We're Getting The Healthcare Reform We Deserve
It ain't rocket science, people.
There seems to be good reason the hip expression these days has become:
"Really?"
A "supermajority", popular Democratic president, unprecedented public support-- and meaningful health care reform is being dismantled by our own party? Really?
The health care industry itself announces to the world that it plans to extort the congress with threats the day before a crucial vote and, yet, WE cannot turn that into a political coup? Really?
Harry Reid hints that he will allow the Democratic senators who vote to support Republican filibusters to stay anonymous. To protect them from the rightfully deserved anger of their OWN constituencies? Really?
And he takes minimal political heat for this.
With a straight face, Reid explains the process is difficult because if you do one thing, big pharma gets "mad," and if you do something else, the insurance companies get "mad."
Let me get this straight, Harry. Can I call you Harry?
You expected the major reform and overhall of an industry that is exempt from anti-trust laws, denies coverage to whoever it deems a bad risk, that has followed a for-profit strategy of denying care successfully to record profits ... that has powerful lobbies precisely to prevent any changes in the current system (or more accurately, any changes that don't benefit IT) ... and you expected to do this without making them MAD?
To quote Barney Frank, "on what planet do you spend most of your time?"
You are supposed to make them MAD. That is the point. Why, Harry, do you lack the requisite male parts to ACTUALLY represent the people?
And as far as the people go, have we forgotten the populist rage of just a few months ago? Why the deference to huge corporations that ANNOUNCE their plans to rape and pillage? They must KNOW we won't put up any fight.
The sad fact is they are right.
This is Upton Sinclair shit and we sit back and take it. Keith Olberman showed on a recent show that if the current trends don't change, the US will have similar mortality to Dicken's London. And not the good neighborhoods, either.
The tubercular, industrial soot-covered, kick-Tiny-Tim-down-the-stairs, kidney-pie-eating, raw-sewaged, vermin-infested hell that Dickens so famously portrayed will have better outcomes than we do if we let the for-profit Scrooges of our day have their way.
And we are.
One congressman has stood up and given this the full-throated courage, advocacy, and sound-bite ready rhetoric this deserves.
One.
Where's Al Franken? (judging from this video his strategy is to bore the crap out of reform opponents)
He spent his entire career outing hypocrites and he can't come up with a memorable quip about this or a decent controversial moment? Of course he can. Why is he "playing fair" with a corporate monolith that expects, no, feels ENTITLED, to command us all to bend over?
And not for a prostate exam. That isn't covered.
Really?
What's it really going to take for people to get angry enough at the Democrats that they stand up and represent the people?
To paraphrase Alan Grayson:
No one gives a damn about 60 votes or 51. No one cares about Olympia Snow. No one cares about the Republicans "feelings" or the turn-coat Democrats "feelings". People care about getting this done, about us doing what we were elected TO DO.
Why isn't Harry Reid publicly shamed for this disgraceful behavior? Have we all lost our minds?
It's time for people on the left to stop being pussies and invite some controversy into this debate.
If this post makes some people angry there is a simple reason for that.
It was designed to.
And like Grayson, I ain't apologizing for it. When we stop being EXACTLY the clichés the right has saddled us with, I'll shut up.
Until then it's time to realize that this is a fight, a fight against a well-funded and gigantic BULLY.
You don't back down, and you don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
And when you get an advantage, you STRIKE. Let's take our balls off the shelf and finish the goddamn job, with or without Reid, the so-called "conserva-Dems" ... without Obama if needed.
If you aren't angry at the health care industry you just aren't paying attention.
And Minnesota didn't vote Franken in so he'd shut up, either. If we just lay down, we will get precisely the bill we DESERVE.
My suggestion is to focus on the ridiculous crime against the voters that is this filibuster nonsense. Democrats will vote FOR Republicans to filibuster?
Really?
And be allowed to stay anonymous? Really? These outrages against US need to be stopped.
But if we cave in to the bullies, we get what we deserve.
You aren't angry?
Really?
Good post. Really.
October 16, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. Thanks.
October 16, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't find evidence in the site linked to above demonstrating that Harry Reid has hinted he will protect the anonymity of Democratic Senators who told him they will vote to preserve a Republican filibuster. Without that evidence, the premise of this post is false.
Here is the link again, so others can check in case I missed the evidence.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/10/13/if-harry-reid-allows-the-silent-filibuster-its-all-on-him/
Anyone on the Internet can claim anything he or she wishes, but that's not the same as evidence.
October 16, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
you are missing the point.
I'm not surprised.
October 16, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point was that this post made a false claim - specifically that an article it linked to stated that Harry Reid had hinted he would preserve the anonymity of Democratic Senators who told him they would support a Republican filibuster.
Either that claim is false, which was my point, or it is true. If it is true, Indie Pro, please provide the exact evidence. Specifically, quote verbatim the portions of the article in question that document the claim.
If it is false, as I state, please admit that I was right.
Note that I made no statements about my views of Reid or any of the other individuals involved. My only statement was to the effect that this post made a false statement.
I stand by that point, but I hope I have the moral integrity to admit a mistake when I make one. If my point was false, show the evidence and I'll admit I was wrong. We should all be willing to admit a mistake when that is what has happened.
October 16, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually you said if it was false it makes the "premise" of this post wrong, which is simply not true. (Unless you think I wrote an entire blog about Harry Reid's covering these people's asses, which he is doing BTW).
October 16, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
everytime you hear someone, including Reid, say he's trying to get 60 votes, then someone is telling him they are gonna vote with the Republicans. Though Reid doesn't say who it is that is saying they'll vote with the Republicans.
Do you understand now?
October 16, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
But wait is that a "hint"??? OMG... IGMR is presenting FALSEHOODS...
Jaysus...
October 16, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
here's my attempt to help you. From your link:
The only reason not to put the HELP Committee public option in the Senate bill is because Joe Lieberman and other “ConservaDems” are conducting a silent filibuster — they won’t say it publicly but they’ll say privately that they will vote with the GOP to filibuster the bill.
That means the Democratic caucus will now filibuster itself
so who are these people in the Dem caucus who are threatening to filibuster?
FDL goes on (again, from your link):
if Joe Lieberman’s silent filibuster means that the HELP Committee public option is not in the final bill, Reid owns it.
If Blanche Lincon’s unspoken threats mean the opt-out is in the final bill, Reid owns it.
If Ben Nelson’s allegiance to Nebraska insurance brokers means the Finance Committee’s co-ops are in the final bill, Reid owns it.
If the White House says the final bill needs to be the Finance Committee bill so Olympia Snowe is happy, Reid owns it.
If the public option, which the majority of the country and the vast majority of Democrats want doesn’t make it to the floor, Reid owns it
then they pound it home:
Either Harry Reid enforces caucus discipline on this one or it becomes the model for every single piece of legislation that comes before the Senate from hereon in. It guarantees that every piece of Democratic legislation is written by the caucus’s most conservative members. We give the power to the corporations to pick off the whores and write our laws. All they need from hereon in is one.
October 16, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If my aunt had a beard she'd be my uncle.
October 16, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you had a point, I'd understand your comment
October 16, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually my "hint" is too mild. He's doing it, and there's already a movement to prevent it.
October 16, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read it again or watch this:
http://www.actblue.com/page/reidaccountable
October 16, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if I was wrong (and I'm not) the premise of this post isn't that. The premise of this post is we Democrats are not properly using our power to make something happen we could easily, and there's NO good reason why.
I'd add that focusing on one "mistake" to the detriment of the entire argument is the same sort of dithering I'm talking about, unless you are from the right, in which case, I don't really care what you think.
The "premise" of this post is REALLY easy to understand.
So either you are pretending not to get it to be obtuse, or you are doing your best Rain Man impression. Either way it is a false argument.
Oh, and the "mistake" isn't one anyway.
Good day.
October 16, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Igotmyreasons - I believe that if you admit you posted a false claim, you'll look less foolish in the end. The problem is that anyone who wishes to can go to the original link and judge for himself or herself.
If you want to exhort readers to pressure Reid, that's another matter, but you'll get more support, I believe, if you make accurate statements.
October 16, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure Rain Man.
How's about I edit it this way:
Original:
Harry Reid hints that he will allow the Democratic senators who vote to support Republican filibusters to stay anonymous. To protect them from the rightfully deserved anger of their OWN constituencies? Really?
New:
Harry Reid will allow the Democratic senators who say they will vote in support of Republican filibusters to stay anonymous. To protect them from the rightfully deserved anger of their OWN constituencies? Really?
Happy? If not I'm not changing anything, because that IS THE TRUTH, and anyone who can read will understand. The only reason I wrote it that way is I didn't have the link yet. I'm not a journalist, nor do I claim to be.
But the jist of this is NOT false, no matter what one neurotic says.
October 16, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
unless you supply some evidence of your assertions, this is merely second hand bed-wetting.
October 16, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid is allowing people on the new panel who will vote down cloture, but he won't change this or let us know who.
Clear enough?
October 16, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the jist of what you say may be true, as you claim, and I think you will find many readers sympathetic to your desire to pressure Reid. I objected simply to your claiming that an article said something when it didn't, because I think inaccurate statements weaken the power of a person's argument. At least in my case, I feel more comfortable criticizing someone such as Reid when I haven't cited evidence that others who visit the source are unable to find.
October 16, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, I'll try to be more perfect in the future. Thank you SO MUCH for focusing on this, and the unsolicited advice.
If he didn't "hint" it then how do we know?
More importantly this is EXACTLY the sort of infighting that's keeping us down here.
You gave me your advice now here's mine to you. Maybe next time you read something you agree with you can at least start by SAYING that before you start critiquing it. Try that out, it will make you feel less schmucky too (maybe), and make people less likely to answer you in an equally obnoxious way as what you post.
In short, it's called being polite.
Look into it.
October 16, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/10/13/if-harry-reid-allows-the-silent-filibuster-its-all-on-him/
If I described this incorrectly I apologize for all the neurotic insulters out there.
Feel free to read the OTHER 95% of my post instead.
You may f off now. (or wet the bed, etc)
October 16, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh I get it. You don't think anyone, like Reid is claiming they need to get 60 votes. OK.
October 16, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
A super majority is two thirds of the total seats in Congress. The current make-up isn't quite so one-sided and not as powerful as many liberals would like.
Democrats haven't had that sort of power since 1932, so your expectations might be a little out of line with your party's ability to cajole the country to accept single payer or whatever it is you are advocating as our potential solution set to a perfect Health Care Utopia.
Was there legislation under consideration you think is essential to this initial effort? I can't really tell what would see changed beyond implementing solutions that are not even in the running today, but it obviously means a lot to you, so I am curious what your perfect world would look like.
Cheers.
October 16, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just can't quit us, can you?
October 16, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does that ego make it hard to get through doors?
October 17, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason isn't allowed to comment?
October 17, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
He can do anything he wants except troll without you defending his sorry ass, apparently.
October 17, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you see it that way. He should be free to comment on anyone's post.
Unfortunately your definition of troll is something who doesn't completely agree with your view on an issue.
October 17, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you have some traffic to direct or something?
October 17, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's middle class like I'm from the ghetto.
October 17, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently you are trying to direct traffic. Criticizing someone for simply making a comment.
October 17, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try making a sentence.
October 17, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try actually debating with someone rather than just ad hominem attack. Try to actually have a debate without just resorting to "SHUT THE FUCK UP" and "GET OFF MY BLOG".
October 17, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right well I asked you nice too but you seem to enjoy being a dick. So go with your strengths.
BTW what I was commenting on actually ISN'T a sentence, not that you'd know.
PLEASE leave? Will that do it?
October 17, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have a nice bone in your body. You've already proved that with your prior posts. You are the one who throws around the obscenities and insults. You're the one who stalks other people.
Don't try to paint me as the guily who.
October 17, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right and your spending your Saturday evening googling everything you can see of mine because?
You claim to be a New Yorker let's meet for lunch. Central Park? I'll come on my bike.
I'll have to rely on you seeing me since you don't seem to have any real identity. I'll buy you a hot dog. You can find out how nice I am.
October 17, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I googled you the same way that you googled Jason.
Sure, I'll meet you in Central Park tomorrow by the polar bears. I'll buy the hot dogs
October 17, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah sure. It may rain, anyway... besides I can't take my bike in there, I don't think.
It'd be easier with a #. But then you'd need some skills, too. I'll be up for a while.
October 17, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now you're renegging on your offer to meet in the park?
October 17, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't meet stalkers who don't have the skills to even call me.
October 17, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's too bad. You were the one who suggested we meet in the Park. Sorry you changed your mind. I would never give my phone number you.
October 17, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL but you'd meet me face to face?
I merely said I didn't think I could take my bike into the zoo (your idea, not mine) and that I may not be riding anyway. If you wanna be friends you have to at least give me a way to get in touch with you besides this blog.
Jason seems to be fine... but your afraid of me having your number? And I should meet THIS in person because??
If and when you get real, lemme know. I'm more than happy to talk, ask Jason.
Or are you scared he'll have your number too?
Its Glen Beck isn't it??
I KNEW IT.
Your secret is safe with me buddy.
October 17, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe it was you who suggested lunch in the park. Name a time/location and I will see you there tomorrow.
October 17, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You get a lot of dates like that? Pushy much?
I said i was going to go BIKING. If you think I'm making a special trip to CP to meet YOU you really are nuts.
IF and when I do that I might be persuaded to hang for a few minutes. Coordinating that without a cell # isn't gonna be practical, so I'm not babysitting you, sorry.
I'm not obligated to meet you (by making a casual suggestion), and the more you talk the less appealing it seems (and it wasn't very appealing to begin with).
As I ALREADY said, if you call me, we'll talk. Then if you seem like less of a psycho than you seem right now maybe I'll hang with you. But it ain't looking good.
Maybe you can write a blog about what a hypocrite I am.
Unbelievable. You act like a little kid promised ice cream. LOL.
Have a good night.
October 17, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were the one who suggested we have lunch in the park. I'm happy to do so and I don't think my phone number is required
October 17, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
GREAT. You can watch this spot to see if I am going biking tomorrow. Good system. Nite.
October 17, 2009 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were the one who suggested lunch in the park.
October 18, 2009 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
But when I Googled it's "stalking"... got it.
October 17, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way - who would ever buy such a gay "Spring & Crosby" t-shirt?
October 17, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Folks like you who couldn't afford the painting, Jason.
October 17, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS. You're a homophobe too? Keep smashing those clichés, dude...
October 17, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Homophobe? Hardly.
I thought you were smart enough to know that "gay" can be used as a synonym for "lame" or "rubbish".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay
Sorry I gave you too much credit.
October 17, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Painting? I was talking about the $16 t-shirt that someone is trying to sell on "Zazzle". Any self-respecting artist wouldn't be trying to sell cheap t-shirts on a 3rd-rate website.
October 17, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was that you were saying about how you aren't the insulting one? Perhaps you missed that the image on the shirt is one of my paintings. Sorry you don't approve of the venue, maybe this is more your speed:
http://seedgallerynewyork.com/artists.fred.1.html
If you want to see the one at the Library maybe I can get you an appointment.
I know the alternate use of "gay" I just forgot I was talking to a 13 year old, my mistake.
You got my phone number yet?
October 17, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's correct, I am not the insulting one. I am not the one who throws around the profanities. My "insults" are very harmless compared to yours.
See you tomorrow with the polar bears. You want mustard or relish on your hot dog?
October 17, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course I saw that the image is one of your paintings. But what self-respecting artist sells his paintings on t-shirts?
October 17, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee I dunno... Warhol? Banksy? Basquiat?
(you at least know the first one)
The Whitney Collection just did Gap shirts including Barbara Kruger and Hannah Linden (both shirts I bought, both authorized by the artists). Also Jeff Koons and others.
Christos funds his projects with things like that (you know, "The Gates" guy?
Maybe you are thinking of the old dead artists of Ye Olde Dayes, before they had t-shirts. Or non-uptight artists?
Care to grace us with any more of your ignorance?
October 17, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Gap would be fine. But "zazzle" is a whole other story. Pimp my ride.
October 17, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a big snob for someone supposedly "middle class" my man...
I did do that before the gallery gig...
October 17, 2009 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I will be at the zoo by the polar bears at noon. See you tomorrow.
October 17, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enjoy it, LOL. I won't even be up yet. Good listener you are...
October 17, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a good listener and reader.
I read that you offered lunch tomorrow.
October 18, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
My perfect world involves one less idiot posting comments here.
October 17, 2009 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
You truly are incapable of having a discussion with anyone who doesn't already agree 100% with you thesis. Even other liberals aren't good enough for you. Sad little world you live in. Good luck with it.
October 17, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure dude, whatever you say.
This blog was about procedures and undue lobbying influence and had nothing to do with whatever you think you are making fun of above.
And I should "debate" this BS with you why, exactly?
I've taken the bait before.
What a "sad little world" you must inhabit where all people who don't respond to your bullying crap are somehow unworthy (to you).
October 17, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point, I'm pretty sure "Jason" is just a bot that gets triggered whenever certain people post or comment here. I mean the "You truly are incapable of having a discussion with anyone who doesn't already agree 100% with you thesis." line doesn't even apply to the discussion at hand.
It must just be automatically generated at this point.
October 17, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's automatic, all right. But all too human, I'm afraid.
October 17, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was saying that your blog didn't make clear what you are advocating that isn't being done.
What is the call to action for your world, sad or not? Is anything short of single payer a sell-out for you? What is an acceptable alternative?
As to the rest, I am sorry you consider yourself the only one who is allowed to be cheeky when making dissenting views on a blog.
Sounds like a "Do As I Say and Not As I Do" admonition to me.
October 17, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it does.
I'm not responding to your condescending, standard-issue holier-than-thou BS anymore, what part of that don't you understand?
I'd ban you if I could.
My point was made pretty clearly I'm under no obligation to explain it better, and certainly not to YOU.
Go away.
October 17, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
October 17, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I took my blog down too, genius. Oh and your new link doesn't work (the Wordpress blog you linked to, unless the goal is that people CANNOT register for your thing, almost as brilliant as the RNC site).
BTW, I'm not advocating anything in this piece, I'm asking people why they aren't angrier at their elected officials.
So:
This is where you can lecture me about not offering a positive "call to action" and actually allowing people to think about how THEY feel about this instead of being PRESCRIPTIVE.
Because, Lord knows, in your misreading of Eastern religions or the new-age BS you picked up at Starbucks (whatever), "complaining" without offering solutions is a BIG SIN, isn't it?
And of course YOU will fix it for us, because you are such a POSITIVE and CAPABLE person aren't you? And who wouldn't LOVE to get the type of CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM you offer to MAKE US ALL BETTER PEOPLE???
And you even offer it to me FOR FREE...
Standard issue, unoriginal, boring as fuck. You are a cliché.
Like people who sign off "cheers" (you ain't British, although you ARE a right cunt)
Go on, do EXACTLY what I expect you to here. Lecture me about how superior your store-bought relativism and fake spirituality is. You'd think being Johnnny One Note you'd have the song down by now. Knock yourself out.
Namaste.
October 17, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hereby render unto you the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe Site, given to all of you from all of me, for this little gem:
JUST DONT CALL ME SHIRLEY
October 16, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
October 17, 2009 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have written to various Senators asking them to vote no on cloture for any bill that does not contain the HELP Committee's public option. I've included Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jay Rockefeller, and others.
October 17, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
IGMR...aside from the one little oopsie (and we ALL make them from time to time) this is a REALLY good post.
I have questioned repeatedly what the hell point there is in having control of the White House and both houses if we aren't going to use them. It almost seems smarter to remain OUT of power so you can keep the other guys from getting whatever the hell it is they want, then sit back and blame them for never getting anything done.
I hope everyone who lives in a state w/ a dem senator who is waffling on this, or a repub senator in a state whose majority wants the public option is making a lot of noise...
The people who gets filthy stinking rich on the backs of people who are suffering/dieing for lack of health care can get just as mad as they want. They've had for frickin' ever to change the way they do things, and they haven't done it, and they won't unless they are forced to. If we don't have balls enough to regulate the hell out of them and allow them to stay in business, then we AT LEAST, need to give people the public option so they are FORCED to mend their ways or go out of business. This isn't ipods or cars we're talking about here...it's life and death.
October 17, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree more.
October 17, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back to the point of your post. Democrats have the numbers to get this done with a strong public option than anyone can choose. The reasons that they might not do it boil down to money and power. But if they don't do it, the majority of rank-and-file Democrats in this country are likely to wind up mad as hell.
I'll be one of them.
October 17, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's try for a pre-emptive strike considering this threatens all our lives.
The number one taboo in this country seems to be speaking ill of corporations. This must stop.
October 17, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm doing what I can on the pre-emptive strike front. Some days, seems like one step forward and 12 steps back.
Down here where I live we're represented in the Senate by the Walmart Twins – Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor – and that pharmaceutical genius, Mike Ross.
I'm very proud of what FireDogLake and ActBlue are doing with TV ads in my state pointing out how these folks work against our interests.
With the help of these three clowns, Arkansas now ranks 48th in health care, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
October 17, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least you are doing better than TEXAS. (I think).
Yeah, FDL, Olberman and Maddow (maybe Jon Stewart) seem like the only people who are really on this, save Alan Grayson. It's insane that your representatives won't represent the will of the people.
At the very least they should fear for their political futures. "Outing" this cynical dead weight is a big part of that. Too bad Harry Reid is OK with it.
Ask Nancy for your balls back, Harry!!! I know you haven't used them in a while...
October 17, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nancy ain't got 'em. John Ensign's holding 'em in trust.
October 17, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol
October 17, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did you suggest lunch and then change your mind?
October 18, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
MCB, don't you know that "no means no?" Maybe IGMR's just not that into you. If you're looking for a bromance in Central Park, you might want to check out the Ramble.
October 18, 2009 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously... and to think I was really gonna meet this nut. You think it's Woody Allen? Maybe BILL O'Reilly?
I gave two simple conditions: 1) If I was gonna be biking, and 2) If I had a way to reach him other than this (in case, like, I disappear, or something LOL).
It's raining so no bike. I'm still kind of curious (I could take train) but he's acting like a weirdo (like this isn't weird already).
What should I do?
October 18, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You initially didn't give any conditions, you simply invited me to lunch. Then later you introduced some bogus "conditions". And you changed your mind because I "suddenly" started acting like a weirdo. I highly doubt you didn't think I was a weirdo before you invited me to lunch.
October 18, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finally something we can agree on.
I'm a heartbreaker, I know...
You'll enjoy my latest blog.
October 18, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did you invite me to lunch and then reneg?
October 18, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey PSYCHO. I told you why SEVERAL TIMES. Buy a dog or something.
October 19, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did you invite me to lunch and then renege on it?
October 19, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, you really didn't tell me why.
You first invited me to lunch. I accepted.
But then you made up some excuse about how the original invitation was conditioned upon my giving you my phone number. Plus something about you having to bike there and it might be raining.
Pretty lame if you ask me.
October 19, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The biking part was in the original thing. And you are a freaking psycho. I also totally figured out who you are from all this. You finish the music yet or are you busy hoping your college friends will give you free studio time?
You are such a friggin' lame.
October 20, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes it was in the original. But you just said you would bike there. You didn't say that lunch was conditioned upon you being able to bike there.
Here's what you said - "You claim to be a New Yorker let's meet for lunch. Central Park? I'll come on my bike.
I'll have to rely on you seeing me since you don't seem to have any real identity. I'll buy you a hot dog. You can find out how nice I am. "
You just can't admit that you offered something up and then chickened out.
October 20, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
i chickened out... but i chickened out cuz you acted like a nut. I'm not meeting anyone without a cell number. So if you want to prove you scared me or some bullshit like that, have at it. People that act like they are totally nuts we should be afraid of.
Anyone reading this would say (about you) "that guys totally insane"
Meeting you would therefore be insane.
Please trick your next victim.
October 20, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit. You thought I was a nut before you invited me. You were just spewing crap and you never thought I would take you up on it. There's no reason why you need my phone number in order to meet for lunch.
October 20, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why did he invite me to lunch?
October 18, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever. I ain't happenin' now. Bug someone who gives a fuck. I'm done measuring dicks. Your a real fucking asshole and I've got no interest in seeing your crazy ass in person or any other way for that matter. You exhibit the same behavior on other blogs and they should kick you of of here. So fuck you. Write a novel I ain't coming back here.
October 20, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink