Okay, so I found this site called "Irregularoo" (http://www.irregularoo.com), and somehow I managed to wander onto a site talking about Bush and abortion. I decided to see if they had anything different to say and found to my surprise that they didn't. Here's one of my favorite lines:
"The dangerous thing about having George W. Bush as president is that he truly believes that his life is normal. He doesn't seem to understand that most Americans are born without a single penny in savings, much less the millions and millions that he had to play around in as a child. George W. Bush is incapable of feeling the pain of a couple who wants children but truly cannot afford to raise them. Such things just don't exist in his universe.
For George W. Bush, it's always been easy to make harsh, absolute moral judgments about other people's behavior. His obscene family fortune has always protected him from the consequences of his inflexible principles. If Mr. Bush can always pay somebody else to clean up the messes that result from doing the "right thing", is it really a courageous decision to do the "right thing"? How oftem, we wonder, did George W. Bush change his own kids' diapers, compared to the number of times he had someone else do it for him? How many times did he give up a job opportunity because he had to take care of his children? How often did George W. Bush have to make a choice between paying a utility bill and giving his children a proper meal?"
My first, and logical, response, is: Well, why don't you BITCH about it? Ya frickin' idjit!
My second, and more rational, response is: How many presidential candidates have you seen lately that really appear to be "men of the people?" You think John Kerry changed any of his kids' diapers? Not unless he got to say stuff like "You know, changing diapers reminds me of the messes we had to clean up during my service in Vietnam." Howard Dean, when asked by his wife to change his son's diaper, would get a long lecture on sewer systems, waste disposal management, and how the Republicans had futzed them up but good--and she would wander away, dazed and confused, sure SHE had done something wrong but not really sure what. Bill Clinton--probably explained his feeling of solidarity with Chelsea and with other babies who needed to have their diapers changed, and that he felt the support of the infant lobby was very important to a united and democratic America.
What I'm saying is, why cast aspersions at the Republicans? (Because the Dems are paying the abortion activists' bills, that's why.) A good number of the Nine Dwarves are more "stuffed shirts" that Bush is, living lives of ease and plenty in their senatorial mansions and such. I mean, in this day and age, if you can raise enough money and garner enough support to run your own presidential campaign, chances are you had it made for most of your life. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as we keep things in perspective. And the perspective here is that money DOES make the political world go 'round. Not every candidate can or should have first-hand experience with poverty, squalor, depression, and hardship. To expect such things is to live in a dream world. But, to be a hardcore liberal is to expect such things. Ergo...
"The dangerous thing about having George W. Bush as president is that he truly believes that his life is normal. He doesn't seem to understand that most Americans are born without a single penny in savings, much less the millions and millions that he had to play around in as a child. George W. Bush is incapable of feeling the pain of a couple who wants children but truly cannot afford to raise them. Such things just don't exist in his universe.
For George W. Bush, it's always been easy to make harsh, absolute moral judgments about other people's behavior. His obscene family fortune has always protected him from the consequences of his inflexible principles. If Mr. Bush can always pay somebody else to clean up the messes that result from doing the "right thing", is it really a courageous decision to do the "right thing"? How oftem, we wonder, did George W. Bush change his own kids' diapers, compared to the number of times he had someone else do it for him? How many times did he give up a job opportunity because he had to take care of his children? How often did George W. Bush have to make a choice between paying a utility bill and giving his children a proper meal?"
My first, and logical, response, is: Well, why don't you BITCH about it? Ya frickin' idjit!
My second, and more rational, response is: How many presidential candidates have you seen lately that really appear to be "men of the people?" You think John Kerry changed any of his kids' diapers? Not unless he got to say stuff like "You know, changing diapers reminds me of the messes we had to clean up during my service in Vietnam." Howard Dean, when asked by his wife to change his son's diaper, would get a long lecture on sewer systems, waste disposal management, and how the Republicans had futzed them up but good--and she would wander away, dazed and confused, sure SHE had done something wrong but not really sure what. Bill Clinton--probably explained his feeling of solidarity with Chelsea and with other babies who needed to have their diapers changed, and that he felt the support of the infant lobby was very important to a united and democratic America.
What I'm saying is, why cast aspersions at the Republicans? (Because the Dems are paying the abortion activists' bills, that's why.) A good number of the Nine Dwarves are more "stuffed shirts" that Bush is, living lives of ease and plenty in their senatorial mansions and such. I mean, in this day and age, if you can raise enough money and garner enough support to run your own presidential campaign, chances are you had it made for most of your life. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as we keep things in perspective. And the perspective here is that money DOES make the political world go 'round. Not every candidate can or should have first-hand experience with poverty, squalor, depression, and hardship. To expect such things is to live in a dream world. But, to be a hardcore liberal is to expect such things. Ergo...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home