A million protest against 'Obama the socialist'

[napfirst]

Were you this up in arms when the Bush administration wastefully spent billions invading Iraq, spent billions developing military hardware that is no longer needed, and increased the national deficit by $5 trillion? If we hadn't wasted all that money on empire building abroad, it could have been spent back here within our borders.

 

You also fail to comprehend that much of the investment will help us save money in the long run in terms of energy consumption.

yes I was.....Bush spent money like a drunken sailor......I'm ok with monies spend to protect our country...

please provide you source for $5 trillion.....and a link that shows the energy savings you are referencing.....

[Trimdingman]

Were you this up in arms when the Bush administration wastefully spent billions invading Iraq, spent billions developing military hardware that is no longer needed, and increased the national deficit by $5 trillion? If we hadn't wasted all that money on empire building abroad, it could have been spent back here within our borders.

 

You also fail to comprehend that much of the investment will help us save money in the long run in terms of energy consumption.

 

 

What about social security? With the baby boomers retiring, the pension money will not be there. If the US goes under, and our enemies are going in for the kill, you will be glad that we have a strong military.

[mustang84isu]

yes I was.....Bush spent money like a drunken sailor......I'm ok with monies spend to protect our country...

please provide you source for $5 trillion.....and a link that shows the energy savings you are referencing.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_national_debt

 

2000: 5,628.7

2008: 9,985.8

 

Correction: more like 4.4 trillion, but still a significant sum

 

The horizontal line is where Obama's presidency starts.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Reco...ent_Act_of_2009

Skim through yourself...there are plenty of examples that will lead to energy savings. Specifically, look at the government facility upgrades subcategory and energy subcategory. I am personally involved with these energy upgrades in a number of projects I am working on. Everything from modern thermal windows, motion sensor lighting systems, increased use of daylighting and natural ventilation, geothermal heat sources, green roofs, compact fluorescent bulbs, etc. will be utilized to cut back on energy consumption. The GSA is requiring all future courthouses to be LEED Certified at minimum, with LEED Platinum being the highest achievement.

 

The last big wave of public building construction was in the 1960s and 1970s. They are some of the least efficient buildings constructed in modern times and have dated thermal insulation, light fixtures, and HVAC systems. Just replacing windows, lights, and HVAC alone will lead to significant energy savings.

 

Here's just one example I googled of a school using its stimulus allotment toward energy savings. The investment in energy savings will be paid off in six years.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20...1/YOURUPSTATE11

 

http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/2007-09/green/index.html

 

If a single public building can cut its energy consumption in one year by, say, 40% through a little short-term investment, the money saved over a 50 year span will be substantial.

Edited September 20, 2009 by mustang84isu

[retro-man]

Where does this sterotyping condescension come from?.....I thought you libs were the party of inclusion and free thought....what happened to that.....

and what are people suppose to do if they don't agree with obama...sit on their hands and hope it gets better.....there have been several alternatives to the house and senate healthcare plans...the reason that you don't know about them is because the main stream media don't report them....

Yeah, well, start waving a gun in my face, or threaten to wave one, and I sort of have a negative reaction. That's the way it works. Nothing I'd like more than to see that bunch of asses make themselves into the next Branch Davidians frankly, if they think armed insurrection is so goddamned romantic.

 

What are they supposed to do if they don't agree? Well, for one thing, do what I did for 8 years: hang on for the ride. (It's like a roller coaster: it takes a lot longer for the climb to the top than it does for the plunge to the bottom.) For another, advance those ideas. If you don't like what the media is reporting, be a good capitalist and compete. Make your own media! I mean, there's no such thing as monopoly or cartel control of media or banking, or software, or anything else in this country, right? Everybody has an equal opportunity to succeed and the deck is not stacked, right? At least that's what I've been reading on here from the Laissez faire apologists for the last several years. Should be working out fine for y'all. As far as I know the Obama administration is not the one looking the other way while rampant consolidation of the media continues unabated. Banking is another story, and I'll admit I'm a bit skeptical. I think they've still got the foxes in charge of the henhouse. As for health care, I've seen other systems up close - real close - and there is no comparison with the overpriced nightmare we have here. Anybody who thinks we're doing it right doesn't get out enough, and needs to listen to someone who does. It's like your argument about deficit spending: "And more of the same is going to work, how?"

 

p.s. I'd welcome links to any alternative plans you might be thinking of. I seriously do want to be fully informed about this important issue. Ranger has posted some constructive ideas of his own on the topic, but I haven't read of anything up for consideration that I find compelling.

Edited September 20, 2009 by retro-man

[mustang84isu]

What about social security? With the baby boomers retiring, the pension money will not be there. If the US goes under, and our enemies are going in for the kill, you will be glad that we have a strong military.

Which is why many people my age have already started putting money into our 401Ks and investing in the stock market fresh out of college. We know SS is going to be broke by the time it's our turn to retire.

[napfirst]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_national_debt

 

2000: 5,628.7

2008: 9,985.8

 

Correction: more like 4.4 trillion, but still a significant sum

 

The horizontal line is where Obama's presidency starts.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Reco...ent_Act_of_2009

Skim through yourself...there are plenty of examples that will lead to energy savings. Specifically, look at the government facility upgrades subcategory and energy subcategory. I am personally involved with these energy upgrades in a number of projects I am working on. Everything from modern thermal windows, motion sensor lighting systems, increased use of daylighting and natural ventilation, geothermal heat sources, green roofs, compact fluorescent bulbs, etc. will be utilized to cut back on energy consumption. The GSA is requiring all future courthouses to be LEED Certified at minimum, with LEED Platinum being the highest achievement.

 

The last big wave of public building construction was in the 1960s and 1970s. They are some of the least efficient buildings constructed in modern times and have dated thermal insulation, light fixtures, and HVAC systems. Just replacing windows, lights, and HVAC alone will lead to significant energy savings.

 

Here's just one example I googled of a school using its stimulus allotment toward energy savings. The investment in energy savings will be paid off in six years.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20...1/YOURUPSTATE11

 

http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/2007-09/green/index.html

 

If a single public building can cut its energy consumption in one year by, say, 40% through a little short-term investment, the money saved over a 50 year span will be substantial.

this chart references debt...you said:

Were you this up in arms when the Bush administration wastefully spent billions invading Iraq, spent billions developing military hardware that is no longer needed, and increased the national deficit by $5 trillion?

[macattak1]

The argument that race matters:

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/75694.html

 

"I don't think anybody has used the symbols of race and racism to criticize this president more than the individuals on the right," said D'Linell Finley, a political science professor at Auburn University at Montgomery. "Listen to the radio, look at the signs and listen to their individual words. It comes through both in a subtle and not-so-subtle manner."

 

The not-so-subtle incidents are numerous:

 

 

 

Last October, John McCain's campaign ousted a Buchanan County, Va., McCain campaign official, Bobby May, for writing a newspaper column that said that if Obama were elected he'd hire rapper Ludacris to paint the White House black and change the national anthem to the "Negro National Anthem" by James Weldon Johnson.

 

 

Diane Fedele, who was then the president of a Republican women's club in San Bernardino County, Calif., resigned last October after she sent out a newsletter with a drawing of Obama on a bogus food-stamp coupon surrounded by ribs, watermelon and fried chicken.

 

 

In May, Sherri Goforth, an aide to Republican state Sen. Diane Black of Tennessee, sent an e-mail to Republican staffers showing the first 43 U.S. presidents in stately poses, but Obama's image, as the 44th president, was a pair of bright white cartoonish eyes on a black background.

 

 

In June, Diann Jones, the vice chairman of the Collin County Republican Party in Texas sent an e-mail to local Republican clubs calling a proposal for a $50 gun tax "another terrific idea from the black house and its minions."

 

 

Also in June, South Carolina Republican activist Rusty DePass compared an escaped gorilla from a Columbia zoo to first lady Michelle Obama's ancestors.

 

 

At an August political forum, Republican U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins of Kansas denied any racial intent when she said that the party was looking for a "great white hope" to lead the party into the future.

 

Certainly, no one is a racist quite like the tall white conservative republican males. And I know, that somehow the below will not in any way be like the above. Because it is factual that no one can be a racist hating bigot like the tall white conservative republican males.

 

Pro-Clinton Racists: Obama Lying About His Origins

 

"For heaven's sake, he made the DNC give him affirmative action on Mich

delegates. Say what now, Harvard grad? This engineered victory spoils

it for everyone. I still believe the situation will come to right

itself..."

 

"He is thanking Michelle..I guess tomorrow he will throw her stupid ass

right under that bus..and he would also like to thank Hamas,

Hesbollah, Mahmoud Ahmadenejad, and Al Quada who all support him

throughout this campaign."

 

"How did this guy get into Harvard? I'd like to see his LSAT scores. Oh yeah...affirmative action."

 

---

 

Michelle Obama Whitey Tape

[macattak1]

A simplistic line for the simple minded, repeated ad infinitum by the brainwashed.

 

"The government" built 90% of the schools, 98% of the roads and highways, most of the electrical grid, municipal sewer and water systems most of which have been in continuous and reliable service for nearly 100 years, the postal system - since privatized, libraries, fire stations, one of the greatest networks of national parks in the world. "The government" successfully prosecuted WWI, WWII. "the government" took us to the moon. You don't trust the government to run your neighborhood school (a relatively simple thing), but you trusted it, in the hands of the neo-cons, to magically transform the Middle East into a safe place for democracy (never gonna happen), didn't you? As Mark's string of contradictions points out, the right's capacity for mental contortion and selective ignorance knows no bounds.

 

All I see from these protesters, and for that matter from the Republican Party in general, is a single minded attempt to shoot Obama down (figuratively if not - God forbid - literally) at every turn. Shoot down the health care. Shoot down the economic policy. Shoot down the foreign policy. Shoot down the election results. Where are the ideas? (a childlike drawing of an assault rifle accompanied by a threat does not constitute an idea.) Private solutions for healthcare? Excuse me; isn't that where we just came from?!?!

 

The bottom line is - and the thing these toothless inbred morons keep forgetting - is that we've just "enjoyed" 30 years of trickle-down Reaganomics (that did the exact opposite from trickle down), culminating in 8 years of rule by the guy who was advanced by the Republican Party as Reagan's successor, and here we are. You lost. Not only did you lose, you failed! Man up and deal with it.

 

Clarification. He meant Federal Govt.

 

State and Local govts can mess it up just as bad. However, not on the scale of the Feds, except in the case of CA.

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

Where does this sterotyping condescension come from?.....I thought you libs were the party of inclusion and free thought....what happened to that.....

and what are people suppose to do if they don't agree with obama...sit on their hands and hope it gets better.....there have been several alternatives to the house and senate healthcare plans...the reason that you don't know about them is because the main stream media don't report them....

 

The club of Tolerance is often the most Intolerant.

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

Were you this up in arms when the Bush administration wastefully spent billions invading Iraq, spent billions developing military hardware that is no longer needed, and increased the national deficit by $5 trillion? If we hadn't wasted all that money on empire building abroad, it could have been spent back here within our borders.

 

You also fail to comprehend that much of the investment will help us save money in the long run in terms of energy consumption.

 

Up in arms? This is just a posting forum.

 

You fail to comprehend that if you don't spend money you don't have you can not consider it a savings and then redirect that savings somewhere else.

 

I am pretty sure that there is no one on this board on the conservative side that wanted to invade Iraq let alone was all up in arms cheering for it other then simple enthusiasm that anyone can get when their country moves solidly in an attempt to right a wrong.

 

Certainly now, no one is glad we had to do it. All of us would rather have not had to and have our ~5k dead soldiers, brothers, and sons back. And there is potential for us to say that we never should have invaded. We should have just pulled out of the UN and said to the UN. "You want authority over it and you want to control when and if? Then you take it and have it. We're withdrawing everything. See you in Afghanistan!"

 

In hind sight. That 'may' have been the way to go. But we went in because we thought it was the right thing to do and we are one of the very few countries capable of doing something like that. Love it or hate it. But there is no savings.

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

Yeah, well, start waving a gun in my face, or threaten to wave one, and I sort of have a negative reaction. That's the way it works. Nothing I'd like more than to see that bunch of asses make themselves into the next Branch Davidians frankly, if they think armed insurrection is so goddamned romantic.

 

What are they supposed to do if they don't agree? Well, for one thing, do what I did for 8 years: hang on for the ride. (It's like a roller coaster: it takes a lot longer for the climb to the top than it does for the plunge to the bottom.) For another, advance those ideas. If you don't like what the media is reporting, be a good capitalist and compete. Make your own media! I mean, there's no such thing as monopoly or cartel control of media or banking, or software, or anything else in this country, right? Everybody has an equal opportunity to succeed and the deck is not stacked, right? At least that's what I've been reading on here from the Laissez faire apologists for the last several years. Should be working out fine for y'all. As far as I know the Obama administration is not the one looking the other way while rampant consolidation of the media continues unabated. Banking is another story, and I'll admit I'm a bit skeptical. I think they've still got the foxes in charge of the henhouse. As for health care, I've seen other systems up close - real close - and there is no comparison with the overpriced nightmare we have here. Anybody who thinks we're doing it right doesn't get out enough, and needs to listen to someone who does. It's like your argument about deficit spending: "And more of the same is going to work, how?"

 

p.s. I'd welcome links to any alternative plans you might be thinking of. I seriously do want to be fully informed about this important issue. Ranger has posted some constructive ideas of his own on the topic, but I haven't read of anything up for consideration that I find compelling.

 

Not aimed at only you Retro, however...

 

That was a Black man that brought a hand gun and rifle to one of those rallies. Thus, the "and this time we did not even bring our guns" line for subsequent rallies. Some of you will distort that when it was the liberal media that tried to make it look like a white guy by cutting out the visual ques of his skin color. Namely by not showing his skin color!

 

Does it not bother any of you that the gun thing is being transformed into something it is not about. And not in an attempt to debate the real central issues, but just to sling mud and discredit the opponents?

 

Peace and Blessings

[Roadtrip]

They're not "holding it back." Most of these funds will be distributed to state and local levels and there is plenty of bureaucracy involved in the distribution process. You're talking about thousands of different offices and departments this money will be going to that they have to divide up who gets what. In my state, we had an economic development program approved approved a few years ago that paid for by money from our casino revenue, but it took almost a year for the funds to be distributed to all the different communities. And that was on the state level. We're talking federal level here with money going to 50 states.

 

What you're describing sounds like some of the same economic prescriptions that resulted in the Depression Within the Depression during 1937 and 1938.

 

But to your credit, you omitted three other contributors that exacerbated the Great Depression (and two of which exist as a threat to our economy today):

 

(1) The uncertainty of businesses and investors about future taxes and regulations during the 1930s, which exists today -- as exemplified by the low demand for capital during a time when interest rates are at their lowest point in history. Why aren't investors and businesses (other than those engaged in "green industries") snarfing up low-interest capital and investing and creating new jobs? Because they're scared to death of an administration and congress that they perceive to be hostile to profits.

 

(2) The potential passage of Card Check, which is a modern-era equivalent of the Wagner Act of 1935 . Thanks to the Wagner Act's creation of the National Labor Relations Board, along with its all-encompassing powers of prosecutor, judge, and jury, union membership increased by about 250 percent from 1935 to 1941, but amid the threats, strikes, plant seizures, and violence that ensued, productivity declined and unemployment rose. Very few people were inclined to invest (and create new jobs) in that kind of environment. The same kind of fear exists today with the potential passage of Card Check, and that fear is justified, given the massive contributions of Big Labor to Obama's and Congressional Democrats' campaigns, as well as the Obama Administration's recent usurping of the rule of law regarding the recent case of GM's bondholders in a debt-for-equity swap that gave majority ownership of the company to GM's UAW employees at 40 percent, along with the federal government at 50 percent, and leaving bondholders out in the cold with five cents per dollar for their original investments. In bankruptcy reorganization proceedings, by law (up until the advent of the Obama Administration), bondholders are first in line to be paid in full for their investments. Not so this time, which is a strong signal to those in the investment community that Obama favors the labor unions above all else -- even to the extent that he is willing to disregard the rule of law.

 

(3) What separates yours (and Obama's) prescriptions for relief and recovery from that of FDR's is that weird deal where the FDR Administration ordered farmers to burn crops and kill livestock as a means to jack up ag prices through reduced supply. I don't know what they were thinking (after all, Smoot-Hawley passed in 1930, and that didn't exactly help to increase demand). Perhaps they were subscribing to Bastiat's Broken Window Theory, that asserts that the damage of a broken window promotes economic activity (and therefore free trade), but I don't think so. Roosevelt and his people were not free traders. The net result was that increased prices for agricultural products affected consumers at a time when they could afford it the least.

 

To your point, there was an amazing amount of infrastructure spending during the 1930s, including, from the article I cited, the financing of some 77,000 bridges -- and a whopping 116,000 buildings, no doubt all of which were associated with the federal government in some capacity. The Hoover Dam is a monument to the New Deal. It's an incredible engineering accomplishment.

 

To my point, I was thinking about the Golden Gate Bridge, which was completed in 1937 -- at the height of the Great Depression -- and was financed privately through general revenue bonds, which is the modern equivalent of municipal bonds.

 

The Golden Gate Bridge was the result of free-market enterprise, since investment in it was all private, even though the decision to float the bonds to finance it was supported by local taxpayers. Conversely, the Hoover Dam was totally financed by U.S. taxpayers who had no choice in the matter.

 

So my takeaway is that I have a far better chance of gaining a favorable anwser when proposing marriage to my girlfriend on, or nearby the Golden Gate Bridge, than on the top of the Hoover Dam.

 

Just kidding. The real investors -- the targeted people who have annual incomes of $250,000 or more -- are not inclined to take a risk in this economic envirronment. Shades of the 1930s. . . .

[grbeck]

The argument that race matters:

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/75694.html

 

"I don't think anybody has used the symbols of race and racism to criticize this president more than the individuals on the right," said D'Linell Finley, a political science professor at Auburn University at Montgomery. "Listen to the radio, look at the signs and listen to their individual words. It comes through both in a subtle and not-so-subtle manner."

 

The not-so-subtle incidents are numerous:

 

 

 

Last October, John McCain's campaign ousted a Buchanan County, Va., McCain campaign official, Bobby May, for writing a newspaper column that said that if Obama were elected he'd hire rapper Ludacris to paint the White House black and change the national anthem to the "Negro National Anthem" by James Weldon Johnson.

 

 

Diane Fedele, who was then the president of a Republican women's club in San Bernardino County, Calif., resigned last October after she sent out a newsletter with a drawing of Obama on a bogus food-stamp coupon surrounded by ribs, watermelon and fried chicken.

 

 

In May, Sherri Goforth, an aide to Republican state Sen. Diane Black of Tennessee, sent an e-mail to Republican staffers showing the first 43 U.S. presidents in stately poses, but Obama's image, as the 44th president, was a pair of bright white cartoonish eyes on a black background.

 

 

In June, Diann Jones, the vice chairman of the Collin County Republican Party in Texas sent an e-mail to local Republican clubs calling a proposal for a $50 gun tax "another terrific idea from the black house and its minions."

 

 

Also in June, South Carolina Republican activist Rusty DePass compared an escaped gorilla from a Columbia zoo to first lady Michelle Obama's ancestors.

 

 

At an August political forum, Republican U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins of Kansas denied any racial intent when she said that the party was looking for a "great white hope" to lead the party into the future.

 

And the Black Panthers were posted at Philadelphia polling places on election day - we can assume that they weren't there at the behest of the Republican Party - and the candidate himself attended a church for 20 years where the head pastor was blaming the federal government for the AIDS epidemic.

 

For that matter, over 90 percent of the African American community voted for Obama...if 90 percent of the white community had voted for McCain, that would be proof of racism in America.

 

Two can play that game...as I said, Limbaugh hit the target with his parody, and the left fell for it hook, line and sinker. Guess they aren't as smart as they though that they were.

[grbeck]

Things a Democrat apparently believes, based on the events of the last 15 or so years, along with various postings on Blueovalnews.com:

 

*It's okay to advocate higher taxes, while not paying them yourself.

 

*No individuals should be allowed to own a hand gun, unless said person is a liberal Hollywood celebrity or the head of the company that publishes the The New York Times.

 

*The only reason people carry guns is to start shooting wildly at opportune moments.

 

*Sexual harrassment is very bad, and the person charged with it is presumed guilty, because women never lie. Unless the person being charged is a Democrat, in which case, the woman is a liar, or a slut who had it coming.

 

*Any workplace relationship between a subordinate and a superior automatically constitutes sexual harrassment, because of the imbalance of power, unless the accused is a Democratic politician supported by NOW. Then the woman obviously enjoyed it.

 

*Perjury is okay for Democrats attempting to dodge charges of sexual harrassment. The rest of us still need to face the prospect of fines, ruined careers, disbarment, etc., for lying under oath. Especially Republicans.

 

*When a Republican attends a church where the pastor suggests that affirmative action is not a good idea, it is proof that all Republicans are truly racists. If a Democrat attends a church for over 20 years where the head reverend spouts nutty conspiracy theories and gives racially charged sermons from the pulpit, it's no big deal, and very intolerant for anyone to notice this.

 

*Fox News is a font of misinformation and the reason conservatives are dumb, even though every time the media has been caught with its pants down over the publication of stories that were completed fabricated, or used fraudulent evidence or doctored photos, the source has been Newsweek, CBS, The New York Times or The New Republic. Apparently these media outlets are now all bastions of conservative thought.

 

*When Republicans provide government aid or give tax breaks to an industry or company, it's proof that they are corrupt whores in bed with big business. When Democrats do the same, it's to save jobs and preserve the American way of life.

 

*Big business is bad and hopelessly corrupt, and is getting what it deserves when consumers switch to companies providing higher quality, better-made products...unless said companies happen to employ large numbers of people who belong to the union that is one of the Democratic party's biggest donors. In that case, we have to bail out the company with taxpayer dollars, and pay for the union members' gold-plated health care plan.

 

*People who buy Toyotas and Hondas are dumb Americans who don't know what is good for their country. The smart thing to do is buy a car from the Big Three that requires more repairs, isn't as refined and has a depreciation curve that is apparently tied to a rock.

 

*If people choose not to buy a vehicle from the Big Three, it's still okay to take their tax dollars to bail out incompetent companies and their equally clueless union. It's very wrong, however, to use tax dollars paid by liberals to support a program that is an anathema to their beliefs and values.

 

*Wal-Mart has been the source of every evil in this country since about 1990.

 

*Government interference in the lending market and government pressure on financial institutions to losen lending standards somehow constitute "deregulation."

 

*When a Republican votes for amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it's proof that they are determined to take away our liberties and want to throw us in jail at a moment's notice on trumped-up charges. When a Democratic presidential candidate votes in favor of those same amendments, it's no big deal.

 

*If a Republican relies on inaccurate intelligence, it's proof that he lied. When a Democrat does this, we blame the CIA.

 

*Republicans will be held responsible for the words or slogans chanted at any rally protesting taxes or the expansion of the federal government, along with any actions that could even be tenuously linked to said words, even though the party didn't organize it and lots of the attendees don't particularly like the Republican Party. Meanwhile, antiwar protestors are heroic dissenters, and if a disgruntled Muslim would do something like actually murder an American soldier in a place like Arkansas, it can never remotely be blamed on any inflammatory rhetoric of antiwar protestors.

 

*When liberals protest government policies, they are exercing their rights as Americans, and upholding a time-honored American tradition. When those on the right opposed to the expansion of the federal government or its powers do this, they are comparable to Nazis.

 

*Democrats booing a Republican President from the floor of Congress during his address is in the fine tradition of dissent. A Republican yelling "You lied!" at a Democratic President during his address is the height of rudeness.

 

*Conservatives are too dumb to understand satire, and take everything said or written literally. When liberals don't understand that something was meant to be satire, however, it's because the delivery was bad.

Edited September 21, 2009 by grbeck

[Deanh]

Dean, screw that light bulb in just a little bit tighter. It is not a threat, it is a promise. That is what I am trying to tell you. While you are busy trying to dismiss them as toothless idiots, to some how make it easier to ignore them, they are moving rapidly toward action.

 

These are not people who think protesting is a sport. This is not save the whales this week, and gay marriage next week, and PETA the week after that. These are people that have never been to a protest before. They have just lost pretty much everything they have worked for their entire lives. I recommend that you look very closely at the pictures of the people in the pictures. These are the faces of people who could be your neighbors.

 

Those signs are for the majority hand made. When was the last time you believed so strongly in something that you made your own protest sign, drove hundreds of miles and spent all day in a massive crowd? And they have been labeled as terrorists by Janet Napolitano your secretary of Homeland security these people do not see themselves as terrorists, they see themselves as citizens. Guess how that worked out? As difficult as it may be to grasp this, each citizen has exactly the same ownership of the country, and the same right to be heard.

 

But by all means, call them toothless inbred morons... they just love it when you do that.

so basically threatening one with potential violence should be embraced as implicitly underlining ones bone of contention....and NO none of them look like my neighbors...and like I said, show up at my door and threaten me, be prepared for consequences....yes they have rights, but attempting to make a point with a thinly veiled curtain of violent behaviour, IMO, does more damage than good...

Edited September 21, 2009 by Deanh

[macattak1]

Things a Democrat apparently believes, based on the events of the last 15 or so years, along with various postings on Blueovalnews.com:

 

*It's okay to advocate higher taxes, while not paying them yourself.

 

*No individuals should be allowed to own a hand gun, unless said person is a liberal Hollywood celebrity or the head of the company that publishes the The New York Times.

 

*The only reason people carry guns is to start shooting wildly at opportune moments.

 

*Sexual harrassment is very bad, and the person charged with it is presumed guilty, because women never lie. Unless the person being charged is a Democrat, in which case, the woman is a liar, or a slut who had it coming.

 

*Any workplace relationship between a subordinate and a superior automatically constitutes sexual harrassment, because of the imbalance of power, unless the accused is a Democratic politician supported by NOW. Then the woman obviously enjoyed it.

 

*Perjury is okay for Democrats attempting to dodge charges of sexual harrassment. The rest of us still need to face the prospect of fines, ruined careers, disbarment, etc., for lying under oath. Especially Republicans.

 

*When a Republican attends a church where the pastor suggests that affirmative action is not a good idea, it is proof that all Republicans are truly racists. If a Democrat attends a church for over 20 years where the head reverend spouts nutty conspiracy theories and gives racially charged sermons from the pulpit, it's no big deal, and very intolerant for anyone to notice this.

 

*Fox News is a font of misinformation and the reason conservatives are dumb, even though every time the media has been caught with its pants down over the publication of stories that were completed fabricated, or used fraudulent evidence or doctored photos, the source has been Newsweek, CBS, The New York Times or The New Republic. Apparently these media outlets are now all bastions of conservative thought.

 

*When Republicans provide government aid or give tax breaks to an industry or company, it's proof that they are corrupt whores in bed with big business. When Democrats do the same, it's to save jobs and preserve the American way of life.

 

*Big business is bad and hopelessly corrupt, and is getting what it deserves when consumers switch to companies providing higher quality, better-made products...unless said companies happen to employ large numbers of people who belong to the union that is one of the Democratic party's biggest donors. In that case, we have to bail out the company with taxpayer dollars, and pay for the union members' gold-plated health care plan.

 

*People who buy Toyotas and Hondas are dumb Americans who don't know what is good for their country. The smart thing to do is buy a car from the Big Three that requires more repairs, isn't as refined and has a depreciation curve that is apparently tied to a rock.

 

*If people choose not to buy a vehicle from the Big Three, it's still okay to take their tax dollars to bail out incompetent companies and their equally clueless union. It's very wrong, however, to use tax dollars paid by liberals to support a program that is an anathema to their beliefs and values.

 

*Wal-Mart has been the source of every evil in this country since about 1990.

 

*Government interference in the lending market and government pressure on financial institutions to losen lending standards somehow constitute "deregulation."

 

*When a Republican votes for amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it's proof that they are determined to take away our liberties and want to throw us in jail at a moment's notice on trumped-up charges. When a Democratic presidential candidate votes in favor of those same amendments, it's no big deal.

 

*If a Republican relies on inaccurate intelligence, it's proof that he lied. When a Democrat does this, we blame the CIA.

 

*Republicans will be held responsible for the words or slogans chanted at any rally protesting taxes or the expansion of the federal government, along with any actions that could even be tenuously linked to said words, even though the party didn't organize it and lots of the attendees don't particularly like the Republican Party. Meanwhile, antiwar protestors are heroic dissenters, and if a disgruntled Muslim would do something like actually murder an American soldier in a place like Arkansas, it can never remotely be blamed on any inflammatory rhetoric of antiwar protestors.

 

*When liberals protest government policies, they are exercing their rights as Americans, and upholding a time-honored American tradition. When those on the right opposed to the expansion of the federal government or its powers do this, they are comparable to Nazis.

 

*Democrats booing a Republican President from the floor of Congress during his address is in the fine tradition of dissent. A Republican yelling "You lied!" at a Democratic President during his address is the height of rudeness.

 

*Conservatives are too dumb to understand satire, and take everything said or written literally. When liberals don't understand that something was meant to be satire, however, it's because the delivery was bad.

 

Priceless

[xr7g428]

Dean, I don't think they are threatening. I think they are telling you that they are willing to take up arms to defend what they believe to be their constitutional rights. Did you catch the fact that the guy carrying the rifle was a black man?

 

So these people don't look like your neighbors? Here is a link to a slide show from the event. These are not my pictures. This is the face of your enemy.

 

We came unarmed... This time.

[Deanh]

Dean, I don't think they are threatening. I think they are telling you that they are willing to take up arms to defend what they believe to be their constitutional rights. Did you catch the fact that the guy carrying the rifle was a black man?

 

So these people don't look like your neighbors? Here is a link to a slide show from the event. These are not my pictures. This is the face of your enemy.

 

We came unarmed... This time.

not my enemy in the slightest...I just object to the :bully tactics" of violence...NOT the way to have someone taken seriously at all, just a few extreme fruitcakes. Does this mean that everytime there is an issue we just threaten with guns??? And FWIW I dont care if one is black, white or any other color...STILL idiots...I can appreciate ANYONES opinion....but theres always a few over the top MORONS that have probably been photographed, background checked and filed under "interestingly DUMB" and possibly capable of having a bi-polar attack and shooting anyone willing to dis-agree with them.... probably in the back...using guns as leverage is absolutely cowardly. ( oh, and the guy holding the "Obama for President of Kenya " plackard is wearing a team New Zealand Americas cup cap....)

Edited September 21, 2009 by Deanh

[stephenhawkings]

Dean, I don't think they are threatening. I think they are telling you that they are willing to take up arms to defend what they believe to be their constitutional rights. Did you catch the fact that the guy carrying the rifle was a black man?

 

So these people don't look like your neighbors? Here is a link to a slide show from the event. These are not my pictures. This is the face of your enemy.

 

We came unarmed... This time.

there's a wonderfully entertaining cross section of Americans!

[xr7g428]

just a few extreme fruitcakes.

 

STILL idiots

 

over the top MORONS

 

"interestingly DUMB"

 

capable of having a bi-polar attack

 

absolutely cowardly

 

Can you even hear yourself? So if this is how you refer to people who are not your enemies...

 

Based on this, they won't have any problem shooting you right between the eyes, from very very close range, twice.

 

That coward thing is great, always call people with automatic rifles cowards... I don't think you will be telling us how that turned out. LOL!

[Versa-Tech]

Can you even hear yourself? So if this is how you refer to people who are not your enemies...

 

Based on this, they won't have any problem shooting you right between the eyes, from very very close range, twice.

 

That coward thing is great, always call people with automatic rifles cowards... I don't think you will be telling us how that turned out. LOL!

I have more firearms than I can count. I carry on a daily basis. However, that post was just plain disturbing. Have you ever had to double tap someone? It's not something to brag about. For all of us that can't sleep at night, you sir are an asshole.

[retro-man]

Yes, that was very graphic. Thanks for sharing your, uh, fantasies.

Edited September 22, 2009 by retro-man

[Versa-Tech]

p.s. Yes, we know there was one black guy who brought a gun to a rally (in a staged political stunt with a Libertarian talk show host - the only way it could conceivably have happened), but there sure as hell weren't any with this bunch.

WTF is that supposed to mean? What? A ******* is too stupid to know how to shoot a gun?! Fuckin' Racist scum! Edited September 22, 2009 by NickF1011
We don't use that word here, no exceptions.

[RangerM]

Things are getting overheated here. (You can make your point without the invective)

 

For those who believe that every protestor in DC was a toothless moron, carrying a gun, standing by his barefoot-and-pregnant wife, may I suggest going to this link?

 

These are your fellow Americans, and they are sincere in their beliefs.

[grbeck]

Things are getting overheated here. (You can make your point without the invective)

 

For those who believe that every protestor in DC was a toothless moron, carrying a gun, standing by his barefoot-and-pregnant wife, may I suggest going to this link?

 

These are your fellow Americans, and they are sincere in their beliefs.

 

You don't understand, RangerM...everyone who protests Obama is stooopid, and racist to boot. Because someone said so.

 

The other side is intelligent, enlightened, tolerant and broad-minded...because they themselves said so.

 

Except, of course, when they are talking about anyone who disagrees with them.

 

But because they are intelligent, enlightened, tolerant and broadminded, we must overlook this.

Edited September 22, 2009 by grbeck