...I probably will.
sometimes i have great trouble understanding how people think here.
ok, so gibbs said some things that some consider mean. so what? elections aren't about you or your feelings. i agree with gibbs that the constant complaining from those on the left seeking absolute perfection is damaging to their own interests. that's the truth.
why? my neighbor's child was born with spina bifida. she will have insurance coverage, with no preexisting condition clause barring her. how many millions of others does that apply to? I have a preexisting condition, and have been unable to leave a job i hate because i am uninsurable. with the new law, i will be able to
but, despite the millions of people who benefit from that program, it didn't have everything you wanted, so instead, scream and rage at the night. and then get upset when people say, what are you doing? don't let your demands for purity or your bruised feelings toss all those people back into hell.
my brother is unemployed. his unemployment insurance has continued. he can feed his family.
how many millions are the same? but let's ignore that. instead, obama should have created a better jobs program (while also doing a major revamping of health care and wall street and fixing foreign relations and and and ). let's scream and rage at the night, then pout when people say you're being silly. your feelings should be bruised, but what does that have to do with your vote?
i dont have any investments, but my parents do. and now, they will be more protected because of the wall street reforms.
how many millions are the same? but let's ignore that. instead, let's scream and rage that there was not enough regulation or infliction of punishment on wall stree. then let's get our feeling hurt when someone points out that we are acting against our own interests. and then say, well, i'm not voting.
policy is not about your feelings, or whether you feel dissed. you want to join in the rethuglican attacks on obama because he has the audacity to work in the real world of politics -- one that means you can't do everything simultaneously, you have to work to SUCCEED, not just make symbolic points. the idea of the progressives is that YOU HAVE TO HELP PEOPLE. and he has.
but then you get surprised when you're called out on the fact that you are hurting the most progressive president in decades (and yes, he is. just because he doesn't do everything u want, doesn't mean he's not.)
if you had been attacking FDR -- and let's face it, you probably would have (no civil rights act, no voting rights act, no universal health care, not enough regs on wall street) -- and then he snapped back at you, why should you be surprised?
so, stay at home. here is what you get:
- balance of the supreme court shifted to conservative. and almost certainly, women's rights cut back, programs for the poor, for gays, for people impeded. hey, but then you can complain, right?
- a conservative congress. meaning? spending months fighting over tax cuts for the rich, trying to keep health insurance reform strong, trying to preserve what we have won so far.
and what will you prove to the politicians? that you are indispensable? no -- that you are unreliable. that you have no sense of progress, rather than total, drastic reform all at once. that unless you get everything, immediately, you're going to take your marbles and go home.
and that doesn't help progressives. it turns us into the impotent -- easily ignored, because we won't address the world that exists, as opposed to the one we wish was there.