Mad_Machine76
Mad_Machine76's JournalIndeed
Republicans have been especially busy demonizing unions since 2011. Based on what's been happening in Wisconsin, Ohio, and, now, Indiana, I sincerely hope it blows up in their faces..........big time!
What people like this (and perhaps a lot more)
fail to understand is that "cutting taxes" doesn't translate in most people paying less because, of course, when they "cut taxes" that money is no longer available to fund programs/services that most average people rely on and then politicians have to either raise other taxes/revenue to make up the difference (more money out of your pocket) or cut services resulting in more unemployment and/or people paying out of their own pockets for things that used to be paid for out of your taxes (or simply not getting anymore). No matter how you slice it or dice it, "cutting taxes" is not always the wondrous thing that it is always portrayed as being, especially, of course, if it means that it helps the 1% get to avoid having to pay their fair share and the negative consequences fall back on the average person. We really need to figure out a way to get this message across to these people IMHO.
No kidding!
Look at what has happened just within the past decade
Election 2000
George W. Bush as (P)resident
9/11
Gitmo
Invasion/Occupation of Iraq
Torture="Enhanced Interrogation"=O.k.
Warrantless Wiretapping
Terri Schiavo
Social Security Privatization (attempted)
Sarah Palin
"Tea Party"
House Speaker John Boehner
I think slightly earlier
with Bill Clinton's election in 1992. Nothing enraged the Republican right more than the fact that the Democrats won the WH. It was then that Newt Gingrich's rise first came into view and led the rest of the party against Clinton, as well as the concept of bipartisanship. Remember, Democratic victories are always treated by them as "apostasies" and "accidents" while Republican victories are treated as bold, sweeping mandates to enact their new/old policies. 
Somebody should remind Rick
that no sane doctor is going to hold a gun to a woman's head and demand that she get an abortion if it is discovered that her child has a particular malady and that the family can make their own decisions about how they wish to proceed with the pregnancy. "Encouraged to" does not=Force. I suspect that people like him seem to regard knowledge that prenatal testing might uncover as dangerous simply because people might not make the same decision that they would when faced with difficult circumstances. However, families making their own decisions about their reproductive lives is how things are SUPPOSED to work in our (still mostly free) country. It really makes me mad that he would demand the same rights for himself and his family that he would actively deny other people.
There is something definitely (very) weird going on
when the global price of gas goes down but the pump prices remain the same (or go up)?
BTW how exactly do Republicans (and the media) KNOW what is going to happen with gas prices? Good question to ask.
WYSIWYG
with Santorum & Gingrich. Santorum has, at times, surprised me about how far out his views actually extend but I don't find either of them quite as "threatening" as Romney because Obama would crush either of them like a bug in the GE. Mitt worries me more because, some of his comments notwithstanding, has the kind of record- as Governor of Massachusetts- that people voting in GE might ultimately decide is "moderate" enough to win their support in a GE (if Romney can make it there). Romney is a panderer and would do whatever Grover Norquist wants him to do if he got elected POTUS but he just doesn't come off as being as "scary" or "unlikable" as Gingrich or Santorum and it will be harder for the Obama campaign to make him look as scary as Gingrich and Santorum.
Romney's "electability", as of late, has been challenged by the Republican Party but that is primarily because the party "base" has moved (and continues to move) further to the right and they command the most influence at the moment. It remains to be seen if Santorum can broaden his appeal to the "base" to the whole of the Republican Party. If he does, then he could very well knock Mitt out and win the nomination. If not, then he will be the latest "not-Romney" to enjoy a brief surge in popularity only to ultimately fade away just like Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich have all done before him.
If he and Romney continue to tussle and neither achieves a commanding lead, I wouldn't be surprised for them to discuss a combined ticket. Romney could present the more "moderate" face of the ticket and Santorum would keep the fundies riled up and get them to the polls on Election Day. That, at least to me, would be the more worrisome scenario though the thought of Santorum being a heartbeat away from the Presidency would definitely energize the Democratic base as well and would probably cost Romney some independent support just Palin scared them away from voting for McCain in 2008.
Attacking Iran
without a well-thought out plan to handle the fall-out that such an attack would bring would be reckless IMHO not to mention the fact that if, as the Iranians claim, they don't actually have anything, then we would have just attacked them them and, likely, killed at least a few of them for no good reason, which would only lead to a worse situation with fewer diplomatic options. The saber rattling being done by a lot of politicians- here and in Israel- isn't helping things either though and could eventually make some kind of military confrontation inevitable.
Profile Information
Name: Mara Alis ButlerGender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 01:13 AM
Number of posts: 24,437
