Crunch Time: Democrats To Take A Long Look In The Mirror
You know that throughout the horrible years of the Bush Admin I poked fun at the progressives who staged something like 54,000 “Take Back America” conferences. My basic point was that taking back your democracy and electing Democrats was not always the same thing. Sure, you could argue that electing them was a minimal pre-requisite. But, I repeat, it isn’t the same thing. And in the end, that argument is only an argument. What we need is not a simple transfer of power from one party to another but a thoroughgoing political re-alignment.
Any more vivid display of that than the current moment we are living through? After decades of fruitless attempts at anything resembling national health care, our first major step in that direction all precariously teeters on the mood and whimsy of a few right-wing Democrats who as of this hour CANNOT be counted on to not support overt sabotage of the effort? All of a sudden it all hinges upon whether Senator Lieberman has a sudden hemorrhoids flare-up and feels bad?
In the end, the Senate did a decent job in coming up with its version of a health care bill. Like the House version (minus the Stupid Stupak Amendment), it’s got plenty of flaws. But they are not nearly as bad as some folks had forecast. Anybody who at this point says nothing is better than this something is just plain disconnected from reality.
No news to anyone by now, but the first cloture vote on the Senate bill is set for Saturday night. And Harry Reid is going to need every single Senate Dem, including the right-wing Blue Dogs (and they ARE right-wing), to oppose a Republicans filibuster. So after years of demonizing neo-cons and Republicans and Bushies, the fact is that the health of health care depends on three or four DEMOCRATS! Forget the Republicans.
I’m not going to waste any breath on such a character as Joe Liberman. But I actually know people who have argued that I have to have some sympathy for Senators Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu, three of those Blue Doggies who –we are told– risk re-election if they vote with their own Democratic Party. I’m not a pollster nor a clairvoyant. So, for the sake of argument, let’s say the pundits are right. If these three stand allow health care to go through, they might, in fact, get tossed in the next cycle.
Sorry, but so what? How low can we go? The health of tens of millions of Americans, quite literally, is to be sacrificed because these poor babies might lose their title, their staff, and their wonderfully generous lifetime pensions? Get out your pitchforks!
How many mikes of acid would we have to spike the morning orange juice of one of these Dogs to have one of them get up and say: “I’m going to vote the right way no matter what the personal political cost I will pay. Public service is more important tan personal gain.”
OK, you done laughing yet?
P.S. While I’m grumping, let me grump some more about the way the media blithely repeats the Republican “charge” that this or that health care bill is 1,865 or 2,074 pages long. Excuse me, but SO WHAT? Since when is something like that a liability? What’s wrong with spelling out in tedious detail exactly what a sweeping piece of reform legislation would do? What sort of anti-intellectual bottom are we grinding against when the length of exposition becomes a sin? I noticed that this week’s court ruling on the New Orleans levee catastrophe was 163 pages long. That’s just about the levees? Something wrong with a trillion dollar health care bill that will affect all of us being eight times longer than one court brief?
I will take a health care bill backed up by 2,000 pages of text over any useless and atrocious war in Iraq that was justified by a grand total of TWO false words: Mushroom Cloud.
Call me an ambulance.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
The best thing a couple of these Blue Dogs could do in their lifetime is risk sacrificing their Senate seat – if in fact it comes to that, which I don’t believe hinges on their voting for health care reform – rather than make continuing to sit on their ass in the Beltway Bubble the be-all-and-end-all of their political careers.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
An ambulance, Marc?
Do you have health insurance?
November 20th, 2009 at 7:59 am
If you slip ‘em some LSD the most that is likely to happen is they’ll go rent Magical Mystery Tour.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:03 am
You know you when you are getting extreme when you are willing to commit suicide for the cause. You know you are getting radical, and dangerous to others, when you are willing to martyr others with you.
Self destruction is a depressing and macabre curiosity to the normal. But when it extends to mass inflicting of potentially fatal wounds to others, wielding an axe to a problem needing a normal scalpel, it crosses the line from martyrdom to radicalism. Inflicting a gaping wound, upon on an already hemorrhaging people, and calling it health care, is the sign of a sick ideology.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:06 am
“You know when you are getting….”
November 20th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Jim – exactly what post are you commenting on at 8:03 ? Did a bomb go off in the Beltway that I failed to hear about ? Did Barney Frank ax-murder the other members of some sub-committee ? Or do you get your news broadcasts from another planet ?
November 20th, 2009 at 8:55 am
I have no idea what Jim R is talking about. Ever since his weird psycho-sexual riff on Palin a few threads ago, I think he’s been on a bender.
Anyway, it’s been my tradition to ask Jim R who pays for his healthcare, and then never get an answer from him. Let’s keep the tradition alive:
Hey Jim R, who pays for your healthcare coverage? I’m curious.
November 20th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Of course those behaving extremely do not believe they are extreme. Most rely on, and want to believe, the distortion, propaganda, and vilifications perpetrated by their leaders.
Here is a short-list of them, designed to incite the excitable, and confuse the rest, in to thinking this is not really an axe wound:
A. The short term wounds on the people will heal. The Truth: The wounds will be allowed to bleed the people for 5 years before it returns anything designed to heal them. After 10 years, the states will be forced to provide necessary infusions.
B. The wound is ONLY 850 Billion pints, which will not kill you because you will get infusions. The Truth: The wound is 3 Trillion pints, by the CBO truth tellers, when you recover the lost blood removed from the body, the first 5 years, and add it to the total of 10 years you will be bleeding. Plus the removal of 250 Billion pints that must be bled in a separate bill to infuse wounded doctors.
C. You will not be asked to bleed from your already emaciated body to be used for infusions to save the world. The Truth: There is no enforcement to prevent others in the world from stealing the blood you are being as to bleed for fellow citizens.
D. Your blood will not be used as a contraceptive for stupid people making stupid choices wanting to opt for the Final Solution. Not for themselves of course, silly. For their baby. The Truth: The extremists have raised the shade to allow you a peak. Every extremist has moments of weakness, especially when the distortion is obvious it begins to look like a real lie.
E. You will retain your choices of doctor and insurance company to protect your interest. The Truth: Savings in blood loss, required not to make it too obvious you are being asked to accept another axe wound, will be required. This is achieved by applying short term tourniquets from still bleeding un-healed wounds inflicted on you many years ago, and were promised would heal themselves. When these tourniquets must be removed, so will your choices…..and your health.
Just a short list, since the monster has 2000 tentacles, a smoke screen, and no time to completely identify just how dangerous it is to your personal, national, financial, and mental health.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:06 am
“…the monster has 2000 tentacles,…”
Pssssst, Jim R.
Stop drinking the o.j. Maybe keep yourself on the first floor of tall builds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfxVXoiovS8
November 20th, 2009 at 10:07 am
…of tall buildings…
November 20th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Marc: Call me an ambulance.
Okay. You’re an ambulance.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I just went to each of the 3 senators websites and emailed them a message regarding the necessity of their voting as Democrats, upholding their responsibilities as public servants by bending to the will of the 60% majority that WANT health care reform…blah blah.
I suggest everyone else do same. All their phones are busy for all their offices which means others are letting them know the same.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:51 am
And goddamit insulting a dog by calling those disloyal democrats blue dogs really pisses me off.
nothing more loyal than a dog. and these slime buckets are just right wing wankers.
i found this: One of the Blue Dogs, Rep. John Tanner from Tennessee, maintains that Blue Dogs are simply “yellow dogs that have been choked by extremes in both political parties to the point they have turned blue.”
the term centrist democrat is an oxymoron. Its a group of assholes who got elected as dems to wrench the party and legislation to the right.
I protest using the dog in the pejorative!
Hyena/jackal is more like it.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:29 am
So after years of demonizing neo-cons and Republicans and Bushies, the fact is that the health of health care depends on three or four DEMOCRATS! Forget the Republicans.
An odd sort of logic … the Republicans are such demons that there’s no way to even reach them to vote for this, so we should forget them and, gee, not “demonize” them.
Of course the fact is that this thing depends on those right wingers who are possibly reachable because they haven’t signed on to the Republican Party collective insanity — who else could it possibly depend on? But that doesn’t make the Republicans any less demons or any less responsible if this bill fails to pass.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Jim – you’re committing mass metaphoracide.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Jim R., why would you expect any rational person to consider your loony comments in reaching their conclusions about anything?
November 20th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
This excerpt from Going Rouge: Sarah Palin-An American Nightmare appears in the November 30, 2009 issue of The Nation.
…she somberly raised the decision to move the “In God We Trust” motto to the edge of the presidential dollar coin. “Who calls a shot like that?” she said, insinuatingly. Actually, George W. Bush did. It was an embarrassing gaffe that also neatly captures the key elements of Palinism: fact-free conspiracy, hollow patriotism and public religiosity–the very coins of Republican populist rage.
Consider the role Palin played in the “death panel” hysteria. The source was Betsy McCaughey…. But it was Palin who popularized the term on Facebook. “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide…. Such a system is downright evil.” Palin put a face on its supposed victims (her baby, Trig), contrived the expression “death panel” (linking it directly to Obama), raised the specter of euthanasia in the service of a state-run economy.
Palin’s power lies not in her capacity to write legislation or win national elections but in her ability to torpedo the democratic process.
In the Palin universe, her unwed pregnant teenage daughter, Bristol, is somehow a poster child for abstinence-only education. An aggressive advocate for opening up oil reserves to drilling, she labels herself pro-environment, a stance exemplified by her love of shooting animals or her husband’s hobby of racing snowmobiles across the tundra.
The secret to her success: neither the left nor the right can get enough of her.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Wow, Woody acually *can* be funny. It only took 4 years of reading you around here.
Jim R, has just conclusively demonstrated Kyle’s bender theory.
On the post, it’s an interesting problem. I agree wholly with the sentiment, but let’s take it from another angle: maybe they feel an obligation to represent their district in a particular way. In this case, for these three, I think it’s about staying in the big game, but there have been exceptions.
Take Tim Penny of the old MN first congressional district–a very conservative district. He was the first Dem to represent that district since the civil war. And he was predictably moderate to conservative on the minimum wage, on abortion and a serious budget hawk.
I’m not arguing that we should be held hostage to these preening careerists, but isn’t there possibly an argument that these guys should be true to their districts if that is how their district feels?
November 20th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Its ok now to call police to taser your ten year old who is clearly in acute distress for one reason or other…this is how low we have sunk. Funny, its always in the South and usually Florida where these horrifying incidents of parents or schools calling in police to “subdue” five and ten year olds.
This is off the fucking map:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20091119/twl-wild-child-10-tasered-over-bath-time-3fd0ae9.html
November 20th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
If I had to live with you Anna, I would want a taser within arms reach at all times.
“Its always in the South and usually Florida where these horrifying incidents of parents or schools calling in police to “subdue” five and ten year olds.”
Assuming you are right, any guesses why this might be? Any guesses where these children’s fathers might be? Any guesses as to why these emotionally out-of-control children are having to be disciplined, belatedly and too late, by teachers and police not paid to discipline others children in the first place. Children that have been failed by failed families that have been failed by failed social policy, before they ever get to school?
“Why would you expect any rational person to consider your loony comments in reaching their conclusions about anything?
Oh I don’t know b4. How about the a rational person may be looking for a rational response to the points made in the comment, noticeable missing here.
Ok Kyle, I’ll bite. I have had health insurance off and on as a benefit from companies I have worked for who compete for my talent. If they didn’t subsidize its cost as part of my pay, I had others who would. In between employers in recessions, as now, I do contract work, in which case I choose to subsidize the cost myself by choosing a higher deductible policy at a lower cost. I know your banal bait is if an employer subsidies an employees health insurance, they are getting it for free. No, they are getting it as part of their pay agreement, because they are competitive in a competitive market place. Scary to those who can’t.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
..won’t.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Stop with scar tactic. No one in the US is dieing for lack of health care, or food, for christsake.
This is the back-ally coat-hanger tactic liberals used to legalize abortion. Now the coat hanger is being used to abort births in the birth canal, and now you want us to pay for it. Ain’t freedom without responsibility just fucking great.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
“scar tacits” is “the scare tactics”
November 20th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
No, they’re not dieing, they’re dying.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Thanks Randy.
Now would you be fair and make reg correct his . I wasn’t going to tell on him, but since I am being selectively punished, again….he did it too daddy.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Jim,
In other threads I have corrected you on facts or taken you to task for willfully misrepresenting arguments. Perhaps when you revisit those instances and acknowledge your far more egregious errors, it may become appropriate to deal with reg.
My last correction was merely to confirm that you are aware of my comments. The fact that you choose to respond to that one while ignoring others of a more substantive nature, makes your claims of “selective [punishment]” seem – and I’ll be charitable here – hollow.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
The Democrats are a capitalist party and as such believe firmly in social stratification. the American revolution was never a peoples revolution as much as it was a shopkeepers rebellion.
Precisely why social justice movement came only after long and resolute struggle from below.
The Dems are being true to themselves; a party of special interest whose sole reason for existance is to smooth the excesses of the malthusian kensyens of the other capitalist party who may just live next door.
The trouble isn’t the Dems. No, the problem lies with anti-imperial progressives who cling to the notion that they can somehow shape the Dem party.
Versoomish?
November 20th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Jim R Says:
November 20th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
“scar tacits” is “the scare tactics”
———————–
Thanks. I had mistakenly read it as ‘tentative incisions’ later revised to ‘ a case of terminal stitches’; presumably (in your case) to be paid out of pocket.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Are you lonely Randy?
November 20th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Bien dicho, Pablo.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
What Jim is trying to say is that It’s Okay If You’re A Republican. Destroying people’s reputations because they disagree with you on this one issue or refuse to sacrifice their seat for the cause is the core of Republican thinking. Hence the existence of the term RINO. Not to mention the recent purification of the Grand Old Party.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:05 am
More proof that the epic dystopias predicted by earnest movie producers and sci-fi authors as coming from the Nazi right, whatever that is. And, as is predicted and predictable, coming to us from the left.
These ideas don’t exactly spring from the minds of Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan…but the lefties persist, and I have a feeling they know the results of authoritarianism, but they like it, with that little gleaming twinkle of being Naughty.
You guys are mentally unbalanced lunatics.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:15 am
Of course, Jim, in your world the answer to all problems is to kill, maim, drug, incarcerate and even torture–a child that as I said…was in distress in such a fashion that probably poor parenting, stupid parent, absent parent and lack of understanding that the child may have some organic problem– was the problem. Any normal parent doesnt call the police on their child. And any normal law enforcement officer with a modicum of common sense would realize it was the parent who was out of control and the child needed to probably be taken to a safe haven–if such a thing existed–to find out why the parent was so crazed that lead to their inability to handle their child who might have been autistic or god knows what else.
The alluded to the fact the child had “emotional problems” which can mean all kinds of things.
You are the one who needs to be not tasered but lobotomized.
You are a sick fuck.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:15 am
That is the father alluded…
November 21st, 2009 at 9:31 am
“These ideas don’t exactly spring from the minds of Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan…”
Well, that’s right. Nothing but daisies springing from ‘em now since they’re all dead.
“…they [lefties] like it, with that little gleaming twinkle of being Naughty.”
Ok, how about skipping the secret alphabet thingy and say it in plain English?
Or do we have to alert Chairman Obama and have you sent off to the re-education camp with Glen Beck?
November 21st, 2009 at 9:43 am
MLV – you’re a phony and spouting bullshit. Try coming back with something that makes some kind of sense. You guys are totally losing it.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:51 am
Hey, I think I stumbled upon some of the notes Jim R scribbles down before he posts.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:52 am
Try that again.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:15 am
Are you lonely Randy?
No, just blessed with an excellent memory and tired of your intellectual dishonesty.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:34 am
Pablo – what have you got ? Nader ? I’m impressed. The “pristine” left that refuses to engage in politics and satisfies itself with symbolic gestures is worse than useless. You’re narcissists. Pathetic.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:49 am
I have been studying both bills passed by the senate and the house, and I have decided that both are worth fighting for, though both are far from perfect. Both bills purport (and I repeat, “purport”) to eliminate caps on lifetime benefits imposed by insurance companies. Both bills purport to do a lot of things. Are these grand endeavors enforceable? Perhaps not, given the arsenal of lawyers in the employ of insurance companies. But it will contribute to the the drip drip on the American consciousness of “fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me thrice, shame on me….fool me a million times, shame on you.” Americans have historically been slow to recognize the need for change, but this bill is a part of that process. And if some insurance practices such as pre-existing conditions clauses and benefit caps can be curtailed, that is all the better. It is why I support it.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:59 am
Good points, David.
I see Sen. Nelson seems to be a qualified yes…
What’s the latest on Sen. Landrieu? Anybody know?
November 21st, 2009 at 11:23 am
Rob…will remind you and all again you can send an email to three senators in question. I did.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:25 am
Amen Anna.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:26 am
And I don’t think any of the bills are worth the paper they are written on and will cause trouble, but those three apparently– according to Marc–are not holding out on ethical grounds as Kucinich did, but on selfish grounds. So they need to be slapped upside the head by as many people as possible. To blatantly use as excuse for not voting as a Democrat because they worry they won’t get elected is bullshit.
If 60% of the country wants healthcare then they have an obligation to bend to the will of the people and their conscious– if they have one.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:27 am
Conscience, rather. Sheesh.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:29 am
Supposed latest on how those three will vote for the moment:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/21/senate.health.bill.expect/index.html
November 21st, 2009 at 11:43 am
Jenny on the Spot.
Thanks.
November 21st, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I think you’ve got it exactly right, David. This is a long haul and we can’t afford to just walk away with our feelings hurt…
November 21st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Looks like we got 60 anyway: http://bit.ly/6gqhmr
November 21st, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Hilarious:
Unhappy fans of Sarah Palin went rogue on the Alaska Republican during her book tour stop in Noblesville, Indiana on Thursday.
The local Borders outlet had handed out 1,000 wristbands to book purchasers; the wristbands were supposed to procure fans Palin’s signature on their hardback copies of “Going Rogue.” But several dozen people who had been promised signatures were turned away empty-handed after waiting hours in poor weather, a local news outlet, the Indy Channel, reported.
“We gave up our entire workday, stayed in the cold, my kids were crying,” one man was quoted saying. “They went home with my wife. She was out here in the freezing cold all day. I feel like I don’t want to support Sarah.”
Another woman told Indy Channel, “We bought two books from Borders to have our receipt and our wristband to get it signed tonight. My books are going back to Borders tomorrow.”
The angry crowd turned on Palin as she returned to her “Going Rogue” tour bus. Video below shows people booing and shouting at the bus, and shouting “Sign our books Sarah!” as the engine revved up and Palin departed.
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:18 am
“Looks like we got our 60…”
But Lieberman was on morning talk demagoging and lying about the public option. This little narcissist – at least – is going to vote against his constituents, vote against his promises when he was re-elected and force at least 55 other senators to give him a public BJ just to pass an inadequate health care reform. Even Ben Nelson wasn’t quite as bad, although he’s another schmuck. At least he has the excuse of running in Nebraska. Lieberman has none, other than his indecency and his ego. Call Tiny Little Joe’s office and pledge to help fundraIse for anyone who runs against him. This has got to be Joe’s last term.
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:37 am
not to change the subject, but there have been building occupations across the UC over the last couple of days against the 32% fee increase.
There’s some nasty video of deputies threatening students at Cal with rubber bullets at range of three feet, *across a barricade*, and at least one Cal student actually was actually shot with some kind of nonlethal round. Another had several fingers broken with a nightstick for resting her hand on a barricade.
Some of the Regents are vulnerable to boycotts or constituent protests. Karen Bass voted for it, Richard Blum, who lives off government contracts with the help of his wife Sen Feinstein, tore his snout away from the tax trough long enough to cut off education for middle class students. $540,000 UC President Mark Yudof voted for it too-reallly shockingly unethical.
Marc, you like Jerry Brown so much, ask him where the fuck he was when the state gov tore down undergraduate education *at his alma mater* and sent the police to attack students who protested. If he deserved our votes, he’d have been standing between the cops and the students, maybe taken one of those rubber bullets.
Access to state univerities is not even a left-right issue, it’s an issue of whether we want to be a developed or a third-world economy.
November 22nd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
reg Says:
November 21st, 2009 at 10:34 am
Pablo – what have you got ? Nader ? I’m impressed. The “pristine” left that refuses to engage in politics and satisfies itself with symbolic gestures is worse than useless. You’re narcissists. Pathetic
——————–
Reg proffers a premise and then runs with it.
Silly man.
Reg: ask youself next time you log into the WWW, ‘is everyone here is cyberland a citizen?”
-or-
‘Is the world required to accept the center-right (which passes for leftist in the american polity) to which the Dems have devolved?’
-or-
‘How does the Obama policy towards the Honduran coup differ from that of previous regimes?”
Reg: The “narcissists. Pathetic” are the self-absorbed… the tourist(s) abroad who think if they raise the volume of their anglophone dicta mere inches from an iberian nose, that the words will sink-in and be well understood.
Perhaps if I had a Peace Corps teacher I would understand that enlightenment whereby to “engage in politics and satisfy myself” requires that I accept what passes for progressivism in the USA.
It is the majority view among americans that the ‘neighbors to the South’ are a “pathetic” lot; agree Reg.
Sorry I couldn’t fit your preconceptions; or maybe I do.
November 22nd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
BTW, I do like Mr Nader. I heard him speak on the University of Guadalajara radio station about two weeks ago. He has a new book.
I think that if Mr Gore had stepped aside in 2000, americans would have elected a true reformist…
Instead you got black hooded, bare chested men who transport those they they see in themselves and fear … to far away lands; where they practice the techniques of Torquemada learned at Ft Benning.
You distinguish yourself from them Reg, but you don’t condemn them….they live next door to you and they play golf.
November 22nd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
“I think that if Mr Gore had stepped aside in 2000, americans would have elected a true reformist…”
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read today. Either you’re a 19-yo deer-in-the-headlights college student, or you have zero understanding of how politics work in a country like the U.S. Oh, a “true reformist”! WTF are you talking about? Nevermind–don’t answer.
November 22nd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Samuel Says:
November 22nd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
“I think that if Mr Gore had stepped aside in 2000, americans would have elected a true reformist…”
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read today. Either you’re a 19-yo deer-in-the-headlights college student, or you have zero understanding of how politics work in a country like the U.S. Oh, a “true reformist”! WTF are you talking about? Nevermind–don’t answer.
———————–
Samuel doesn’t do irony.
Mr Gore reminds me of a guy who hit the state lottery and failed to claim the prize.
Samuel reminds me of a guest at the Thanksgiving table who kept raving about the peas.
November 22nd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
You also demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of “irony”. Again, you have company with the majority of the undergraduate population.
November 22nd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Samuel:
You don’t do irony and couldn’t possibly do history..even of your own country.
You quoted me: ““I think that if Mr Gore had stepped aside in 2000, americans would have elected a true reformist…”
Here is the irony:
Mr Bush (the lesser) ran in 2000 as a ‘reformer who gets resuts’.
Mr Bush contested the election in 2000 but Bush had a million less votes than Mr Gore; and as it turns out Bush had less votes in Florida as well.
Mr Bush was ( in essence) appointed President by the Supreme Court in a plurality decision voted along ideological lines.
Had Mr Gore stepped aside before the Nov 3rd then either Mr Bush or Mr Nadar would have been elected.
Bush as a self-styled “reformer’ or Nader as an ‘outsider’.
That’s the irony.. but that can’t prevent your displayed emotional resonse; a paucity of erudition which confuses in some gossamer evenicient fashion, training with education emblematic in a television culture.
November 22nd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
…like yours.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
“then either Mr Bush or Mr Nadar would have been elected”
If you think the latter was within the realm of the possible in this country, then or now, then really there’s nothing else to say to you: you inhabit a fairytale land in your imagination. I’d rather not join you, thanks.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Now you are beginning to get over that irony deficiency…
how are the peas?
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Samuel Says:
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
“then either Mr Bush or Mr Nadar would have been elected”
If you think the latter was within the realm of the possible in this country, then or now, then really there’s nothing else to say to you: you inhabit a fairytale land in your imagination. I’d rather not join you, thanks
———————————–
Some Americans can’t get out of their own way…
I’ll play it again, Sam
Mr Bush wasn’t elected in 2000 but he took office… and you prattle on about semantics..
If Gore dropped out either Mr Bush or Mr Nader would have been ELECTED.
November 22nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Pablo – don’t post about the US’s Democratic Party and expect me to discuss the strategy of the Swedish Socialists or Lula’s prospects in Brazil. So you can shove the tone of your response where it belongs…
Your further comments pretty much confirm what I think about the relevance of your “analysis” to politics up here.
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Hey, Pablo, there’s this really awesome group called ANSWER that I think you’d find really fits your radical style. I think they have some plans with North Korea to finally wipe out the American Empire once and for all. Ask Sergio about it–he’s got all the juicy details.
November 22nd, 2009 at 6:04 pm
So this is what it comes down to- one must either be a lockstep apologist for the Democratic Party, or, be in league with the North Korean regime? That’s treading Glen Beck territory.
November 22nd, 2009 at 6:51 pm
North Korea is imperialism’s baby.
The Democratic party also bred the geriatric imperial sycophants who serial post on Marc’s blog,
November 22nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Right on cue!
November 22nd, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Thanks BillAnthony..in every country one finds the apparatchicks towing the party line.,.. the soviet in the Dem party can’t seem to explain away that most of the registered are to the left of the party.
I happened to be at a Dem fundraiser yesterday afternoon in Palm Springs held at the Neutra-designed Kauffman house. The current mayor of Palm Springs is running for the House.
As he mingled I must have heard him say to critics to his left at least a dozen times that “pepple don’t remember what it was like back on Jan 20th” when asked why the party has abandoned the people.
When he addressed us he raised butv two issues: he’s married gay and the administration should have repudiated don’task, don’t tell and he’s sworn to bringing green jobs to his district.
The bailouts of the financial institutions should make it clear to most that the Party isn’t beholden to people.
So to the Regs and Samuels who apologize to a planet that this is as good as it gets, I see those who are RDAD (Republicans dressed as Dems (or cross-dressed)). There are the limo-libs from the 70′s who assuage their guilt derived from living off the backs of an exploited world.
They’ll take modest reforms because they want the benefits of Empire. The History Channel (all Hitler all the time) distinguishes them from the sitcom set; insular, inward and predictable: folding the laundry while before the wife returns from the mall.
November 22nd, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Sergio: Thanks as well.. one sees in MGM Technicolor the narrow band of discourse in the american system.
Armchair Francoistas mouthing the rhetoric of the izquierdos. The same-same since invading Mexico to steal Alta-California and wilfully ignorant of the rape comitted in the haughty name of manifest destiny.
Why would the slave states accept the terms of the 1850 Compromise which would ultimatly end chattel slavery in the old South?
(ans. Because manifest destiny was to make a left turn and head South).
The Ford Explorer does look a bit like a covered wagon, no?
November 22nd, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Samuel Says:
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Hey, Pablo, there’s this really awesome group called ANSWER that I think you’d find really fits your radical style. I think they have some plans with North Korea to finally wipe out the American Empire once and for all. Ask Sergio about it–he’s got all the juicy details.
——————————
National health and a demobbed army is the stuff of Mao now?
Aren’t you missing 60 minutes?
November 22nd, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Now that Pablo and Bill Anthony are here I don’t feel so lonely.
I’ve been kicking reg, rob, bob, randy paul, marc and Crosby in the shins repeatedly for their apologist stance for the past year or two.
This is a forum where those who claim to be progressives just like to whine about how disappointed they are and then THEY kick in the teeth anyone who suggests a Nader or Kucinich are actually the type they are whining and pining for…then one is told one is a some sort of fascist/purist. One lives in a fantasy world…its rabbit hole time.
The health care debate is a perfect example of how in the world according to those I named above one must capitulate to worthless, costly, destructive practices in order to “progress”.
Madness.
November 22nd, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Anna:
I’ve read some of your stuff here and I must say that your thoughts are what Pablo Neurda must meant as he penned “Let the Woodcutter Awaken” from CANTO GENERAL (arguably the best lit piece from the 20th Century)
Your nemesii here are materialists since the first eight-track they had installed in the chevy back in high school.
Buddha or Jesus are found at the South Coast Plaza…
Madness is Hillary Clinton siding with the coup against Zayala. After all, the donkey-card carriers want to shop too, alongside their torture loving neighbors to the right who swear that if they didn’t shock the genitals a dirty bomb would detonate at the airport. You know, SNL barbed him for three weeks so shouldn’t we leave Glen Beck alone now?
November 22nd, 2009 at 8:13 pm
I’ve been kicking reg, rob, bob, randy paul, marc and Crosby in the shins repeatedly for their apologist stance for the past year or two.
Anna,
I have never made mention of Nader or Kucinich. I’ve only accused you of having an exceptionally ugly tone that persuades few and alienates more.
As you vent your raging id at me and others, I’ll gladly respond with substance and reason.
The only difference between you and the teabaggers is your political point of view. In terms of tone, rage arrogance and bile, you’re just the other side of the same coin.
November 22nd, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Sergio:
Much thanks again. Pls do fill me in on the juicy details regarding the ANSWER Coalition and North Korea axis of justice plan to eliminate the Empire of its pornstars.
(and Samuel accuses me of lacking a PhD).
It’s really too scary… Roberto Bolano’s posthumous novel “Nazi Literature in the Americas” had these two pegged.
Samuel: Which Lexus do you dive?
November 22nd, 2009 at 8:29 pm
errata:
two choices here…’ Lexus’ becomes Speedo or
‘dive’ becomes drive.
November 22nd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Randy Paul makes the following observation regarding Anna Churchill:
“The only difference between you and the teabaggers is your political point of view. ”
——————–
That and fifty more IQ points
November 22nd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
“Anna: I’ve read some of your stuff here and I must say that your thoughts are what Pablo Neurda must meant as he penned “Let the Woodcutter Awaken” from CANTO GENERAL (arguably the best lit piece from the 20th Century)”
LOL! I hope this dude sticks around. Marc, you’re not playing a trick on us, are you?
Let Pablo come with his mouse
and his sturdy keyboard
to clack with the blog commenters.
Let Anna go shopping on Amazon,
let her buy a flight on Orbitz to Tampa,
let her review new products from Apple,
let her order from Netflix, let her chat
with all the common people.
November 22nd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
No I didn’t invent Pablo. But having spent all of my adult life around the American Left his pathology is rather common. He’s also about two comments away from Cyber-Siberia.
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
All we need is love.
…and health insurance.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:39 am
Pablo seems to be joining Ann in fetishizing opposition.
Really, that seems like the basic breakdown to me–there is some sort of psycho-emotional satisfaction in opposition that can never be satsified by pragmatics. In fact, it’s probably deeply threatened by pragmatic action, and compromise, that’s why the charges of faux-progressivism and geriatrics (good one!) get thrown about. Can’t recognize political realities, or diversity of opinion, without having their own worldview subverted, and so all compromise is tainted and stinky, and only endorsed by old apologists for empire with holes in their socks.
I mean, yawn man. It’s only really obnoxious when it’s wedded to self-hagiography like Anna’s or psuedo-play-time-intellectualism like Pablo’s. I mean really, is this self-inflating howler needed?: “a paucity of erudition which confuses in some gossamer evenicient fashion” Sorry if I sound like a dick, but I’m just matching dickness to your smugness, which seems like a fair trade to me.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:50 am
That and fifty more IQ points
So Anna’s IQ is 80?
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:45 am
You guys are a hoot. You are in total denial of what you think and write.
You whine about about everything and love to hear yourselves pink the lint out of your navels as you go on endlessly in mindless detail about the unending stream of political stupidities. But should someone actually say or do something dynamic, sane, ethical you all har har and photo shop tin foil hats on them.
Its you who are the Left’s Tea Baggers.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:46 am
That should be “pick” the lint. But ‘pink the lint’ is sorta cute.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:06 am
Dan what is your problem? You knock Pablo because he’s smarter than you?
You claim ” erudition”. When? Where?
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
haha, Anna you’re priceless.
I could write a book about your lack of self-knowledge, but I’ll leave that one alone.
I have no idea if Pablo is smarter than me. He may very well be. But I do at least know that he has a bloated writing style that is usually the sign of a towering ego unable to keep itself tied down, but hey, I don’t know the guy.
As for my problem, I think I said it quite clearly in my last post: you can’t stop tooting your own horn, which is extremely tiresome (and you’re endlessly rude to anyone who doesn’t agree with you), and Pablo has a smugness problem. Furthermore, sorry to repeat for the cheap seats, while I think radicals play a very important role in political discourse, I become sick to the point of puking at their having their outsider position as the only thing to offer. When the real political work needs to get done all they do is spit and stamp thier feet. Let me let you in on a secret. Kucinich and Nader, your favorites, are not radicals. They are liberals. They have more punch than a lot of liberals–I admire them–but Nader was never going to win the Presidency. Never. There are no circumstances where that was going to happen.
Deal with that, and then tell me how we make policy with the people we have in office right now, today. How do we get a health care bill to pass with the Republicans and the Dems we have right now. Not the ones you wish we had, but the ones we actually have.
That right there, is my problem. And its’ a big one, because in your view, there is no answer. You want to hold your breath and demand single-payer or nothing, or along with the ankle-biter Sergio and make mocking remarks of the people who are trying to get this shit done.
You want to submarine healt reform because it’s not pure enough? Ok, fine by me. I have health insurance. Really awesome health insurance. So screw ‘em.
Unless of course I lose my job. Or I have something the company decides not to cover, or they say I have a pre-existing condition. There is actually an attempt to fix those things, Iand I would finally submit that the morally dubious position is your’s, Anna, because, as Grayson points out, you, through your recalcitrance are condemning 45,000 Americans to die next year due to lack of coverage.
So take that and put it in your pipe. I hope you can sleep at night. You’ve got your imaginary ramparts, while someone actually tries to get this thing done. It really is somethign or nothing. D I wish we had single payer? Sure I do. Do I think we’re going to get it now? Nope…not a chance in hell. Am I willing ot let people die while we wait? No. Are you?
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Anna, I want to take back at least one thing I said about your ideological approach to politics. You do have at least some democratic bone in your body. You called three teetering Dem senators to support the vote to continue debate on the Reid bill. Kudos. However, I am curious how you harmonize that position with your passionate support for Dennis Kucinich’s “no” vote on the probably better House bill.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I already addressed that issue, Michael. Kucinich’s no was justified and based on a long history of fighting for the right things and refusing to take crap. The other 3 were using their votes as weapons and for self serving purposes rather than as something entrusted to them as public servants.
What do you think my “ideological approach” is?
Settling for crap and crumbs and then rationalizing it because one then supposes the lowest common denominator only can handle crap and crumbs is an “ideological approach” that has blood all over it.
Lots of misrepresentation about the Civil Rights movement claiming crap and crumbs were the way to gaining ground. Bullshit. People fought bitterly for every inch gained. It wasnt a matter of ACCEPTING crap in the interests of future gains. It was that the steps taken were FOUGHT for. Big difference.
Now the so called progressives are the biggest hinderance to change in this country. Always carping, harping, whining and snickering about and how the fringe Right are irrelevant while playing Judas to every Kucinich, Nader or anyone who has the guts to say and do the right thing.
I find it revolting.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Oh Dan, you are rich in your smug little man hoots. No one is more smug and arrogant than you.
You are attacking Pablo because he disagrees with you as I do and then you attack the “tone”.
There is no “tone” other than a disagreement about your rationalizing accepting shit when there is no need to accept it except then you wouldnt have anything to whine about if something actually changed for the better.
I have repeatedly asked those of you who are defending the crap bill to look at the very serious criticisms of the bill that say it is dangerous; will cause premiums to rise and is going to strip Medicare etc etc etc. None have you have looked at the very serious allegations about how dangerous these versions of the vill are and what the implications are. You are just lost in a miasma of liberal horseshit.
There are reasons PROGRESSIVES are against the bill. From all I have read its NOT a better than nothing proposition. If it were I would be for it. Its not going to cover much of anything and no one even understands yet WHAT COVERAGE will cost and what it will cover.
when you can come back to me with an intelligent discussion demonstrating you actually understand the ramifications of these bills you let me know.
It would be nice if just once one of you guys actually shot your mouths off after reading what someone writes FIRST. You make sweeping generalizations and accusations about what people write clearly demonstrating either you don’t read what anyone writes or you are obtuse, rude and stupid.
Here is the challenge for you smarty pants:
What would someone pay for coverage who is self employed?
What would the coverage entail?
What if someone couldnt afford over $150 a month in premiums and has expensive medication requirements. How would that be covered?
THen there are a host of other issues raised by critics that suggest this is going to be a disaster down the pike.
And then is this cover more than just second rate stuff like a lot of social service cover where you dont have a doctor who pays any attention and one is sent willy nilly waiting too long to see a specialist?
I have had the privilege of living where i had access to universal coverage. I KNOW what I am screaming about when I say settling for less is bullshit
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
And you better hope the warnings about Medicare getting tampered with aren’t going to be true.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I’ll answer your questions when you tell me about how to get single-payer passed.
As for tone….well, I’ve never called anyone a cunt or a twat around here, and that’s just for starters. You are without a doubt the most boorish person who participates here.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Oh spare me your Christian values, Danny.
Single payer will be passed when twats like you take the trouble to use the advantages the internet has leveraged for on behalf of the democratic process. You know…you can log onto any elected officials website and instantly send an email or even to be more immediate a FAX. You can even CALL. Gee. They log all calls and one usually has about 3 different offices to call.
Its people like you who fracture the advantages of immediately being able to protest or harrangue an elected official by using all sorts of rationales as why not to bother.
Progressives could have so easily launched a campaign to to create a deluge of emails, calls and faxes…something that everyone can do from home at virtually no cost. But they didn’t because of twats who go off on why there is no point demanding what should be granted and rather waste time and space jerking off about why we can’t have a good health care bill rather than why we must.
Carry on…hell WILL eventually freeze over and we may just get change after you and your ilk have exhausted yourselves stonewalling progress.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
By the way…I consider one who refuses to actually read what someone writes and then misrepresents that person’s intentions then insults them with accusations as to their “tone”.
So I hope my calling you a twat, directly, at least now saves you the face of having to be a contortionist with other people’s words.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
forgot to add “a boor” after ‘tone’.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Still waiting for you or someone else to refute the criticisms of the bill other than to say its better than nothing…when the criticisms outline WHY its NOT better than nothing.
Waiting….tap tap tap tap
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
By the way: isnt the ‘Right wing Democrats” an oxymoron?
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
No one ever says ‘Left wing Republicans’. One says ‘moderate’ meaning they may not be social fascists but only fiscal fascists.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
It’s great to see Sergio’s smarter twin putting his “this is as good as it gets” POV into other people’s mouths – this is devolving into pure comedy.
“they live next door to you and they play golf.” The tattooed kids in the punk band or the dozens (and dozens) of black families ? Unfortunately none of them play golf – I know because I play golf and never see any of them at the public links. Maybe they secretly belong to country clubs.
You’re so ignorant and full of glib shit, I sort of enjoy your stuff for it’s sheer humor and cluelessness. The arrogance is a bit hard to take, but I assume you enjoy sending missives from Palm Springs fundraisers condemning “limousine liberals” in West Oakland.
Christ, you’re an asshole but not as boring as Woody. Also RailSplitter is the product of Neruda’s irrepressible inner hack – but not as embarrassing as Pablo’s ode to Stalin or saludo a Batista.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I don’t mind Pablo’s tone, incidentally, so much as the vapidity.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
“Am I willing ot let people die while we wait? No.”
Well I guess Dan-O is willing to wait 3 years until one of these plans kicks in- of course that’s just another compromise. No matter what happens, another 135,000 people will die. After 2013, if a bill passes, it’s anybody’s guess…
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:18 pm
OK Anna, maybe I’m too dumb to get this, but if the Reid bill is so bad, then why did you contact the 3 teetering senators urging them to support it (or “reform” or whatever you wrote)?
Btw, most of the questions you challenge “us” with are not answerable. (How much “self-employed” will pay depends on age, dependents.) One is, however: premium payments will be limited to 10% of income.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Btw, Anna, a lot of people including myself who believe that a compromise health care bill is worth supporting did, indeed, lobby for a stronger, more comprehensive bill. But for a whole lot of reasons, many of the stronger provisions did not gain support. And, Kylie, I really don’t like the idea of waiting for 2013 for some of the most significant aspects of the bill to kick in, but it is better than waiting from 1994 to 2008, which is what happened when nothing got passed the last time a major reform bill was before a Democratic Congress with a Democratic president.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
So Kiley – would we be better off if the bill didn’t pass. My understanding is that people with pre-existing conditions get more protection right away. I could write extensively on what’s wrong with the bill. That’s the easy part – the difficult part is parsing the politics and figuring out how the more progressive Dems can get maximum leverage without merely playing spoiler and holding their breath because they didn’t get what they wanted.
To a large extent, this is a ridiculous discussion at the margins. I’m interested in what Bernie Sanders, Boxer, and the like are trying to do. I’m interested in Bob Reich’s POV and suggestions as to how best proceed. He’s critical, he’s pissed, he’s got suggestions about pushing the public option forward – but he’s not taking his marbles off the table and retreating to his armchair to find satisfaction in…uh…Pablo Nerida. Not in this lifetime. Lefties parachuting in and making the obvious point that the bill is weak, the Dems are bound by crippling contradictions and the legislative process sucks are wasting…uh…their own time more than ours. I’ve known about the agonies of the Democratic Party since before 8-track cartridges (although not before Chevies.) My moment of “Oh shit!” dates back to the 1964 Atlantic City convention when LBJ and Hubert Humphrey refused to seat the entire Mississippi Freedom Democratic delegation. None of this is new, but no strategy that simply wrote liberals, registered Democrats, Democratic primary challenges and critical association with the Party off as too contaminated for “authentic” Leftists to stomach has yielded any more effective results. Pressure from outside is all well and good when it actually exists as something more than figments of imagination, as it did during the civil right movement and when the anti-Vietnam war protests were mass activities – but at some point electoral politics have to be part of the strategy and the Democratic Party owns the (admittedly lame) leftward side of the board in our clumsy system. The Vietnam protests largely lost sight of that until it was too late. The real question – almost always – is can a party have some coherence and unity on key issues and maintain credibility with the actual, electoral center, whether we like that fact or not. Everything else is hot air.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:46 am
Anna,
I have a lot of problems, as I have said earlier, about both major proposals coming out of the House and Senate respectively. I tend to lean more to your side, usually, than I do with others on here with respect to health care. However, if this bill does indeed compel the system to make some reforms, this can save lives, and make things better for those with health problems, and sizable health care bills, like me. As the system stands today, with costs rising steeply each year, a lifetime benefit cap of three, four, even five millions dollars is not going to last a relatively young person like me for a span of the next 30 years. Both bills attempt to put in place important regulations on the insurance industry. There may not be very much difference between the two major parties where health care reform is concerned, but, as Noam Chomsky ironically stated a few years ago, these small differences between the two parties can mean the difference in whether hundreds of thousands of people die or live. It is something that you should think about.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:50 am
And had I read Reg’s much better prior post at 5:28 pm, before posting at 5:46 am, then I probably would not have opened my mouth. Reg pretty much sums it up.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:01 am
Am reading further upward (I don’t know why, but I read these strings backward), and I do have to concede, Anna, your point that that the left has not organized effectively in favor of reform.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
“So Kiley – would we be better off if the bill didn’t pass.”
At the moment, IMHO, it’s a 50-50 proposition if things will be better. I say that because I don’t have confidence or trust in the Democratic Party to do what’s right for the American people and given the complexity of a 2,000 page bill that’s ripe with loopholes for the insurance industry with a never-ending bickering on language. Given this, how can you be sure that people with pre-existing conditions could get more protection right away? You praised Reich for not “taking his marbles off the table” for the public option and I agree with that. But that’s exactly what Obama did- crippling contradictions indeed. The people paying attention see that and especially independent voters that seems to be slipping away by some poles. The Party needs to build trust with the American people, but by endlessly offering up concession after concession they end up not standing for anything the people can hold on to, to vote for. On compromising, how far should that go? No public option? Yes on the Stupak amendment? And when 100s of amendments are offered up by the Republicans in the Senate just to eviscerate what’s left of its half dead carcass, should we find “middle ground” there too? I’ve always been a political pragmatist, but my patience is wearing very thin… while it seems every few days I get mail from the Party pleading for more money.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Sorry, David, only just checked in on this thread.
I am well aware of the point that a bill that may be shit may also save lives. If it does then its the right thing to do. My point has NEVER been to say all or nothing…but that a bill that will wreak havoc in the many ways one reads that it might may be that it is worse than nothing as many are saying.
I think until we can actually understand the ramifications and and its real world applications rather than hollow wishful speculation that something is better than nothing without even understanding what that something is …is a very naive and dangerous way to argue a point.
The insurance industry is about to get another huge pound of flesh bought by Ben Nelson’s vote. Its totally puke making.
I want to know just exactly what will happen with Medicare and just who qualifies for cover and at what cost and what level of cover will be given. If someone can answer those questions we might have something to discuss. So far everyone refuses to deal with the reality of what the bill means. Its amazing…
November 24th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
“reg “is a frightened old loser.
Every day senility settles in closer, thankfully.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:14 am
That makes sense, Anna. In fact I just noticed in prior threads that you, like me, have been working the phones to congress people. I stand corrected. Thanks for your efforts, and everybody’s efforts to get change!
November 25th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Anna, you might want to read this as counterpoint to your endless assertion that the bill is a giant sell-out. Seems like a sizable number of people who do this for a living don’t agree: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/a_milestone_in_the_health_care_journey.php
June 8th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Hi,this is really a beautiful jeans,I like the classic socks.