Thursday, August 06, 2009

Speaking of Health Care...

Jumping on the Democratic Party's new "Protesters are the New Child Molester" strategic talking point bandwagon, Senate Majority Leader & world-class champion ass-clown Harry Reid declares dissent to health care "reform" as a threat to the nebulous "democratic process," by which of course he means, to the Federal government stealing your income by way of taxes, taking control of your personal lives, and shoving another bloated government program down your throats despite the fact that a major chunk of the population is completely uninterested in giving up their individual liberty and personal freedom - or in giving up on the free market and replacing it with a tyrannical socialist system.
WASHINGTON – The Senate's most powerful Democrat on Thursday scolded health care protesters dogging his party's lawmakers at local meetings, arguing that some critics on the political right have run out of ideas — and ditched their civic manners. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada accused the protesters of trying to "sabotage" the democratic process.
In case you're wondering, yes, Harry Reid really is that much of a dick. Amazed yet by the arrogance and short-term memory loss displayed by these idiotic douchebags? I've already addressed the irrationality of this line of argument, but still, "sabotage"? How on Earth does expressing opinions or protesting "sabotage" democracy?

Make sure hears about this fishy post!!!

Chilling: All of a Sudden, the Democratic Party thinks Protests are BAD

Health Debate Produces Angry Protests, Angry Retorts

The Earth-scorching August firefight over health care has given rise to questions about the point at which stifling civil discussion damages the democratic process.
The Democratic Party supports free speech and free assembly, but only when such activities are in support of the Party. Dissenters of course should not be allowed to speak freely or rally against opinions and policies which have been approved by our glorious leaders. Freedom only works when it is completely controlled by a One Party State.
"Organized mobs across the country are intimidating lawmakers, disrupting events, and silencing discussions about the change our country needs," one Obama campaign aide wrote in an e-mail to supporters in Michigan.
Be careful to note the inclusion of phraseology regarding content of the message of the protesters, "change our country needs." The sin, it is implied, is not in organizing mobs, intimidating tyrants, disrupting bullshit staged propaganda clambakes, or silencing one-sided speeches masquerading as "discussions," the sin is that these activities are aimed at the not-to-be-questioned "change our country needs."

But really? "Disrupting events" is now a major crime to these people?

Because, gee whiz, Democrat supporters have never, ever, ever, ever protested, or rallied, or shouted down lawmakers, or disrupted an assemblage supporting some agenda with which they disagreed, or attempted to silence discussion in any forum (well, except right here, right now on that last one). Right? I mean, I couldn't perform an internet search right now and find a single example of that ever happening, correct?

I'm not even going to get into the irony embedded in the phrase "organized mob." Hint, though, remember that mobs are by definition "disorderly." But it's the sort of colorful, somewhat sarcastic turn of phrase I might use at my most smart-assed, so I'll give them a pass.

In typical leftist fashion, though, the Democratic Party plays the victimization card for the umpteenth time here, whining about "intimidation," while at the very same time, calling their supporters to arms to show up at meetings, and to turn in information about dissenters to the White House thought-police. It's altogether amusing that the Democratic Party has attempted to portray these "mobs" as puppets of special interests and corporations, ignoring their grassroots formation, thus the in this context insulting "organized" modifier, while at the same attempting to organize their own mobs to counter these allegedly (although unproven to be) "organized" mobs.

The hypocrisy astounds.

If the Democratic Party was at all interested in legitimate discussion and brainstorming about reforming health care, why don't they invite people who oppose the plan onto the podium as well, and make it an honest debate? Hmmmmm? Why are they in such a hurry to push through the plan as currently composed while decrying any analysis of any of the specifics or details (such as the "diversity" clauses, the funding for illegal immigrant health care, etc.)?

Now, let it be known, I really have no problem with politicians of any ilk calling supporters together to promote agendas. I mean, great, involve the voters actively in the political process. Bring it to the people, and let the people respond. Get those who care strongly about an issue out of their chairs and onto the floor. But why whine about some other guy's body order when you yourself forgot to shower?

It just kind of sort of makes you look incredibly fucking stupid.
"What's legitimate dissent is something that provides for constructive dialogue in advancing the discussion on health insurance reform," [Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee] said.
Hey, motherfucker, who the motherfuck are you to tell the public what is and is not legitimate dissent? Who the motherfuck are you, you arrogant shitbrained ass, to define "legitimate" as only that which advances your agenda? FUCK YOU. Guess what? Maybe some people are not at all interested in advancing the discussion on your view of change. Guess what? Maybe some people don't trust you enough to believe you would even remotely take "constructive dialogue" into consideration. I don't think you will, honestly.

Has the Democratic Party offered anything remotely resembling "constructive dialogue" on health care?

And in case you're wondering, yes, non-constructive dialogue is as protected a liberty as constructive dialogue. And The Man don't get to pick which is which.

It's like all of a sudden, Democrats grew a flippin' conscience about how to respectfully treat lawmakers. You mean, in the new Obama-led nationalist socialist world order, I'm not allowed to draw little Hilter mustaches on Obama, or burn him in effigy, or portray his sasquatch of a wife as a demented vampiric whore, they way say liberals have done to Bush and Palin?

Maybe a quote from some ivory tower elitist bullshitter professor will help me put it all in perspective:

But the nature of the protests suggest the GOP has run out of options for fighting on substance, said David S. Meyer, a sociology professor at the University of California-Irvine who wrote The Politics of Protest: Social Movements in America.

"In historical context, it's a tool of the weak," Meyer said. He said it is noteworthy "that conservatives have to throw this kind of Hail Mary pass to stop health care reform" in a political system that favors that status quo.

Oh, thank the mystic beaver spirits of the River Hoobastank for the infallible unbiased enlightenment of higher educators. Weakness, in this context, Mr. PhD in dumbfuckery, is measured by who is in power, not by "substance." Does this mean that during the civil rights era, blacks were not "fighting on substance" when their only option was non-violent protest?


And let's just ignore the fact that rather than addressing the criticisms of the Democratic health care "reform" plans, all the attacks dogs are going after the dissenters with insults. Get it? They're going after the DISSENTERS, not the DISSENT - not the content.

I mean, I'm fine with that. I'll insult the FUCK out of you if you disagree with me. But when I do, I don't run around with a diploma in no-one-gives-a-fuck pretending I'm not doing anything other than insulting. In fact, that's why I make my insults so heavy-handed and outright mean-spirited - dipshits - so that there is absolutely no illusion when I do insult; it's instantly recognized as the low-side - the humorous, emotional, more entertaining aspect of my discussion. I don't dress it up in pseudo-intellectual, University of California leftist window-dressing. I make it fun and colorful. I mean, calling someone "weak" is pretty fucking "weak." Grow a fucking state-funded pair and come up with some real manly jabs. And get a real football team at your university before using a lame, cliche football metaphor.

People are angry and are expressing their dissatisfaction with the Democrat plan for "change." They are protesting what they see as tyranny, just like millions of liberals have done for decades.

..."irony is abundant" in the role-reversal for the community-organizer in chief. "It's going to be interesting to see how the community organizer president is going to respond to communities organized by his political opponents."

That's right, motherfucker. Ha!

And like before:

If possible, please forward the URL for this blog entry to the totalitarian thought police at, who want to know "[i]f you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy." I want to make sure I'm on all the right dissenter lists.

Bad Idea: Financial Times editor says most news websites will charge within a year

Here's a stupid idea:
In a speech in London, Financial Times Editor Lionel Barber said that within the next 12 months, news agencies will be charging access to their websites. The only matter that will be discussed, according to the editor, is whether they should charge per month or per article or possibly even both. "I confidently predict that within the next 12 months, almost all news organisations will be charging for content."

I already ignore news sites that currently charge. Heck, I often ignore sites that force you to register and log-in to read, even if it's free. Big media is trying to control information - but it's only going to drive people to more blogs (which are by nature, more one-sided and editorial in nature - regardless of the political slant). The model news agencies employ for television should work on the internet. Allow free access and sell advertising space. And you know what, any major news agency that doesn't charge when others start to will see a huge increase in traffic, and thus a huge increase in revenues.

This is what the political machines want. They want information limited, so that they can control public knowledge and dissent. Television and newspaper hope that by reigning in the internet, they'll drive people back to their dying media (paper, broadcast, cable...).

Less scrupulous interneters are just going to cut-and-paste relevant sections of stories into blogs and forums anyway.

"News" as a commodity is increasingly becoming a thing of the past - especially unbiased even-handed, straight-facts reporting. The supply online is limitless. But the demand for perspective and consolidated forums will be there, and that's what they need to focus on - getting hits so that people see those little money producing ads.

All this will do is put the final nail in the coffin of big news media.