?

Log in

No account? Create an account
GOP's War on Americans - MoonScape [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
e_moon60

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

GOP's War on Americans [Sep. 23rd, 2011|11:22 am]
e_moon60
[Tags|]
[Current Mood |awake]

The Republicans have really outdone themselves so far in all these televised debates between their candidates...I don't think I can possibly list all the goodies in the bag, but it's clear that both their candidates and their audience (carefully screened for ideological purity)  are staunchly in favor of killing people (both the death penalty--they'd rather kill the innocent than fail to kill a guilty person--and sick people who cost more than their families can afford), forcing women to bear unwanted children (which the Republicans won't want to support, educate, or employ, of course),  forcing women to bear children even if that risks the mother's life, and booing soldiers who admit to being gay.

It's clear that to these Republicans, everyone already born is expendable.   Only the unborn are worthy of effort to save their lives, and only until they're born.  After that--because a child once born needs things that cost money--they're a liability and as expendable as everyone else.   It doesn't matter if there's doubt about someone's guilt--get a conviction by however flawed a process for a death-penalty offence, and kill 'em.  No second look, no review of evidence, just...kill 'em.   People whose medical costs are too high?  Let 'em die.  We don't need 'em.   Women whose health or life is at risk with pregnancy?  She should have thought of that before she "got herself pregnant" (a telling phrase--she went out an found some sperm and stuffed it up her vag, did she?) and anyway, her life's not worth as much as the unborn child.  Though, when the child is born, it has worth only until it needs something: medical care, food, housing, clothing, schooling, a job.  Then it's a liability.  In fact, the unborn has worth only in talking points, because the GOP has certainly not supported ensuring that all pregnant women have adequate nutrition, adequate living conditions, adequate medical care, to ensure a healthy pregnancy and delivery.

Workers who lose their jobs are expendable--cut off unemployment early, and force them back to work (even if there is none.)   Families who lose their homes when they can't pay their mortgage are expendable--they should have managed better.   The homeless?  Expendable.  Buncha bums who should be run out of town.  Giving them shelter or food just encourages them.  (It's GOP-dominated areas that laws have been passed preventing even "faith-based charities" from feeding the hungry..looks bad for business to have a line of hungry people waiting on the sidewalk.)  

And soldiers--that was an even bigger shock to me, as both a veteran and a person who thought all Republicans were pro-military and supported the troops--seems soldiers are expendable not only as casualties of the wars Republicans are so hot to fight (with someone else's sons and daughters) but do not count at all if they should happen to have any opinions or "lifestyle" these Republicans don't like.  Such as being gay.  Such as (after DADT lapsed) admitting that they're gay.   So the audience booed the soldier who admitted it, and who wanted assurance that Republican candidates would not reinstate DADT.   His service didn't count (none of the candidates, in later comments, even bothered to thank him for it.)   Hey!  GOP-folks!  Listen up!   He's in a war zone.  He's been shot at; he faces death and disability day and night.   He is serving his country right now, and he has been for years.   What are YOU doing?  You're sitting on your fat arses in comfort and security his service protects, and you have the utter gall to boo him?  Some patriots you are.  NOT.   Shame on you!  (Yes, I'm mad.  I'm a vet, Vietnam era--my husband too--and we know what it's like to be booed.)

That's really...sad.  None of the candidates has spoken up to moderate the viciousness of the Republican audience (gosh...they might lose a vote if they showed compassion, moderation, even common sense.)  As for the candidate who said sex had no place in the military...I can hear the derisive jeers of the military around the world.   You can have a sexless military only if you castrate everyone, male and female, and boy would that drop recruitment into the cellar. 

So basically, the vocal and public GOP is eager to kill and let die and exclude quite a large number of Americans.    Well, you know what?  They want a war, they just might get one they don't like.    Though I'm an old vet and would strongly prefer to vote their sorry unAmerican unpatriotic selves out of office from now until however long it takes them to quit acting like spoiled, overentitled, vicious brats.  But booing a serving soldier for admitting he's gay...ye gods, people.  That's disgusting.

LinkReply

Comments:
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: e_moon60
2011-09-23 06:36 pm (UTC)
They want people to serve, die gloriously or come home whole and sane, and vote Republican...without costing anyone anything. The GOP's lackluster financial support for post-combat care, mental and physical, has led to increased rates of suicide and heavier burdens on families.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: e_moon60
2011-09-23 06:40 pm (UTC)
These are people who feel so secure in their racial and economic identity that they "know" they will never be falsely accused of anything.

One of the most chilling things I ever heard personally--some years back at a local SF convention just closing as a law enforcement convention moved into the same hotel--was a clump of officers who all agreed with one of their number--who said "Everyone's guilty of something; we just haven't caught them yet."

So to them, of course, once you've "caught" someone, they're already guilty--of something--and probably whatever you think they're guilty of.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: wldrose
2011-09-23 05:10 pm (UTC)
I have tried to grow away from the idea that people on the other end of the political spectrum are my morally wrong but it is harder and harder

When I first saw the teaser about the booing I though it was media hype and aghast it wasnt.

On the other hand they may well have slit there own throat. Most of the major social movement to the left have come when former solders have gotten fed up and enough of them have become the core of rebellious active agents of change.

You cant take young people ask them to give all for flag and country, then disrespect them and what they did and not expect some kind of backlash. We taught them to fight as group and protect their own. We set up an us agenst them dynamic and then bring it on to their turf not smart or safe.

Many if not most of these solders are trying to fit back in, god help us if they stop and push them too far take too much away, they will stop.

Ash
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: e_moon60
2011-09-23 07:16 pm (UTC)
Oh, I can be seriously annoyed with (and annoying to) people at both ends of the political spectrum--there I stand in the middle (where Jim Hightower said--and titled a book, there's "nothing but a yellow line and dead armadillos." Just ask the most fundie feminists (no, don't, that'll start another hoorah and I'll have to ax the comment section.)

When it's time for people to be shoved up against the wall and shot, it's merely a question of who gets me first.

As for morality: I'm against lying, cheating, stealing, assault & battery, giving or taking bribes, bullying, and general hatefulness. As another friend of mine says (on a bracelet) DBAA: Don't Be An Asshole. That covers a lot.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: e_moon60
2011-09-23 07:04 pm (UTC)
You're right, that does put a different spin on it.

Though I have heard gay friends speak of coming out as "finally admitting to myself and then to so-and-so that I was gay."

And some people use "admit" in an ironic way--the person who says "Well, I admit I'm not politically correct--" in "that" tone of voice is expressing pride in not being PC and contempt of the concept. I've used "admit" myself in ways that implied no guilt, but were equivalent to "agree" or "acknowledge"--"I admit (that is, leave room for the possibility that) that X's position makes sense, if you think A is inevitable, but that's where I think X made a mistake: I don't think A is inevitable."

So--while I think your suggestion has merit--I think "admit" has a range of meanings in current language and is not limited to acknowledging one's own wrongdoing. In fact, only one of the definitions in my smaller dictionary has "confess"--as the meaning, and it's paired with "acknowledge." And "confess" itself isn't always about guilt. We confess faith, as well as sin.

OTOH, I can see that it could be offensive to some, and it sounds to me as if it bit you in a tender spot. Sorry to have done that; it was not my intent (but if it happened, it happened. You have a right to your feelings.) I'll think about alternatives (not sure I like stated. Just "said" might do...that really was the sort of tone he had, just sayin' it.)






(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: shockwave77598
2011-09-23 06:54 pm (UTC)
One of my bosses when I was in the Air Forces was drummed out because she wouldn't sleep with every Tom, Dick and Harry on the base. Therefore she was suspected of being a Lesbian. And yes, they could and did drum her out on mere suspicion without any need for evidence.

They wanted to find something on me too. I was into "Fairy stuff" because I played D&D and a couple of other wargames. But because I was in a critically manned field, they needed more. So my roommate was removed and a new guy dropped into my room who was not in our squadron, and had "no rank" on his ID (shouldn't leave that laying around where I can see it pal.) I took to unplugging the video output inside the Apple2e to keep him from digging through my computer disks looking for something incriminating (and occasionally ruining a diskette.)

For all that I don't care if someone is gay or straight, on the flightline or in their civvy homes, having it so that someone actually has to COMMIT an offense and have PROOF of it before being punished for it is far more American than what I and others had to go through. It's a secret delight of mine that SAC is no more, but I still survive.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: e_moon60
2011-09-23 07:27 pm (UTC)
Ye gods! Well, when I was in OCS and Basic, one of the huge concerns was whether any of the women were lesbians. And at least two very good (VERY good) people from my platoon were later kicked out as lesbian. (But so was the young woman who, during Basic, was made pregnant by a more senior officer. Because that was her fault, too.) A lot of guys back then (and even now) call women lesbian if the women won't sleep with them, or at least act interested. One guy who asked me out while my husband was overseas said "What's wrong with you--are you lesbian or something?" when I refused. And I was wearing a wedding ring. And he knew my husband was in 'Nam. Unfortunately, killing him where he stood or giving him a quick one in the operative area was not an option, though I still think it would've been justifiable homicide.

They never believe they just aren't that attractive, or that a woman might be faithful to her husband. It's got to be something wrong with her. But...ye GODS how awful to be condemned without any evidence to the contrary. (Bad enough with, though the rules were clear.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
From: grandfellow
2011-09-24 12:37 am (UTC)
I am a retired Vietnam helicopter pilot, decorated four times for valor, including the Distinguished Flying Cross twice. I mention that only to establish a modicum of credibility. I spent twenty years in the army and I can tell you without a trace of doubt that there were gay and lesbian soldiers before DADT, during DADT, and without doubt after DADT. There have ALWAYS been gay and lesbian soldiers in the US military and, as in most other sectors of human endeavor, there will always BE gay and lesbian soldiers in the US military. Some of the best and most efficient soldiers that I ever served beside were some that I knew or strongly suspected to be gay. When the chips are down and the bullets are flying, one doesn't think to stop and ask the sexual orientation of the person who is saving one's bacon. I view the entire "gay in the military" controversy as a tempest in a teacup. Has it ever occurred to these homophobe Republicans to ask the people who will be most affected by their anti-gay legislation how they feel about it? I'll bet that they are afraid to poll all of the 19, 20 and 21-year-old military members and ask them what they think of serving with gays and lesbians. I also think that they would be surprised if they did. I apologize for the rant, especially in light of the fact that I doubt seriously that many of the people at whom it is pointed read your fair-minded blog.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: rwglaub
2011-09-24 01:06 am (UTC)
I work with and supervise a number of military members. They've all been to combat zones at least once. They would be a great disappointment to the GOP presidential candidates. Almost all of them voted for Obama, view torture as equivalent to treason, and don'e give a damn if a member is gay or straight.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
From: (Anonymous)
2011-09-24 02:37 am (UTC)

Well said.

My family contains several military and military-related servicepersons, and I say on their behalf, well said. My hat is off to you!

~Gretchen in Minneapolis
(Reply) (Thread)
From: dstemple
2011-09-24 04:29 am (UTC)
Elizabeth - first and foremost, I want to say to you and your husband: Thank You for your service.

And thank you for articulating the anger and disbelief so many of us feel at the anti-American demagoguery displayed by the "candidates" at that so-called debate.

Stephen Hill showed more courage and what it means to be an American in his video question than that whole room, as an aggregate, will ever be able to show, or even aspire to show. They boo and denigrate from fear and a false feeling of superiority; they should be ashamed.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: e_moon60
2011-09-24 02:34 pm (UTC)
Now what we need to do is turn that anger, disbelief, and outrage into votes. If voters return this sort of person to office for any reason (they agree with one point of the religious platform or one point of the political platform) we will get this and more of this. "Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results."
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2011-09-24 06:06 pm (UTC)

As a Christian, the level of hypocracy boggles the mind!

My name is Karen, and I would prefer not to be anonymous, but livejournal doesn't give me optimal choices (such is life!), so here's my response:

Most of the hard-core right-wing says that they revere the 10 Commandments (while privately hating anyone who follows the fourth on the list). My problem with this mindset is that divorce and re-marriage have become so ubiquitous in our culture (largely to the detriment of the ex-wife and kids of a marriage) that the stricture, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is largely pushed to those who are "living in sin" or have never married because same-sex partnerships aren't recognized under their state's laws.

Now, as a committed Christian, and ardent believer in the separation of Church and State, I tend to view "marriage" as a religious convention first, and a government accommodation of something that happened along the road of civilization.

On the other hand, I have absolutely no conception of how people who have sought multiple divorces like Newt Gingrich (and undoubtably at least half of the audience of the debates) can square "Thou shalt not commit adultery" with their hatred of gays. One is placed at the ultimate level of canon, equal to murder and theft, and the other is placed in the Bible as an example of the sins of selfishness and a type of adultery.

I, myself, have been guilty of selfishness more times than I can count. I've even been guilty of adultery in my mind (which Christ claimed was just as damning).

So I just don't get where these self-professing Christians think they have the high moral ground over someone who is just as flawed as they are ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone") as opposed to someone who has made a personal confession of his/her sexual peckadillos -- as though no-one in the audience had fantasies that flew in the face of their "staunch Christian values"!

Especially in someone who has otherwise serve all of our nation in an exemplary fashion.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: naomismag
2011-09-26 11:14 am (UTC)
The Republican Party, as presented to the world at the current time terrifies me! Who are these sanctimonious puritanical idiots? What difference does it make what your creed is, your sex life, whatever, how terribly small minded, and the trouble is there are more and more small mindes idiots around in the world eager to grab the limelight. I personally cannot understand the 'creationism' argument either. Religion should be kept out of politics, but perhaps these arrogant idiots should remember that Jesus stressed compassion and care of the poor. I'm beginning to witter here, I'm so angry! executed because he must have done something wrong even if innocent of the crime he was imprisoned for? grrrr.
(Reply) (Thread)