Vonster has a point.
I know, it's not fair. Anyone can take a bad picture. Nonetheless, it made me laugh. Oddly, I have a lot of liberal friends. Opposites attract? Or maybe I'm not all that conservative. Anyway, it seems to me that liberals are sure pissed off a lot. Their heart might be in the right place -or not- but damn, they sure do seem angry. I would avoid being a raging liberal simply because they seem to age horribly and at very accelerated pace.
Conservatives seem to have a better time, IMHO. Maybe hoarding money helps them sleep better at night, which slows the aging process?
If your mind is too open, your brain will fall out. Warning: Names, identities, descriptions, and pictures have been changed and/or used to protect the innocent as well as the guilty. PollyPeoria should not be used or quoted as a source for your senior college thesis.
Tuesday, February 7
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
Links
- Batten Disease Home Page
- Peoria Pundits
- Peoria Chronicle
- Peoria Story
- Peoria Illinoisan
- Merle Widmer's Peoria Watch
- Ahl Things Considered
- Eyebrows McGee Plays in Peoria
- Lollygaggin
- Scott's Blog Experience
- Chef Kevin's Culinary Rant & Raves
- Obrien's Briar Patch
- Market 117
- Vonster
- Pasghetti Place
- Dying In Haiti
- A Bird In The Hand
3 comments:
There used to be something in psychology known as the frustraton/aggression hypothesis. That might be part of what you call anger. Democrats, and many republicans, and most Americans, are frustrated about how the country is being run. Poll after poll show the Bush administration's approval ratings being in the high 30s to low 40s. Americans of all political persuasions are not happy with King George and his court. Also, "demotrat(ic) anger" is a pat republican talking point now. It's a push-back from Mehlmann et al. Just ask Rush, who cites it every 2 minutes. They read the polls too.
As far as conservative having more fun? Depends on what your definition of fun is. Like you implied, hoarding money trumps helping the disadvantaged. Makes sense to me.
As for the looks thing, yeah, that poster is unfair. An opposite one could be done easily. Margaret Thather, anyone? Phillus Shafley (sp?)? I don't take that seriously because of its obvious bias (and there are some attractive women shilling for those who they think have the most power).
Democratic "anger" is a misnomer. It's more ASTONISHMENT that a party of well-educated, rich voters could nominate and then work to elect a nimrod like bush -- and then defend him to the death for (going on) 6 years.
Take a hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if he is the best the Republicans could come up with...
No. He isn't the best the Republicans could come up with. Bush is who was best able to manipulate the campaign machine. (IMHO McCain would have been the best we could have come up with.) If your point is that we desperately need election reforms in this country, I agree.
Gawd, I hope you're not saying that Bill Clinton or Al Gore is the best the Dems could come up with...
Post a Comment