|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 12, 2009 16:27:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 13, 2009 14:45:13 GMT -8
I knew that peope were angry and energized, but two million folks? That is a lot of people with a lot of energy that could sway their Congressmen and Senators. My guess is Obama Kare is dead unless a real watered down version with no objectionable features or triggers is pushed thriugh.
Some of those signs are pretty heavy duty on emotion.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 13, 2009 15:08:23 GMT -8
Yeah.
I don't know the actual number, but even one tenth of that would be HUGE.
I couldn't go, so I went to a gun show instead. Seemed like there were "millions" crowded around the ammo tables. I couldn't even get close.
They were hauling cases of ammo out with hand trucks.
Middle America is getting pissed off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 13, 2009 18:22:56 GMT -8
Not even close to 2 million people. But damn, isn't it funny that Dave has to resort to a sensationalist Brit newspaper as a source. Hey Dave, what did the naked woman on Page 3 look like in that edition?
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 14, 2009 13:00:35 GMT -8
Not even close to 2 million people. But damn, isn't it funny that Dave has to resort to a sensationalist Brit newspaper as a source. Hey Dave, what did the naked woman on Page 3 look like in that edition? =Bob Nah, it was just a few hundred thousand. Chump change. Check the links, if your heart can take it. Especially the photos. pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/85117/America is waking up to your ilk. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Sept 15, 2009 8:10:09 GMT -8
Yeah. I don't know the actual number, but even one tenth of that would be HUGE. I couldn't go, so I went to a gun show instead. Seemed like there were "millions" crowded around the ammo tables. I couldn't even get close. They were hauling cases of ammo out with hand trucks. Middle America is getting pissed off. Sid, if I go buy a bunch of ammo and guns because I'm "pissed off".. my wife would think I went of the deep end and something bad was about to happen....same with every friend I can think of. What kind of people are you hanging with, and do they need a cooling off period? |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Sept 15, 2009 12:16:03 GMT -8
Now the leftist media is pushing the supposition that all whites are inherently racist and are so from birth and nothing can be done about it - not unlike being gay I guess. With that as a premise, I wonder if the left will want to put avowed racists in a protected minority group with special status?  Not likely. Using the results of the various studies in their out of context way and ignoring the studies yielding results contrary to the favored premise, the left will pillory conservatives as being racists when they simply disagree with Obama's stupid a$$ policies. But then, they have been doing that for some time without this pretext. www.newsweek.com/id/214989 |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 15, 2009 13:54:00 GMT -8
Yeah. I don't know the actual number, but even one tenth of that would be HUGE. I couldn't go, so I went to a gun show instead. Seemed like there were "millions" crowded around the ammo tables. I couldn't even get close. They were hauling cases of ammo out with hand trucks. Middle America is getting pissed off. Sid, if I go buy a bunch of ammo and guns because I'm "pissed off".. my wife would think I went of the deep end and something bad was about to happen....same with every friend I can think of. What kind of people are you hanging with, and do they need a cooling off period? People are afraid their freedoms are threatened by an authoritarian administration. I agree with that assessment. It's not really that complicated. It's been a factor since last November. www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-29-ammo-shortage_N.htmBut the point of the thread was the HUGE turnout in DC, and the other turnouts in over 45 major metro areas. It's going to grow. And I'm lovin' it. Don't Tread On Me. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 15, 2009 14:33:31 GMT -8
Not even close to 2 million people. But damn, isn't it funny that Dave has to resort to a sensationalist Brit newspaper as a source. Hey Dave, what did the naked woman on Page 3 look like in that edition? =Bob Nah, it was just a few hundred thousand. Chump change. Check the links, if your heart can take it. Especially the photos. pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/85117/America is waking up to your ilk. Photos can lie, simply by using the right vantage point. But that aside, you keep citing the right-wing press, which has a vested interest in making it seem larger than it was. A quick check found estimates between a million and two million, which are undoubtedly too high, which MSNBC reported a hundred thousand, which is undoubtedly too low. A few hundred thousand seems about right, although I question the person who claimed to have made an actual body count. Either way, no big deal and the nonsense about the left "being in a tizzy" over it is ridiculous. But as for people getting wise to my "ilk", I'll guarantee you half the people who showed up don't have a clue about the issues beyond what they've been told about Obama being a "Socialist". =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 15, 2009 14:56:51 GMT -8
Nah, it was just a few hundred thousand. Chump change. Check the links, if your heart can take it. Especially the photos. pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/85117/America is waking up to your ilk. Photos can lie, simply by using the right vantage point. But that aside, you keep citing the right-wing press, which has a vested interest in making it seem larger than it was. A quick check found estimates between a million and two million, which are undoubtedly too high, which MSNBC reported a hundred thousand, which is undoubtedly too low. A few hundred thousand seems about right, although I question the person who claimed to have made an actual body count. Either way, no big deal and the nonsense about the left "being in a tizzy" over it is ridiculous. But as for people getting wise to my "ilk", I'll guarantee you half the people who showed up don't have a clue about the issues beyond what they've been told about Obama being a "Socialist". =Bob Whistle past the graveyard all you want. If you can "guarantee" that half the people who showed up "don't have a clue about the issues", go ahead and PROVE it. You said it. You PROVE it. Your ilk is in trouble, and it is only going to get worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 15, 2009 15:33:02 GMT -8
Photos can lie, simply by using the right vantage point. But that aside, you keep citing the right-wing press, which has a vested interest in making it seem larger than it was. A quick check found estimates between a million and two million, which are undoubtedly too high, which MSNBC reported a hundred thousand, which is undoubtedly too low. A few hundred thousand seems about right, although I question the person who claimed to have made an actual body count. Either way, no big deal and the nonsense about the left "being in a tizzy" over it is ridiculous. But as for people getting wise to my "ilk", I'll guarantee you half the people who showed up don't have a clue about the issues beyond what they've been told about Obama being a "Socialist". =Bob Whistle past the graveyard all you want. If you can "guarantee" that half the people who showed up "don't have a clue about the issues", go ahead and PROVE it. You said it. You PROVE it. Your ilk is in trouble, and it is only going to get worse. From your link: “Stop spending,” was the basic answer to any questions about what Congress and the president should do come tomorrow. Throw the bums of either party out come next fall was the second most-common answer.”Now those are two brilliant statements. Stop spending on what? Would they prefer the Feds repeal all gas taxes and stop spending on roads? Would they prefer we stop spending on the military? Would they prefer we stop spending bucks for CDC? Obviously the answer from most except extreme libertarians would be, "no". Do I think that half of them could offer an analysis of the Federal budget and offer anything approaching an intelligent response? Nope. As for the second question, would most of them throw out the bum who represents them? Highly unlikely given past polls which have generally shown that a majority of voters like their elected representative but think all the others are "bad". I'm not being partisan on this, Dave. I would say the same thing if it were some liberal march. Let's face a simple fact here. The 3 big networks get an average of around 7 million viewers a day. Faux News gets a bit less than that and the highest ratings for any of the political shows, which are on Faux News, get no more than 2 million a day. News print circulation is down and actually wasn't all that great to begin with, given that a very large number of people neither read nor watch any news at all. They watch things like Cops, Judge Judy, Jerry Springer and reality shows. Those of us who do bother with keeping up are a rather small minority in this country. So feel free to believe that each and every person there watches and analyzes news broadcasts and newspapers, but you are extremely naive if you think they do. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 15, 2009 16:12:00 GMT -8
Whistle past the graveyard all you want. If you can "guarantee" that half the people who showed up "don't have a clue about the issues", go ahead and PROVE it. You said it. You PROVE it. Your ilk is in trouble, and it is only going to get worse. From your link: “Stop spending,” was the basic answer to any questions about what Congress and the president should do come tomorrow. Throw the bums of either party out come next fall was the second most-common answer.”Now those are two brilliant statements. Stop spending on what? Would they prefer the Feds repeal all gas taxes and stop spending on roads? Would they prefer we stop spending on the military? Would they prefer we stop spending bucks for CDC? Obviously the answer from most except extreme libertarians would be, "no". Do I think that half of them could offer an analysis of the Federal budget and offer anything approaching an intelligent response? Nope. As for the second question, would most of them throw out the bum who represents them? Highly unlikely given past polls which have generally shown that a majority of voters like their elected representative but think all the others are "bad". I'm not being partisan on this, Dave. I would say the same thing if it were some liberal march. Let's face a simple fact here. The 3 big networks get an average of around 7 million viewers a day. Faux News gets a bit less than that and the highest ratings for any of the political shows, which are on Faux News, get no more than 2 million a day. News print circulation is down and actually wasn't all that great to begin with, given that a very large number of people neither read nor watch any news at all. They watch things like Cops, Judge Judy, Jerry Springer and reality shows. Those of us who do bother with keeping up are a rather small minority in this country. So feel free to believe that each and every person there watches and analyzes news broadcasts and newspapers, but you are extremely naive if you think they do. =Bob Hell. I don't watch any of that crap either. I think these people know what they're talking about when they say "stop spending". And it ain't about "roads" or the "military". It's about the quadrupling of the debt and the deficit to give away money to political whores who supported the current crop of malicious politicians. No earmarks in the stimulus bill? What a freaking joke. The government solution? Heh. Amtrak - going broke Medicare - going broke Medicaid - going broke Postal Service - going broke Social Security - going broke Fannie Mae - broke Freddie Mac - broke Obama's budget? 1.6 TRILLION in the RED! Fu#k you liberals and the jackass you rode in on. And you bastards want to expand the mother fu#king government. In case you missed the humorous video on the subject, here it is again: www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0More and more people are getting it, and are realizing that the "change" they were pimped last fall is a fraud. Be afraid, libs. There is a groundswell of reaction building. And I'm lovin' it. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Sept 16, 2009 9:15:16 GMT -8
As if on que, the buffoon Carter spouts off that he believes there is a significant racist element in those that oppose Obama's policies and today I see the lap dog liberal media putting that sentiment on their news scrawl all day long. Change we can believe in indeed. Now the leftist media is pushing the supposition that all whites are inherently racist and are so from birth and nothing can be done about it - not unlike being gay I guess. With that as a premise, I wonder if the left will want to put avowed racists in a protected minority group with special status? Not likely. Using the results of the various studies in their out of context way and ignoring the studies yielding results contrary to the favored premise, the left will pillory conservatives as being racists when they simply disagree with Obama's stupid a$$ policies. But then, they have been doing that for some time without this pretext. www.newsweek.com/id/214989 |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 16, 2009 12:37:17 GMT -8
I don't call them liberals anymore...they are statists.
There are far more problems that can be solved by getting government out of the equation, then be solved by a government "solution". But the statists solutions are always a big new government based answer.
Bush was a conservative statists.
Obama is a liberal statists.
I don't care if a liberal is elected, as long as he isn't a statist.
Go ahead and give me liberal solutions, as long as they are not based upon big government programs. Use the free market to achieve liberal ends - fine. Just stop the monster (Feds) that is taking over the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 17, 2009 17:30:25 GMT -8
Amtrak - going broke Medicare - going broke Medicaid - going broke Postal Service - going broke Social Security - going broke Fannie Mae - broke Freddie Mac - broke And I'm lovin' it. <A fair amount of rhetoric snipped> So I take it your solution to the problem is to get rid of every one of those programs/agencies. I can't imagine why you'd be loving it otherwise. Of course, ain't no chance of the military going broke because the military has no cost recovery requirements - it just continues to spend money hand over fist on whatever it wants while every member of Congress supports it in order to bring defense pork to their districts. Of course, none of this matters to you since you know damn good and well that the politicians will always vote to fund Tricare, no matter how much it costs. And needless to say, folks like you whine anytime it appears you might have to pay more, while having no problem with health care for everyone else becoming more and more expensive. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 17, 2009 17:31:52 GMT -8
As if on que, the buffoon Carter spouts off that he believes there is a significant racist element in those that oppose Obama's policies and today I see the lap dog liberal media putting that sentiment on their news scrawl all day long. Change we can believe in indeed. Okay, let's take out the word "significant". Do you really believe that there is absolutely no racism involved in the opposition to Obama? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 17, 2009 17:59:52 GMT -8
I don't call them liberals anymore...they are statists. Yawn. The conservatives have been statists for a rather long time. They just express it in moralistic terms and fools like you buy into it. Let's see. They favor a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. They favor a Constitutional amendment to ban abortions. They favor a Constitutional amendment to ban burning the flag. And that's mainstream conservatism these days. Please tell me what Constitutional amendments liberals have advocated since the failure to pass the ERA? Oh wait, I'm sure you'll come up with someone on the left who has advocated banning guns. Do you actually know what a "statist" is, Bill? Are you aware that the 19th Century "anarchists" called themselves "anti-statists" and were given the name "anarchists" by Marx when it looked like Bakunin's followers might gain control of the 2nd International? What exactly are you advocating, Bill? Is it just the usual right-wingnut nonsense about hating gays and abortion, or is it the really radical libertarian view that the government should spend money only on the military (as long as they are all in this country) with police and fire protection given to private companies who would allow your house to burn down if you didn't pay them to arrest the burglars or fight a house fire? I'm sorry, Bill, but this is the problem. You offer bites that mean nothing. "They are statists". What the Hell does that mean and what political ideology do you assume exists among "statists"? Please offer us a list of every political ideology "statists" advocate and believe in. And then give us various regimes you believe are or were "statist" and compare and contrast that with regimes you believe were "anti-statist" (given that you've offered this dichotomy in the first place). Extra credit will be given for your analysis of the Anti-Statist movement in 19th Century Europe and the Andalusian "anarchists" and their ideology during the Spanish Civil War. Needless to say, I doubt you can even breach the front line of those ideologies because you really don't have a clue when it comes to political philosophy. You hear or read a word or phrase and decide it's a cool description even though you have no background at all in anything having to do with politics. You're sort of like the guy who claims he doesn't like this or that artist, this or that movie or this or that food, not because you've ever tried to understand it, but because it's "foreign". The main response one will usually get from people like that is, "I know what I like". Ignorance does not become you. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Sept 18, 2009 13:08:16 GMT -8
As if on que, the buffoon Carter spouts off that he believes there is a significant racist element in those that oppose Obama's policies and today I see the lap dog liberal media putting that sentiment on their news scrawl all day long. Change we can believe in indeed. Okay, let's take out the word "significant". Do you really believe that there is absolutely no racism involved in the opposition to Obama? =Bob Carter quotes on the subject: “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.” “a belief among many white people not just in the south but around the country … that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American," Why should I take away the word "significant"? He is the one portraying it as so and it is the liberal media that is giving him a megaphone acting as if they are just non-partisan reporters of his statements (all while they absolutely ignore the Acorn scandal . And as far as racism goes, sure there is some. But one thing is for sure, there are less people who voted against Barak Obama because he was black than those who voted for him simply because he was black. Both is racism in action but it is not surprising no one (at least in Democrat/media land) complaining about the former. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 18, 2009 13:58:00 GMT -8
I don't call them liberals anymore...they are statists. Yawn. The conservatives have been statists for a rather long time. They just express it in moralistic terms and fools like you buy into it. Let's see. They favor a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. They favor a Constitutional amendment to ban abortions. They favor a Constitutional amendment to ban burning the flag. And that's mainstream conservatism these days. Please tell me what Constitutional amendments liberals have advocated since the failure to pass the ERA? Oh wait, I'm sure you'll come up with someone on the left who has advocated banning guns. Do you actually know what a "statist" is, Bill? Are you aware that the 19th Century "anarchists" called themselves "anti-statists" and were given the name "anarchists" by Marx when it looked like Bakunin's followers might gain control of the 2nd International? What exactly are you advocating, Bill? Is it just the usual right-wingnut nonsense about hating gays and abortion, or is it the really radical libertarian view that the government should spend money only on the military (as long as they are all in this country) with police and fire protection given to private companies who would allow your house to burn down if you didn't pay them to arrest the burglars or fight a house fire? I'm sorry, Bill, but this is the problem. You offer bites that mean nothing. "They are statists". What the Hell does that mean and what political ideology do you assume exists among "statists"? Please offer us a list of every political ideology "statists" advocate and believe in. And then give us various regimes you believe are or were "statist" and compare and contrast that with regimes you believe were "anti-statist" (given that you've offered this dichotomy in the first place). Extra credit will be given for your analysis of the Anti-Statist movement in 19th Century Europe and the Andalusian "anarchists" and their ideology during the Spanish Civil War. Needless to say, I doubt you can even breach the front line of those ideologies because you really don't have a clue when it comes to political philosophy. You hear or read a word or phrase and decide it's a cool description even though you have no background at all in anything having to do with politics. You're sort of like the guy who claims he doesn't like this or that artist, this or that movie or this or that food, not because you've ever tried to understand it, but because it's "foreign". The main response one will usually get from people like that is, "I know what I like". Ignorance does not become you. =Bob Just how do you think that Conservatives have been "statists" for a while? The defination of "statist" conflicts with what Conservatism is all about. On this one, Bob, I think that you are way off base. The examples that you provide on the Conservative side are the exception rather than the rule. They are mostly founded in religious or moral belief rather than pure political belief. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 18, 2009 14:03:32 GMT -8
Okay, let's take out the word "significant". Do you really believe that there is absolutely no racism involved in the opposition to Obama? =Bob Carter quotes on the subject: “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.” “a belief among many white people not just in the south but around the country … that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American," Why should I take away the word "significant"? He is the one portraying it as so and it is the liberal media that is giving him a megaphone acting as if they are just non-partisan reporters of his statements (all while they absolutely ignore the Acorn scandal . And as far as racism goes, sure there is some. But one thing is for sure, there are less people who voted against Barak Obama because he was black than those who voted for him simply because he was black. Both is racism in action but it is not surprising no one (at least in Democrat/media land) complaining about the former. I just wonder where Carter got his information about his weird statements. |
|
Not likely. Using the results of the various studies in their out of context way and ignoring the studies yielding results contrary to the favored premise, the left will pillory conservatives as being racists when they simply disagree with Obama's stupid a$$ policies. But then, they have been doing that for some time without this pretext.