and self-sufficiency. So do I, in fact. Thing is, kids don’t really have the luxury of exercising self-responsibility, self-reliance and self-sufficiency. Should they really be made to go without because their parents are sick, poor, or just plain neglectful? My conscience says no and I am sure that yours (being a mom, after all) does too. A country cannot eradicate poverty or neglect, but it can easily provide quality healthcare to all. I know that your medicaid/medicare and SCHIP programs are part way there but they still exclude millions (either through access or outreach difficulties or just plain exclusion based on income levels). As for whether or not these programs provide the same level of care as a good insurance policy, I would expect not but you could enlighten me if I am wrong.
You can think of such programs as the encroachment of socialism, but most developed nations think of it as humane and a good investment in the future. But hey, you are not alone in your suspicion over universal healthcare - apparently Mexico and Turkey are right there with you…
Comment by gopmom on 29 November 2008:
Charles and Peg,
“1. Force parents to enroll in healthcare. (Big Government)”
This exists, in Massachusetts, and it’s working (if you don’t count the outrageous cost). But again, the vote was not against insuring children. It was against changing the income requirement at which a child is eligible. If I was making $70K a year in Massachusetts, I would still be able to afford insuring my child. I would have to make choices about other expenses and I would not live in my current home but I would insure my child before I would feed myself - responsibility.
Where does it end, then? At what point must the government say “enough’s enough”? Did you hear the story out of the UK this morning? Apparently, police officers have been disbursing condoms and sexual health advice to drunk revelers on the streets of London. Now they are distributing flip-flops as well, to drunk women (and men) in high heels who might injure themselves. Now come on, surely you both think this is ridiculous. First of all, it’s a mockery of what police officers are for. Second, while these policies don’t inherently encourage over-imbibing, they don’t discourage it either. Third, how long until a woman gets assaulted? Is this ever a cautionary tale?
And as for your option three, Charles -
“3. Don’t allow certain people to breed. (Huge Government)”
We already have this, in the form of abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods that provide paid-for-by-the-government abortions to women who can’t afford a child. And we have it in the form of health care providers deciding when the cost of preserving a life is too high. And now right-to-die laws. Again, where does it end? Do you truly believe that by taking over people’s responsibility for their own good health will improve our overall health and healthcare? How, as a doctor, would you like to be told what you must or must not do for a patient? What about being told where you must practice? The last thing I want is a resentful physician treating me or my child.
Yes, it is unfortunate that so many parents in America are too lazy/stupid/proud (yes, pride is a factor) to provide even the most basic necessities for their children (many illegal aliens are in this number - will they be eligible for your program too) but is taking away the ability of all to self determine really the best answer? Remember, many of these parents can’t even be bothered to send their children to school or monitor their education. And please don’t use the “Poverty Excuse” - I grew up in an under-funded household and my mom exhausted herself getting us a good education, great healthcare when necessary and all while working full-time and raising three kids on her own. It is possible - there are no excuses.
And one more thing - after we provide all this great coverage to all our residents(?), who is next? We need not worry about Mexico - they will all be here. But do we then expand into Central America? South America? Surely they could use better care in Africa. At some point you must realize it just isn’t possible - the money simply does not exist. This is not about personal greed. This is about feasibility. There is a reason the saying “you can lead a horse to water, you can’t make him drink” is still around. Helping people who are willing to work to help themselves is far more gratifying and successful - this is where I concentrate my energies.
Comment by Charles on 29 November 2008:
Mom,
In a perfect world your system would be best. I too think it’s ridiculous that bobbies are handing out flip-flops and condoms. I have little sympathy for adults who refuse to take responsibility for themselves. I do have sympathy for the children though. Once they are born, I believe they deserve a chance at a healthy life. Society has the right to expect adults to take care of themselves, children on the other hand cannot. I don’t care if the child is the child of an illegal immigrant or a family making over x dollars, I still think that they should be provided for up to a certain age. It is not the child that decided to illegally enter the US and it is not the child that refuses, for whatever reason, to enroll in healthcare. Perhaps we need to spend more money on the side of social services that is responsible for insuring the safety of children in their homes. Perhaps we need to provide more means of removing children from negligent households and better avenues for safe adoptions. I’m all for that. Stupid, ignorant, naive, violent, proud, etc. people are going to continue to bring children into this world. In my opinion, we either let them suffer or we do our best to protect them. I’m all for the appropriate punishment for adults who do wrong, but not at the detriment of the child. I’m also not pro-illegal immigration. I think we have pretty good immigration laws in this country. What we need to do better is enforce them and concomitantly improve the legal immigration system; however, if the child of an immigrant is very ill, I don’t mind my tax dollars going towards the care of the child until he or she is healthy enough to be deported with the parents.
I don’t want government to control how doctors practice either. That would be wrong, in my opinion. Science and medicine should not be politicized. If the government decides to take over healthcare, I’d hope that they would respect the opinions of the medical establishment. I don’t feel that HMOs, PPOs, GICs currently do a good job of managing healthcare and I don’t feel that they respect the opinions of the medical establishment. This is a difficult situation that won’t easily go away. I respect your opinion and I truly wish there was a way to make it would work. Call me pessimistic, but I think your idea is too idealistic. I’d happily settle for a middle road, though.
As for abortion. I am pro-choice; however, I am not for late term abortions and I feel that adoption should always be the first choice. I’m afraid of what will happen when scientists are able to detect genetic dispositions and parents decide to terminate births based upon their child’s chances at being super intelligent, athletic, super models, etc. I think that’s a slippery slope. I do feel that rape victims should have the right to choose though, to me the psychological welfare of the mother and perhaps her family is more important than an embryo and in my own harsh opinion that may seem to contradict my feelings on genetic manipulation - I wouldn’t mind if the rapist didn’t pass on his genes!
Per sex education. I do believe in age appropriate sex education. To me that means that small children should be warned about sexual predators, in a non-sexual way. I think it’s okay to tell children not to get into cars with strangers or not to let people touch you in certain places. It can be done without exposing small children to gratuitous or graphic language. I’m also for preventive education. I think all teens should learn about condoms, STDs, etc. I also think that they should learn responsibility, that is, they should be made aware of the huge responsibility one takes on when deciding to have a child. Perhaps they could do mock family budgets, etc. They may even learn about health care, how to sign up, why they need it etc. It does not all have to be about gratuitous sex.
Have a good day Mom.
Comment by gopmom on 29 November 2008:
But Charles, the parents still have to show up somewhere and register their children, don’t they? Or do we just sign them up at birth? How do they get to the doctor? What’s to stop these idiots from using the ER as a doctor’s office?
It’s not an issue of availability, it’s user error, pure and simple.
Oh, and the best lesson I had re: sex ed was delivered by a priest at my Catholic school when I was in the eighth grade. He said (and I quote because is till remember it to this day)
“Have all the sex you want, with whoever, wherever, whenever. What’s the worst that could happen?”
I’ve been married for over ten years and that statement still runs through my mind quite regularly - if you get what I mean. It’s not the amount of information or who delivers it, it’s the depth of meaning we assign. No teacher, no matter how dedicated, is ever going to have the same ability to influence and direct our children as we do, through what we say and what we do. Until parents take responsibility, these challenges will continue to increase. Why not nudge them a bit in the right direction?
Comment by Charles on 29 November 2008:
I guess I’m just trying to be proactive. Parents should do these things for their children, but many don’t and nobody is going to “nudge” them to unless they suffer consequences. But the consequences should be suffered by the parent, not the child. Yes, it would be a good idea to register babies for health care at birth. This is for the children’s benefit, not the parents. I think schools should have sex education, but I also think that parents should be able to opt their child out. In my opinion the “good” parent who take interests in their child’s life will take the time to de-register their children if they feel the child is better taught at home or in Church, that leaves the children who are not getting it at home or who’s parent’s don’t care. Children need to get it from someone. To me that’s a better way to nudge things along. If children never learn these things (and many won’t learn from their parents) then they’re going to continue living the example that their “bad” parents set for them.
I guess we have two different views. You think we can force the parent’s hand. I feel that if we did it your way the children would be the one’s who suffer.
“Until parents take responsibility, these challenges will continue to increase.”
My question to you is this: what do we do for the children of these parent’s now?
Leaving them alone will only make things worse, in my opinion. You’d be surprised how much influence a teacher can have on a wayward child. You probably come from a caring family where your parents were always there for you. Many of these children don’t even interact with their parents. They spend much more quality time in school with teachers than they do with their parents. Their parents have little influence in their lives at all and the influence that they do have is negative. Can you imagine being a latch-key kid? Coming home to an empty house every day. Or coming home to a house where your parents are always drunk or high, or too busy trying to take care of themselves or too imature and self-centered to try to take care of you, take interest in you, or even acknowledge your existence and worth as a human being. That’s what these children face. Many act out just to get their parent’s attention. These kids crave attention, for some school is the only place they’ll ever have the opportunity to receive positive attention. I don’t feel bad for the parents. It’s the kids that I feel bad for. If we don’t supply these children with basic care (think Maslow’s triangle) - health, security, food, etc. - then they’re never going to fully develop into responsible adults.
So you want to nudge the parents. I’m all for it. How? How do we nudge the parents without further hurting the children? And I don’t think taking them out of a horrible family situation is as detrimental as leaving them there. I’m all for social services stepping in. What’s your idea? How do we punish the parents without punishing the children?
Comment by gopmom on 30 November 2008:
I think every responsible adult in America has a few options. Be a mentor, volunteer with “at risk” children, foster or adopt. I’ve done two and am working on three and four. Unfortunately, because the kids come with such challenges, we’ve decided to wait a few more years, until our daughter is older.
You’re still off base, though. Yes, teachers can fill a void, but they will never have the same influence of the parents, good or bad. And these children are already hurt - being physically, mentally and/or emotionally abandoned by your parent hurts. Honestly, the solution is to get them to stop having children. How? Well, the unthinkable - penalize them, don’t reward them. Take the children at birth - when they are much more adoptable. Sterilize them, if necessary.
When I worked as a guardian ad litem with CASA, I worked with two of the most horrific families I ever could have imagined. One, a schizophrenic 40 year old who kept having children that then needed to be adopted out. The family refused to institutionalize her - even if only to get her sterilized. She had seven children at last count, one with the natural father, two with a sister and the rest adopted out of family. Bewildering stupidity. My other inspirational case was a mother of 4, father gone, meth addict who ignored her son’s cold until he went into septic shock. At fifteen, he lost both legs and hands. The girls were disturbed by repeated sexual abuse and the youngest son was the most extreme ADHD I’d ever seen. After cajoling relatives for months to, at least, keep the boys, all was lost when the missing mother showed up with gifts one day and convinced the boys that the aunt and uncle were just going to harm them eventually and she would be back after Dad got out of jail, to rescue them. All progress was erased and all four eventually ended up in group homes.
Charles, some people are just pure evil and need to be eliminated, not treated. We don’t need more understanding, we need more jails. As a guardian ad litem, I was shocked by the number of people who were not prosecuted for crimes against their children. If a stranger, teacher, priest, uncle, etc… committed the same acts against a child as their parents do, they’d be prosecuted. Why aren’t parents? Where is the outrage? I love how easy it was/is to demonize the entire Catholic church for a relatively small number of crimes - where is the call for blood in these situations?
So again, in answer to your queries - I have eight more years of full time parenting on my plate. After that, unless I’m busy paying for college, I plan to return to full time volunteering with at risk children. It’s hard for me to admit that I can’t “fit it in” right now, but for me it was too difficult to do and then come home everyday and be a mom. Until then, I will continue to push for prosecution and stiff penalties (including sterilization as an option) of proven bad parents.
But you must admit, the issue of who should raise the “lost children” has been with us since the beginning of time. And the government has never been the best answer. It is churches and people of faith who pick up the slack in this area. It is the Progressive Liberal movement in the US that wants to eliminate religion from the equation. So I already know what works best - how do you replace a God-loving and serving family with a bureaucrat?