Yeah, it’s a corporate fire sale. Lesser of two evils is still evil. Same as it ever was. But, thing is…
Incrementalism is the name of the game in politics, boys — when was it ever not?
Sorry. I got banned from DKos for being too fucking liberal. Guess you can now rake me over the coals for being too much of a concessionalist. I don’t see it that way; I just see it as preferring Something: a microscopic victory (however riddled with grotesque flaws; and I’ll grant you EVERYTHING on that) — to Nothing — or worse: utter defeat and an assured sweeping loss to a party that wants nothing more than my ideology’s complete destruction — not only in 2010 but in 2012 and beyond. And believe me — this bill goes down now, that is ASSURED.
And if anyone tells me (hilariously, in my stronger moments of rage, I’ve uttered the words myself, but given a minute to cool off, I would NEVER tell you I seriously BELIEVE it) that if the Democrats are so craven and incompetent that this is the BEST they can get done with a huge majority in the House and what started out as a putative 60-vote majority in the Senate, then they DESERVE to lose in November…
Yeah, it feels really good to say that, doesn’t it? Righteous. Indignant. After all — it’s true that the elected Democrats in Congress are craven, incompetent, self-serving worms, for the most part, who have frittered away the largest majority in history and done virtually NOTHING with it, compared to the performance of the Republicans in the past decade or so, who hadn’t nearly the majorities, but somehow managed to intimidate the Democrats into rolling over for virtually (it seemed) everything they wanted done.
Yes. It feels good to say “They DESERVE to lose!” Except… it isn’t just those craven, cowardly, selfish sonsofbitches that lose when those elections roll around and people vote them out for having accomplished nothing. WE lose. Yes, we lose because they fuck up so SPECTACULARLY in power — but we lose SO much more when they’re NOT in power.
Don’t tell me you’ve forgotten already. Because, baby, I was here when Bush was President and the Republicans were in control — I started My left Wing in July of 2005, in paroxysms of rage and frustration and godawful PAIN over what those SCUMBAGS were doing to this country.
I am NOT willing to let that happen again because I’m so furious with the current Democrats in office for fucking up healthcare reform and so unhappy with the bill that I’d rather “KILL THE BILL” and watch as American people vote them out of office for being the grotesque incompetents the failure to pass this bill would PROVE them to be.
THAT’S why I cannot support the hardliners on my own ideological side against this bill. THAT’S why my jaw has pretty much been wide open in disbelief as I’ve watched people with whom I agree on virtually every single ideological issue… CHEER the idea of Republican success in killing a major piece of Democratic legislation — REGARDLESS OF HOW FUCKING SHITTY IT IS.
THAT’S why Dennis Kucinich is voting Yes, for chrissakes.
Wake the fuck up. Life is not a goddamned liberal Utopia, where if you don’t get your way you can stamp your feet and MAKE IT SO.
Jesus fucking Christ.
NO– do NOT talk to me ONE MORE TIME about how shitty this fucking bill is. I KNOW HOW SHITTY IT IS. I am not a goddamned motherfucking moron.
I am also not living in goddamned la-la land; I am living in an America where if Democrats LOSE, Republicans WIN — and when Republicans WIN, WE ALL FUCKING LOSE.
I don’t care if he votes Yes now — what he’s done should consign him to hell for eternity.
against the people who indoctrinated you wrong
I’ll get right on that, skipper.
He was trying to protect the health care bill from right wing critics that argued it funded abortion, he protected a 30 year bi partisan status quo on abortion, defended the very government neutrality that Teddy Kennedy and Joe Biden consistently fought to protect. He protected the conscience clauses that will allow Catholic hospitals to stay open, and that was also supported by Teddy Kennedy.
his amendment went beyond Hyde.
That Tim Cahill is proving to be quite the useful idiot for Republicans, one of whom cited the “Democratic treasurer of Massachusetts” declaring that our regime will bankrupt the state in the near term.
<
p>A dummy for Eric Cantor…that’s what Cahill’s become.
<
p>Well I’m not sure if the party wants that, but I sure do! Seriously. I do.
<
p>
but for whatever reason, I find cursing in this forum particularly loathsome.
<
p>For what it’s worth (not much, I know).
I remember marching out of class for three months and going on the road when Martin Luther King was assassinated.
<
p>I remember being tear gassed and clubbed protesting an illegal war and cover ups in the Vietnam era.
<
p>I remember when the dialogue was about what government was for, and what government should do, not how to shrink government.
<
p>I even remember when there was a community mental health system in Massachusetts, and elementary school librarians – fancy that.
<
p>Frankly, the issue in our country isn’t really about health insurance, but the impact of class and money on access to health care. That is why relatives of mine have chosen to retire – and spend their retirement accounts – in Mexico and Costa Rica because access to health care is better in those countries.
<
p>That all being said, real improvement of any kind is not about magical perfection but about incremental progress.
<
p>Further, the artifically over heated way the health insurance debate has been whipped up has stalled real governance in the area of job creation, economic recovery, and revenue restructure. Let’s get the health issue put to rest with some improvements for some people and move on. Please.
<
p>I don’t know about you all but I am “change the channel whenever health care debates come on” sick of it, of the posturing, manipulation, lies and neo-racist fake populist red-baiting hype from the right, and apocalyptic imagery from the left.
<
p>And folks, strong language doesn’t require swears. Don’t you love the phrase “neo-racist fake populist red-baiting hype” for example? Way more accurate and evocative then scatological venting.
I’ve been writing this way for years, and for years, I’ve had to contend with the occasional person who for some reason feels it his place to tell me that “swears” are inappropriate and so much less effective than the way they would have written it.
<
p>I understand you think so — but I find it equally inappropriate to derail a discussion of someone’s work with a critique of her prose style in a political forum. As far as I can tell, this IS a political forum, not a writing class. If you don’t care for the writing style, I suppose it’s your perfect right to say so — but it really adds little to the substantive matter at hand. And there IS substantive matter in the post. The fact that you find the way in which it is conveyed personally distasteful does not negate that fact.
<
p>But hey, I’m so glad I could take this time to talk about “swears.” Really — much more important than the point of the piece itself.
So it seems to me that if you’ve been writing this way for years and for years people have complained, then you’ve done your message a great disservice by not communicating in a way that gets your message across.
<
p>I didn’t read your piece, and I read a lot, here and elsewhere. I got to the second f-bomb and just stopped. It’s a political forum — not a forum on literature or some other topic where the expectations on language and decorum are much different.
<
p>What adds nothing substantive to the matter at hand is your over-the-top language. More importantly, it completely overpowers whatever substantive matter may be in the post. I sure as heck don’t come here to try to extract salient points from between the fucks, the god-this and chriss-that, the ALL CAPS, the italics and bold, and world coming to an end rhetoric. It’s like reading Charlie’s diary after Miss Kinnian teaches him punctuation, only Charlie’s also got Tourette’s. If I wanted that, I’d go to /b.*
<
p>
<
p> * warning: you’ll wish you could unread anything you read on /b. Trust me.
Then why are you even commenting? How can you possibly say it adds nothing substantive to the debate IF YOU DIDN’T READ IT?
<
p>Thanks — I’ll take my criticisms on my writing from people who actually read it.
It would have been better without all the cursing. For one thing, you wouldn’t have had this derail to detract from the discussion. For another, at least one person who didn’t read it would have done so. That person brings a lot to the discussions here; by turning him off, you lose that.
<
p>Put me in the camp that prefers that ideas be presented without that particular kind of seasoning – it’s too much salt. If you need to do it, so be it, but if you’ve been doing it as long as you say, it’s kind of pointless to be outraged at reactions that should be entirely predictable by now.
re-read my comment:
<
p>1. I claim that the over-the-top language adds nothing substantive.
2. I make no claims about whatever substantive matter may be in the post.
<
p>Note the “may be.” portion.
<
p>It’s ironic that you’re responding to a comment that you clearly didn’t read well, stating that you’ll take your criticisms “from people who actually read it”.
I responded to your rather mild critique with far too much defensive venom.
<
p>I should have reserved it for others more deserving.
<
p>: )
I didn’t ask to be frontpaged.
<
p>But I certainly don’t intend to change the way I write; I’ve been writing like this for decades — blogging like this since 2004 when I first found DKos. I understand that many people find it not to their taste, and that’s fine. It’s simply my style. Generally, I have chosen not to crosspost, because it does feel like an imposition. However, in a case as important as this vote, I decided to crosspost — especially since I’ve been seeing such a disturbing proliferation of “Kill the Bill” sentiments from the left.
<
p>Again, however — I’m not sure why the editor decided to frontpage this particular piece since it seems so decidedly not in keeping with the usual tenor of this blog. My apologies for the trespass.
I thought it was a good piece of writing putting forth an important point of view, which is why I front-paged it. Yes, it drops more f-bombs than the usual BMG piece. That’s why I marked it “NSFW” in my promotion comment. Also, the title is pretty much a giveaway that more bad words might be forthcoming. Folks who don’t like swears but click through anyway, well, that’s on them.
No caveat and yes, the title gave fair noticem of the style. Older folks like me read and respond to the “meat” in our own way, as well. The writer need not apologize or be defensive, neither of us are likely to change and are, in our contents, in fact in agreement I think.
<
p>Live & let live, each to their own, and an ally is an ally.
…your language is what really got you banned from Kos?
Do you READ the posts at Daily Kos?
<
p>There is a very long story behind my being banned at Daily Kos. It is, in fact, part of DKos lore. A sad and dreary tale told far too many times. It’s on my Wikipedia page: short version — railroaded.
<
p>Nothing at all to do with profanity — virtually every recommended diary there is loaded for bear with profanity.
<
p>And I may have had something to do with that trend, and for that, I am truly sorry. Sprinkling your post with FUCKS indiscriminately doesn’t make it good; you have to actually have something to say, and some actual talent with prose.
<
p>Yes, and have for years.
<
p>
<
p>That’s not quite 100% true. Perhaps maybe overselling the importance (lore?), it is true that MSOC wasn’t banned for her “salt” as others on this thread have called it. Officially, she was banned for copyright infringement when she posted too much text that wasn’t hers, and refused to update the post. Was that a “final straw” of sorts? Perhaps. MSOC did have lots of fans at the time, but plenty of other folks didn’t have a positive opinion, so it’s certainly easy to see how she could have the opinion that she was railroaded.
<
p>
<
p>No, that’s just plain wrong. It is true that profanity does appear in more than a few diaries, but plenty of diaries have no profanity, and most others may have an occasional amount of seasoning, but nowhere near the style of MSOC.
<
p>
<
p>Absolutely right. In my view too much salt overpowers the prose — and in my view, you use far too much salt. What I don’t understand is this: if you believe that you write well, and if you believe that you are giving voice to important ideas and causes, why continue to use so much salt when you know that you lose some of your audience, simply because that’s how you’ve always done things? Why not seek to refine your style in a way that maintains your strong tone without turning off as many readers?
eventual jail. I mean is it more healthy to purchase food or 32,000% markup designer pharma creations.
It has never been about health care but the control of health. Codex alimentarius. Mandatory shots. Now it’s mandatory everything.
<
p>My socio-Mom is a good example. Doctors now “service their clients” with this mandatory illusionary “privacy” bullshit. Trust me your medical records were not private before, now everybody and the IRS will have them. Try as I might to suggest my mother’s prior post partum depression after my birth they would much rather prescribe possibly irrelevant anti-depressants for conditions she sees on TV.
<
p>I am even quoting March 21,2010 as Prof Igor Panarin’s right on schedule end of America as a nation, the official death date.
<
p>And I don’t buy this better than nothing crap for a second cause I would rather not get f-ed not by left and right but by the globalists who own them both. They have decided that removal of Americans from their lifestyle is just too profitable. It frees up resources, it’s “green”, it’s eugenically correct, it might create a Second American Revolution. IE, just let them kill each other off.
<
p>Economic crash, by decision and design.
False flag swine flu pandemic to promote medical martial law.
Now health control by Dr Mengele. No job so no money for insurance. Very dissapointed in Dennis, he is off my list of non-owned congresspeople forever.
… to yell at John Walsh. Her name was Deb and she had obviously traveled from somewhere else because Berkshire County politics is never more than two degrees of separation and nobody knew who she was. She spoke of being a blogger with a readership of 20K, but refused to publicly give her blog address or title.
<
p>This woman hijacked the microphone for several minutes, ranting and making charges. Of course she demanded that the bill be stopped.
<
p>Finally when she tried to rebut John Walsh’s very polite reply, the crowd vocally turned on her and the microphone was passed on to somebody else.
<
p>It was a very telling moment to see a room that averaged around 65 years old get agitated enough to tell a complete stranger to shut up.
Sorry, but I’m blanking on what that stands for. Please advise.
Link. They’ve been outspokenly against the bill from the left.
Thanks Maryscott. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
<
p>: )
Having spent much of today (my first full day back in MA) watching C-Span and the coverage let me say I was profoundly affected by the many Congressmen and Congresswomen who came forward with personal tales regarding how they knew men and women who were affected by the heartless insurance companies denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions. A spinal bifada victim who could not work since no company could cover him as one CA congressmen mentioned, or local Congressman Jim Langevin of RI who was able to recover from a debilitating accident due to the generosity of his friends and neighbors, but who was also denied health care by his insurance company.
<
p>My own family is struggling to help pay for the mental health costs of one of our relatives, and I am terrified of being unemployed next year and without coverage. My sister currently is unable to afford insurance and her work doesn’t cover it and she prays to God the state doesn’t find out and fine her. These are not fairy tales or boogey men that the political left is conjuring up as the right would argue, these are real life stories, real people, real families.
<
p>Let me be the first to say that a lot of really innovative ideas were dropped, including the public option, some, like Swiss and Dutch models of universal health care (that do not rely on single payer or rationing models) were never considered, others like Wyden-Bennet that would have radically transformed the insurance industry making it both truly free market and competitive while expanding coverage to include more people, were also never considered. Yet this watered down reform will still save lives. The denial of pre-existing conditions, young adults without insurance, and working families falling into a trap of being ‘too rich’ for Medicaid and ‘too poor’ for insurance, these travesties will finally end.
<
p>Most importantly passing this insures we still have a Democratic majority, the bill will get more popular over time, and as the reforms start working we may be able to try again for more substantial reforms. But voting against this now from the left means another decade of right wing rule and another decade before a President tries for health care.