Evidently the “land fit for heroes” ideas just doesn’t fly in America. It’s always been about building a land fit for rich white men.

And when you’re living in Americaaaaa at the end of the millenniummmmm, you’re what you owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn.

This is part of the problem of being in charge, all the way back to the Boston Tea Party: nobody holds a Tea Party to celebrate a victory. So when you vote for health care, your supporters won’t freak the fuck out with joy, but plenty of opposition will freak the fuck out with rage.

Throw in a little FreedomWorks money, and you get a “movement” that will scare off candy-ass moderates in the party.

You can take an unpopular vote in favor of health care reform and tell your constituents that you voted your conscience…

Is is actually true that they’re catching shit for voting for reform? I called my Blue Dog rep up and gave his staffer a (relatively polite) earful for voting against it.

So, is it true, or is it just Villager narrative that everybody hates reform?

No, no, no. The longer Democrats focus on process, linger over settled debates, and provide time for Centrists to fondle their own taints, the more reasonable and electable Democrats will appear to Politico and Kaplan Daily. This is surely the way to win in the Heartland, that place with all the values and stuff.

So, is it true, or is it just Villager narrative that everybody hates reform?

I think people generally do hate health care reform. They hate the Cadillac tax and they’re scared by the proposed Medicare cuts. The Dems listened to the Village when they decided how to pay for this thing and the result is they pissed off the elderly and union members. Freaking stupid, and also why the GOP is actually a much smarter party (i.e., because they ignore the Village).

That said, the bill will do a lot of good and is still worth passing. The Democrats need to stop being losers and get it done.

Sorry, pal, the reason it’s probably going to be a tough vote in the House isn’t because of people like you who are evidently a-skeered of the willfully toothless, it’s because Progressive members (the House’s largest voting bloc, incidentally) are being asked to give up things that they explicitly campaigned on in order to sign off on the House of Lords’ weaksauce.

Brad,

There are very good basic economic reasons why we have to have a public option.

So, is it true, or is it just Villager narrative that everybody hates reform?

That depends.

If you take each line item in the bill and ask the average American, they all want it. They want universal coverage, they want a public option, they don’t even mind the incremental tax on the uberrich.

But the second you put them all in one massive bill, then it’s suddenly as if the entire Village got stupid drunk.

Can our government be competent? Can our government be honest? Can our government be decent and open?

Jimmy Carter Says Yes

From that perspective, Brad, HCR is to Democrats what Roe v. Wade is to Republicans: a way to get their base to “come on out and vote!” yet they fear that if they actually do what they promised to do their base won’t show up for subsequent elections.

So the meat is repackaged, seasoned and put in the freezer until it’s needed again…

If you take each line item in the bill and ask the average American, they all want it. They want universal coverage, they want a public option, they don’t even mind the incremental tax on the uberrich.

Same thing with just about any vaugely-Left policy; hide the name and people love it.

I have no idea how we do it, but the fucking Teabaggers and the Republican/conservative axis in general have a lot to answer for.

If you take each line item in the bill and ask the average American, they all want it.

To be precise, the idea to fine people who fail to buy insurance is not popular (a public option would surely deal with this…). But everything else is popular, much of it very popular.

Ps. Thank you, whoever you are, for unbanning me. I have my life back finally, and maybe the goddamned batman will also, which would be goddamned awesome. Also.

HCR is to Democrats what Roe v. Wade is to Republicans: a way to get their base to “come on out and vote!”

I disagree. Democrats could come up with a zillion other issues just as deep that they could use to trigger the electorate, like global warming (which frankly has the added advantage of having such a long time frame and such incremental progress in fighting it that it could last for a century and the narrative wouldn’t change much).

Republicans are fighting a rear-guard action with abortion, which allows them to take a truly militant stance on it, and any compromise would be unacceptable. On healthcare, we’d accept an increment, because we could just keep fighting for more.

Same thing with just about any vaugely-Left policy; hide the name and people love it.

The Republicans play on fear. We appeal to the better angels of human nature.

Unfortunately, fear is a stronger emotion.

A public health insurance option polls well, what’s the matter with the damn Democrats? This messed up situation is just another vestige of mid 20th Century Jim Crow bullshit that haunts us to this day.

I think people generally do hate health care reform.

Give it 15 bazillion hours or so of airtime being constantly filtered through the delusional craw of Punditosaurus, not to mention its genetically-deficient cousin Shockjockodon, & I think people would come to hate multiple orgasms.

I wonder how poorly it polls against things like bankruptcy or preventable death?

Since the Democrats are going to have to force any HCR through, why not just force through the public option? And have it take effect starting in 2011. If they would just open up Medicare to anyone who wanted to join, it would solve the healthcare problem AND help Medicare. With all of the new younger customers paying premiums, Medicare could raise their reimbursement rate to match private insurance. It would be easy to do and easy for people to understand.

Since the Democrats are going to have to force any HCR through, why not just force through the public option?

I have no idea. I think in a lot of cases, many centrist Dems just flat-out oppose the public option, whether it’s for genuine philosophical reasons or because of insurance lobbyist cash.

We could listen to the people who benefit from Selective Health Care; such as politicians and their insurance lobbyist golfing buddies; or we could listen to someone who has so much money he doesn’t have to listen to anyone.

Brad,

That’s true, but that’s more true in the Senate, where we’d still pull more than fifty votes (you lose Nelson (who loses his little goodybasket for Nebraska), Lincoln, and the other idiot from Insuranceville) than in the House, where it shouldn’t be that hard to find 217 Democrats who Pelosi can whip into line.

Unfortunately, fear is a stronger emotion.

I prefer malaise.

On healthcare, we’d accept an increment, because we could just keep fighting for more.

Yeah, we the base would. Not them (the elected officials).

Progressives and those who actually think proper care is a right and not a privilege? Sure; they want reform and they’re the ones working to put the Public Option back in (actually they’re the one crying for Single Payer, but whatever). But the rest are career politicians and regardless or what the polls says they think the only way they can stay in office is by not causing any big waves.

They’re a bunch of Peter Gibbons(es?)…they’re only doing enough not to get fired. They know a POS HC Plan well work just as well as a robust one.

I prefer malaise.

I’m only allowed the light malaise on my sandwiches.

Well, that didn’t take long… Pat Robertson to Chile: “It’s God’s punishment.”

They know a POS HC Plan well (sic) work just as well as a robust one.

The very idea that we should pass a POS plan is a POS idea. It boggles my mind that we spend almost double what other countries pay per capita on health care whilst receiving less-quality care but the Right complains about Gov’t Spending. If the Right is so bent on reducing the size of gov’t spending, they would jump all over this HC reform bandwagon. But noooooo they have Gov’t Provided Health Care why should someone else?

Obama, Pelosi, etc. should be screaming the fact that Senators and Congresspeople receive health care through the gov’t.

Hey, just because as a Democrat your electorate may support your vote for HCR and it actually may be popular policy-making, that’s no reason to not give into the TeaTards and cross your fingers and hope that suddenly Republicans may like you and vote for you.

After all, there’s money to be made in health industry and pharma donations, on future corporate boards and hack think tank positions.

I’m only allowed the light malaise on my sandwiches.

LolorZ. Doesn’t that shrink one’s….conscience?

The linked article links this bit from POLITICO.

Despite his willingness to reconsider, Altmire hasn’t heard from either the White House or his own leadership.

Oh. So what are those guys doing instead?

The White House did reach out Friday to Coburn’s office, according to the Oklahoma Republican’s spokesman…

AWESOME. Remind me again how none of this is Obama’s fault and the Administration has no role in shaping the debate.

Hey remember how Lieberman torpedoed the Public Option/Medicare Buy-In last year? After all that work by Dem leadership to broker some sort of deal – primarily because he’s a pissy little jerkwad acting out of spite. Remember that? Well it’s nice to see that those types of selfish antics at the expense of the party has really bitten him in the ass. I mean not only does he have to put in all those extra hours for the Committee assignments and Chairs he forced to keep but now they have him sponsoring and introducing high profile planks of the party’s platform.

I’m still against this garbage Senate Bill, but I’m resigned now. I think they should pass the stupid thing before the next round of negotiations mandates a border fence and a massive cut in the marginal tax rate.

Obama, Pelosi, etc. should be screaming the fact that Senators and Congresspeople receive health care through the gov’t.

Particularly the fact that Teabag-freindly R’s are getting it as well while screaming about the total incompetence of government doing anything (except, of course, killing brown people).

Emotion, not Reason, rules the day in 21st Century America.

Did we go through the Renaissance, Enlightenment ages already? Are we back at square one where the rich and powerful are propped up by the morons of the world?

FSM, help us.

I often wonder when the tide is turning against a certain political movement, say like in 2005-2006 – and one is a sociopath who wants more power, what do you do?

I think (not being a sociopath it’s hard to be sure) that you hitch your rope to the boat on the rising tide, even if their announced beliefs are not to your taste as a sociopath. You’d rather be with the party of “me me me fuck you!” but they’re about to get booted out of office, so you go with the “let’s help everyone get a better deal” party though you have no actual desire to help anyone but yourself.

This is how I think the Democrats get so many obviously amoral people gumming up the works when they attain power. In past liberal eras like the New Deal and Great Society, I think the margins were just big enough that the occasional sociopath didn’t matter. In a 60/59 vote Senate. They are able to block progress.

Same thing with just about any vaugely-Left policy; hide the name and people love it.

Yep. I used to browse PollingReport.com and weep. Even a baldly-stated (and arguably false) choice between environmental protection and economic growth has, until the past couple years, attracted a strong majority in favor of the environment.

The exceptions include same-sex marriage (which is gradually moving), and more frighteningly, torture. Public support of torture seems to demonstrate the power of the media to take the disgustingly unconscionable and make it status quo. Health care, vice versa.

Particularly the fact that Teabag-freindly R’s are getting it as well while screaming about the total incompetence of government doing anything (except, of course, killing brown people).

Exactly, the gov’t is great at taking out people we don’t like with drones, the gov’t is also great at putting people into space and bringing them down safely, the gov’t is also great at hurricane rescues uh, keeping track of drug use in baseball players uh, i guess they are only good and not doing anything worth while; like posturing, mentioning elections and letting people die while they sit in their comfy offices with their cushy publicly funded health care and just wait for reelection before they open their mouths. I’ve figured ’em out!

…Uh oh I see, but don’t hear, a helicopter.

Particularly the fact that Teabag-freindly R’s are getting it as well while screaming about the total incompetence of government doing anything (except, of course, killing brown people).

According to the wingnuts, the military isn’t part of the government:

http://timdr.com/blog/who-do-you-trust-more-big-government-or-the-us-military.html#comments

Lot of this is about us too, peeps. We’ve gotten our asses handed to us again and again in the messaging war. I got some ideas about how to fix this but they ain’t easy.

(Basically it involves implementing a Reagan-style “keep all disputes in-house” approach to the Dem caucus… but I don’t see how the hell that will ever happen.)

According to the wingnuts, the military isn’t part of the government

Fucking EXSQUEESE ME?

WTF is that big fucking funny-shaped building up there in D.C. all about, then?

Tim Doctor’s commenters are comedy gold:

I don’t trust the US Military under Obama. We could get Waco all over again. But instead of a cult being burnt to the ground, it will be a Southern Baptist Church.

yeah the POOR OPPRESSED BAPTISTS, OMFG they are JUST SO OPPRESSED!

Timmy’ s also plus a perfect example of the dumbass Libertarian who’s got a big ol’ stiffy for the military while hating the government and sees nothing wrong with the idea. ’cause “government” is housing projects and medical care and road work and dumbass Commie socialist bullshit like that, while ***THE MILITARY*** is ‘way cool planes and tanks and bombs and real life Tom Clancy video games.

“we could get Waco all over again”
Where a heavily armed cult (Koresh had crew-served machine guns in there, among other things) killed four police when they tried to serve a warrant and somehow it was Janet Reno’s fault that they subsequently came to a bad end? I guess they should have just let them all go, and sang kumbaya, because they were religious tax protesters in addition to being child abusers.
Adn fuck Stack, too. A guy is a hero to this bunch because he happened to be white when he flew his aircraft into an office building. Please tell me the difference between him and the Ft. Hood killer, other than skin color and ideology.

Timmy’ s also plus a perfect example of the dumbass Libertarian who’s got a big ol’ stiffy for the military while hating the government and sees nothing wrong with the idea. ’cause “government” is housing projects and medical care and road work and dumbass Commie socialist bullshit like that, while ***THE MILITARY*** is ‘way cool planes and tanks and bombs and real life Tom Clancy video games.

That blog entry is practically the ne plus ultra of libertarian dissonance.

“Stop being losers.”

Ha! Good one!

from the TPM article on Lieberman’s re-election chances:
“Lieberman’s active campaigning against the Democratic Party last year hasn’t won him too many friends back home. Democrats go for Blumenthal by 83%-9%, and independents are for Blumenthal 55%-29%. Lieberman is the de facto Republican nominee in this match, and with GOP voters he scores 67%-23% over Blumenthal.

Lieberman’s job approval is also at only 45%, with 48% disapproving. Among Democrats that’s a 21%-70% rating, Republicans 75%-20%, while independents give him a narrow approval of 48%-46%.”

So according to Altmire, opposing HCR is an electoral winner for democrats? Lieberman’s constituency is pummeling a formerly popular four-term senator for his opposition to HCR, but you’ll never hear this from the village.

“Lieberman’s constituency is pummeling a formerly popular four-term senator for his opposition to HCR…”

Well, that and also for being a total cobag who give pond scum a bad name.

Brad,

We can’t win doing the right’s patented moves. But there are ways liberals can beat conservatives at messaging. Obama’s Question Period was a great example: Make them talk policy and they just look stupid. They have terrible ideas that get worse the more you understand them.

Our fractuous disunity has disadvanatages, but ultimately it means we don’t march lock-step over cliffs as easily as the right. It’s a tactical disadvantage, but a strategic advantage. No point trying to change it, but recognizing what good it does for us to always have elements of our coalition very publicly pissed off and pissing on us is important to making the most of it.

GIVES, goddam it, GIVES…

A guy is a hero to this bunch because he happened to be white when he flew his aircraft into an office building. Please tell me the difference between him and the Ft. Hood killer, other than skin color and ideology.

The difference is skin colour and ideology. IOKIYA One Of Us

Wait, did you think they needed a principled, internally consistent reason?

A guy is a hero to this bunch because he happened to be white when he flew his aircraft into an office building. Please tell me the difference between him and the Ft. Hood killer, other than skin color and ideology.

Ken Gladney, that’s what.

John Hinderaker goes for such long stretches with a low key style, posting Rasmussen polls and musings about how playing in the snow is fun, you almost get lulled into forgetting that he’s totally insane.

Then he gets mad and reminds everyone that he lives in a Bizarro World where George W. Bush is a genius and science has defeated Darwin in the name of God. Yesterday was another epic of the genre.

Shorter Hindy:

“Who’s Obsessed and Deranged?”

Frank Rich is a hysterical faggot. He hates Sarah Palin precisely because he’s a faggot. There is no such thing as right-wing violence. How dare Frank Rich talk about Joe Stack when Kenneth Gladney? In conclusion, Frank Rich is stupid.

This is a boat that needs to be gotten out of, folks.

This is a boat that needs to be gotten out of, folks

I was actually just reading that article. Note to others, if you’re getting out of the boat, be prepared for weapons-grade stupid. The tiger hiding in that jungle has been reading a lot of Liberal I know your are but what am I Fascism or some other ridiculous nonsense.

Are we back at square one where the rich and powerful are propped up by the morons of the world?

IOKIYAR

SASQ

We can’t win doing the right’s patented moves. But there are ways liberals can beat conservatives at messaging. Obama’s Question Period was a great example: Make them talk policy and they just look stupid. They have terrible ideas that get worse the more you understand them.

But even that doesn’t work, because then the “liberal” media is full of stories about how the Republicans looked So Serious And Well Prepared, and if only the Obama Administration would just work with them instead of ignoring their oh-so-valuable ideas, we could all have unicorns and pots of gold.

(Basically it involves implementing a Reagan-style “keep all disputes in-house” approach to the Dem caucus… but I don’t see how the hell that will ever happen.)

I disagree.

If we ever want to permanently attract “independents”– in quotes, because I think they are independent more because they feel they have no voice in either party– then we have to make sure that disagreements are heard and that dissent is tolerated.

uh, wow, I swear I posted a comment on this thread earlier. This means I get to whip out my first-ever FYWP!.

A guy is a hero to this bunch because he happened to be white when he flew his aircraft into an office building. Please tell me the difference between him and the Ft. Hood killer, other than skin color and ideology.

He hated Bush.

Oh wait. He has that in common…

Well, that and also for being a total cobag who gives pond scum a bad name.

You say like that it’s a bad thing. I see Lieberman as a cautionary tale: the nice witch may be offering you candy the senator may vote with your party some of the time, but it’s a lie and she should be avoided before you get eaten alive have to listen to more of his self-righteous corporatist whining.

“independents”– in quotes, because I think they are independent more because they feel they have no voice in either party

Meh, I think independents are independent because they’re not very engaged. They have mushy but predictable opinions and forward joke emails about illegal immigrants. They’re independent because it makes them feel thoughful and thinks it makes them look the same. And they vote for whoever’s controlling the narrative, which is something Republicans figured out a long time ago.

A poll I don’t feel like searching for found that 49% of union households voted for Scott Brown. Those people didn’t vote for Brown because they thought he had their back in any substantive way. Obama’s a loser, Coakley was a loser, and Brown was a winner who drove a truck!

Those people didn’t vote for Brown because they thought he had their back in any substantive way. Obama’s a loser, Coakley was a loser, and Brown was a winner who drove a truck!

Those same people elected Ted Kennedy a dozen times.

Those same people elected drank with Ted Kennedy a dozen times.

Fixorzt

OT — What’s this all about

“The IQ differences are statistically significant, but experts say the data shouldn’t be used to stereotype or make assumptions.”

Uh..so…WTF should we think/assume?

to be fair, Who didn’t drink with Ted Kennedy a dozen times?

That’s my point. In Massachusetts there is practically no Republican Party. Everybody from my anti-tax, anti-choice state rep to my FARC-allied ultrapacifist Congressman is a Democrat. There almost wasn’t anyone to oppose Kennedy, evidenced by the fact that he only had two tough races in his career–one of them being a Democratic primary when he was barely old enough to serve. Why? Because in Massachusetts Democrats are the winners.

Brown only became the Republican nominee after the “top tier” candidates (none of whom would’ve been impressive; I think Andy Card was the biggest name mentioned) opted out because Coakley’s victory was presumed to be a foregone conclusion, and that had nothing to do with Martha Coakley.

“Those same people elected Ted Kennedy a dozen times.”

And let us not forget that Coakley was/is a monster.

Her record on civil liberties and her unseemly overeagerness to railroad innocent people into prison for life purely in order to prop up her Law ‘N’ Order credentials made her a horrific choice to run for Kennedy’s old spot. Most of the liberal blogs I read just before the election (including this one) were offering variations on this winning message: “Yes, we know she’s personally awful and has run a fucking horrible campaign…but vote for her anyway.” Goodness! How ever could she have lost?

That Brown is an asshole who didn’t deserve to win doesn’t change the above facts one little bit. Coakley wasn’t “only” another corrupt corpratist on the make; she’d fit in quite comfortably with the current psycho version of the Republican Party, and it’s something of a mystery to me why she didn’t join up with the Rethugs right from the start.

Sometimes, there are just no easy answers or good choices.

I had no idea their constituents were health insurance lobbyists. Silly me, I thought the votes for Democrats came from individual citizens WHO EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC HEALTH CARE.

A health care bill was the campaign horse they rode in on, so why are they betraying the people who voted for them by siding with teabagging swine?

But then Brown shouldn’t have won.

The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans’ evolutionary past.

Hm. I guess I’m an outlier.

One out of three ain’t bad, right?

I guess I’m an outlier.

That is graphic.

Are we back at square one where the rich and powerful are propped up by the morons of the world?

i believe them when they say they’re getting an anti-HCR earful. the level of ignorance on the subject of what is in any bill is astonishing. consider this: i have been debating with a former military intelligence analyst who served in iraq. he asks me “how can you support the government taking over health care, which means that the government will swallow up 1/6th of the economy and run it?”

needless to say, when asked what was actually in the bills as passed, he hadn’t a clue. same for the “patriot” act.

not. a. clue.

this is one of our “military intelligence analysts”???

One more OT: This is total bull.

92 percent [of Americans] get their news from multiple platforms

I find this hard to believe.

Multiple platforms…. Hmmmm…. Lessee…. Well, there’s Faux News, Rush, Glenn and Jammies Media. That’s multiple, right?

which means that the government will swallow up 1/6th of the economy and run it?

We currently spend 17% of our GDP on health care for care that is mediocre at best. Too bad we can’t drop some troops in on those sick people and take them out before they cost us summore loot!

Hey! That’s not a bad campaign slogan for the GOP:

“We’ll make sure those pesky sick people don’t overuse our health care system so that those who don’t need as much care will be able to not use the care that those pesky sick people need! Vote for me, Mr. Basskawards!”

[That may need some editing]

But then Brown shouldn’t have won.

(Another version of this appears to have been eaten. FYWP etc.)

Meh, just because people didn’t expect the change to come in this race doesn’t mean it wasn’t coming. Our Democratic governor and Obama are perceived as “failures” and have been almost as soon as they took office (Odd . . . they’re both black. I wonder if that has anything to do with anything.), there’s a lot of “I didn’t leave the party; the party left me!” types, and a lot a of talk about a few congressmen’s and Kerry’s days being numbered. I won’t be surprised if Massachusetts follows the expected national trend this fall, i.e. Republican election victories. We won’t become Kentucky, but we could be the photo negative of Virginia. The reason for that will be the “independents” going with the expected winner.

I guess my main contention is that independents or swing voters or whatever are “goo goo” technocratic types who don’t actually have any idea if they’re being served by good government or not.

That’s not a bad campaign slogan for the GOP:

“We’ll make sure those pesky sick people don’t overuse our health care system so that those who don’t need as much care will be able to not use the care that those pesky sick people need! Vote for me, Mr. Basskawards!”

“Kill the sick and lay the dead.”

Her record on civil liberties and her unseemly overeagerness to railroad innocent people into prison for life purely in order to prop up her Law ‘N’ Order credentials made her a horrific choice to run for Kennedy’s old spot.

God knows she did a lot wrong regarding the Amiraults, but it was all after the fact and related to parole. Harshbarger was the railroader.

Hey! That’s not a bad campaign slogan for the GOP:

“We’ll make sure those pesky sick people don’t overuse our health care system so that those who don’t need as much care will be able to not use the care that those pesky sick people need! Vote for me, Mr. Basskawards!”

Shorter version: “Fuck them, you got yours!”

Shorter version

Remember, it’s a GOP slogan so it has to be long winded and circular as to confuse, disorientate; in other words “enlighten” their followers.

BREAKING: ManyTea Partiers May Get Health Care Soon!

It would also be nice if we could work in something about people who steal their sister’s teeth instead of helping to support the free enterprise system by buying their own. Freeloaders.

Remember, it’s a GOP slogan so it has to be long winded and circular as to confuse, disorientate; in other words “enlighten” their followers.

Hm…OK…try this: ““Kill the sick and lay the dead because shut up, that’s why!”

Better?

Hm…OK…try this: ““Kill the sick and lay the dead because shut up, that’s why!”

Muuuuuuuch better. NOW I get it!

Muuuuuuuch better. NOW I get it!

Yes, but will it debase you enough to misspell a sign at a anti-tax rally?

The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans’ evolutionary past.

If only we knew much about human’s evolutionary past, rather than making it up according to whatever features of contemporary behaviour we want to rationalise.

Well, Smut, you have to admit that randy licentiousness serves a genetic purpose for the non-child bearing adult.

Re: Esteev’s linkiepoo:

This makes sense, because having one partner has always been advantageous to women, even thousands of years ago, meaning exclusivity is not a “new” preference.

I’m just going to go ahead and buy an airhorn that somehow forms the phonemes for “bullshit” with its wildly reacting molecules. Seriously, this shit is ridiculous.

Popevopsych is a steaming pile.

Guys, Altmire is bought and paid for by big insurance. Anything he says in this vein has to be understood as part of an effort to scuttle HCR altogether.

you have to admit that randy licentiousness serves a genetic purpose for the non-child bearing adult.

Yet some primate species opt for a monogamous pair-bonding strategy. It is a mystery.

Well, that didn’t take long… Pat Robertson to Chile: “It’s God’s punishment.”

If there wasn’t an article on The Onion headlined, “God to U.S., World: Pat Robertson Is My Punishment,” there oughtta be:

“Hear Me, O My children! For your sin and wicked ways, I have afflicted thee with Pat Robertson. He shall be a reminder of My wrath and he shall inflict his douchebaggery accross the land!

What? No. No, earthquakes are the result of tectonic activity. Ditto tsunamis. Nothing to do with Me.

Huh? No, no, I don’t bother with the weather. You know how hard it is to aim a lightning bolt? And, no, before you ask, not drought either.

You know what? Fine. I’ll stick with locusts and boils next time. I have spoken!”

Ya know, watching the DP elite kick their dumbass pwoggie bloggie supporters used to be pretty funny. But now, it’s fucking hilarious! Hope for change!

Central to my point: the only difference between the parties now is the Democrats are ashamed of having sold themselves to corporate interests. The Republicans are proud of it. I’m watching this latest filibuster against extending unemployment benefits with some interest. It’s a trial balloon, I think. Make one of the rank & file do it, see what happens. It’s possible the Right may find they can do this kind of thing with impunity, at which point the Overton Window will slide considerably to the right yet again.

A poll I don’t feel like searching for found that 49% of union households voted for Scott Brown. Those people didn’t vote for Brown because they thought he had their back in any substantive way. Obama’s a loser, Coakley was a loser, and Brown was a winner who drove a truck!

Don’t forget he also knew the difference between a touchdown and the infield fly rule. Clearly, a candidate qualified to lead.

Re: Coakley

The only liberal issue she was “tough” on was a woman’s right to choose, and she vocally backed off on that before voting day.

(The only people who voted for her were women of a certain age who were still convinced George Amirault was guilty and would be “very concerned” about any attempt to overturn the PATRIOT smACT because “they never stop thinking of ways to harm our country … and neither do we”. AND they’re fundamentalists (but pro) on abortion.)

The people who voted for Kennedy over and over … well, I’m sure some voted for Brown, some voted for Coakley, but most of them stayed home.

This makes sense, because having one partner has always been advantageous to women, even thousands of years ago, meaning exclusivity is not a “new” preference.

I’m just going to go ahead and buy an airhorn that somehow forms the phonemes for “bullshit” with its wildly reacting molecules. Seriously, this shit is ridiculous.

Agreed. This smacks of someone with no understanding of biology whatsoever. How could anyone in the field have missed all that jabber about “extra-pair mating” ten years ago?

This makes sense, because having one partner keeping a cuckolded breadwinner around has always been advantageous to women who want the best for their offspring, even thousands of years ago, because they didn’t have DNA tests back then meaning exclusivity is not a “new” preference

FiX0Red.

Eh, that article lost me at “Satoshi Kanazawa”.

Quick! The Democrats have tripped on their dicks again — let’s piss all over the finger-quote Independents finger-quote, before someone notices something!

Search and replace: disaffected for spineless! Terminally disgusted for amotivational! Realist for whiny-ass titty baby!

Remember: every time an Independent turns out to have been as right about One-Term Barry as intelligent non-Independents were about Iraq II, God kills a kitten… by crushing its skull in a metal press. Won’t you please think about the kittens? And if you won’t, climb a wall of dicks! You Republican wad-waste! Die in a fire! I focus my world-weary ideological superiority upon you until you run away and hide your face in shame!

Thank you very much.

Yet some primate species opt for a monogamous pair-bonding strategy. It is a mystery.

I subscribe to the “thinning hair” theory. Man lives long enough to see his body deteriorate: his hair thin, his belly grow, his body creak and age. Many of the simian primates don’t. I would tend to think they have single partners because they understand how lucky they got

Interesting, gorillas are polygynous.

Bonobos, on the other hand, will fuck anything that moves.