Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Deep Thoughts on Pussy

chicago dyke's picture
Thread: 

So, if it's a "moral necessity" to spend over $100B a year to enforce "women's rights" in Afghanistan, why is it so hard to spend a couple of hundred million on American women who are poor but supposedly already have the right to choose? Just wonderin'.

0
No votes yet

Comments

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

enforcing "women's rights" lets defense contractors get rich. Not so in the US.

As a matter of personal taste, I'd rather many of the provisions in the bailout going into the normal budget, but seeing so many proggers willing to ignore family planning provisions was another eye opener. Impoverished women are pretty damn vulnerable because circumstance dealt them a bad hand. It just seems so...not liberal...to try to keep them down.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Wasn't striking the family planning funds to appease GOP lawmakers? You know, the ones who all voted against the bill?

Love Obama, or hate him, his move here was stupid. (Maybe harping on the stupidity of this stupid move might embarrass him enough to not make the same mistake twice...)

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Not to defend pulling the Medicaid funding, surely there was another way forward, but it is important to get the accusation correct. There were enough votes in the House to pass the bill including the Medicaid portion. The funding was pulled - so it appears - to appease Republicans in the Senate and hopefully allow passage without further modification. The Senate has yet to vote.

The stimulus vote you cite, Republican Yeas = 0, was in the House.

If the purpose of critique is to be heard by those who you're unhappy with, it has to be accurate. People whose actions are being criticized are almost always looking for a reason to ignore the criticism; an inaccurate statement like

Wasn't striking the family planning funds to appease GOP lawmakers? You know, the ones who all voted against the bill?

hands the target reason enough to dismiss the critic as ill-informed and the criticism as worthless.

Just saying.

And yes, it has been mismanaged tactically and/or it is all a Machiavellian plot to merge the parties so closely that there is no difference either de facto or de jure. I see the three parties as different, and this kind of maneuvering as merely dithering incompetence when it comes to confrontation; it is a hallmark of liberal thinking. The persistent expectation that people of evil intent can be redeemed by example undercuts liberal pursuits, every time it is tried - and it is tried far too often.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

There are enough pro-choice Repubs in the Senate, to pass a stimulus, even if the forced birthers screeched a fit about it.

This was capitulation, before the fact, plain and simple.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I never heard not one word about needing to appease the Senate Repubs, until the House Repubs voted against it.

It's sad to see that you are going along with it, when it is false anyways. He didn't need to appease the Senate Repubs, because there still aren't enough to stop it, at least over birth control.

Women are an easy constituency to throw under the bus, which is what just happened. Again.

So, in honesty, the sentence you quote in the above post, was correct, not incorrect as you are trying to paint it. Obama threw women under the bus, in hopes of snagging Repubs, and it didn't work. Now, he is doing damage control, with that whole line, about appeasing the Senate, a job which the Senate is perfectly capable of performing. If the bill wasn't going to pass the Senate with the family planning funding intact, then the Senate would have removed it, then the House could have amended their version for a vote.

It's horseshit, and you are engaging in useless parsing.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

News to me, and to the NYT.

It may well be that any reconciliation takes place behind closed doors, and the whole new bill gets brought to the House floor by special procedure, but there is no reason why discrepancies could not be dealt with through a conference committee process.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

as long as we are being frank with one another.

I haven't apologized for anyone or anything. I am not responsible for Obama's perceptions or his dealmaking. That would be him you need to be pissed at for what he does, not me.

I do suggest that the people who are negotiating with him, the Republicans and the BlueDogs demanding that he make these changes, also deserve some of the blame. Apparently you're not up with a more comprehensive sense of outrage; I am, so there we differ.

My specific point above was that for a critique to be effective with someone like Obama it helps to be accurate. Call it my fetish, if you can't agree, but it is hardly horseshit and it is certainly not an apology.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I am disappointed with you. I don't think you are being an apologist for Obama, I say that the people who started with this line about the capitulation being about the Senate(which was only brought up today, once House Repubs showed their stripes) are the apologists, I am disappointed in seeing you help to flourish this meme, and subtract from the lesson that Obama needs to learn from this, which is that Republicans can't be trusted, and compromising with them accomplishes nothing. You know this, which is why I don't understand why you are giving him cover on this.

I do suggest that the people who are negotiating with him, the Republicans and the BlueDogs..., also deserve some of the blame.

Of course, but once again, blaming them doesn't change things. Blaming Obama, might. Also, Republicans are assholes, who think using women's health as a political football, is a perfectly okey-doke strategy. Obama got the votes of a whole lot of women, because he was supposed to be a better ally. But capitulating on women's reproductive freedom, on his first showdown with the Repubs, isn't giving me much Hope.

And I'll say again, that you really must learn that foul language is not an indicator of my mood. I curse worse than any sailor. I use better decorum online, than I do is RL.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Dunno who you read or listen to but it was obvious to me more a week ago that there were enough votes in the House for the bill with the Medicare supplemental included, but quite possibly not enough votes in the Senate. When the cave happened it was clear to me, IMHO, that the problem was Senate votes and not the House. I wrote on it, gave my opinion, when the subject appeared here. Sorry if I was not, to your standards, sufficiently timely.

For the record, Obama does not speak for me. I have enough of an ego to suppose I can do better, especially after that lousy inaugural speech.

If it makes you any happier, and it helps me some but not much, Barbara Lee (D- CA9), who I quite like in spite of some warts, has been very vocal locally here in the SF Bay Area that Pelosi has enough votes on the stimulus bill as it is to hold the line against any tweaks in the Senate.

Lee's threat assertion is that since the bill was first introduce she and "a majority of the House" have become convinced that the bill needs to be bigger - "well over a Trillion" - with all of that increase going to infrastructure, mostly urban rapid transit, and that the tax cuts for business are not in the best interests of the economy and should all be replaced by some sort of homeowner relief.

Her message, bottom line: "If the Senate makes changes, so will we."

That's my Barb; Bring. It. On.

[Oh and re your language: As far as I'm concerned, speak as you will - please. The idea of a live chat with you and your potty mouth sends a thrill up my leg.

I was only exercising tit-for-tat (can I say that?). If you had said fiddle-faddle I'd have repeated it:-]

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

was never more than a cynical add-on excuse for looting the treasury and designed to fail. The longer the failure continues, the more opportunity for looting.

What you're really asking, I think, is how can people lie with such a facile skill, with a straight face and no apparent cognitive dissonance?

It is because they have a mental condition that falls broadly within what is now called Borderline Personality Disorder. Nixon is a classic example. Take away the raging paranoia, defiance of the law and the gratuitous slaughter of entirely innocent Cambodians and the rest of his record is pretty good. These people are drawn to business management and politics, where deceit, brutality, manipulation and greed are rewarded. That's why their sex kink rate is higher than average and often at odds with their public face; they are twisty in multiple ways.

Is Obama one of those? Probably; tough to get to where he is and be otherwise. To what degree? I don't know yet; some days I'm distraught, and some days I'm still hopeful.