The March on washington crowd est.

[jillian]

Any attempt to silence opposition is a tenet of fascism. Ignore the honest opposition to your peril, regardless of your party.

not really.... perhaps tyranny, or despotism or authoritarianism. But words have particular meanings and distorting those meanings because one side wants to vilify the other is disingenuous.... (the comments in bold below, btw, are my own and not Dr.Britt's)

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. do we really need to ask who likes flag-waving...even if it's an empty gesture?

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. TOPgitmo? (which btw, really neds to be shut down now)

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. TOPWOT?

4. Supremacy of the Military -
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. TOPgiven the whining about the left being wimps, I don't think we need to go here.

5. Rampant Sexism -
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homo-sexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. TOP*ahem*

6. Controlled Mass Media -
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. TOPevery admin likes to control the message... some just do it better than others

7. Obsession with National Security -
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. TOPorange alerts?

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. TOPwhich is the party of the religious right? libs are g-dless, right?

9. Corporate Power is Protected -
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. TOPagain...not something "libs" generally get accused of...nor should they be

10. Labor Power is Suppressed -
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. TOPagain...which party is always whined about as being "commie" and "pro-worker"?

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. TOPwho uses the word elitist, again?

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.do we need to go here?

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. TOPpower corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely and I don't think anyone is immune to some type of corruption...for every delay there's a rangel. the question becomes what are they being corrupt about?

14. Fraudulent Elections -
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

everyone likes being able to control the result... and the fact remains that we aren't very good with close elections...it's a problem

Definition of Fascism

Socialism

Socialism deals solely with the means of production of goods and ownership of property... admittedly one can say that so-called "liberal" policies are closer to socialist ideology than fascist, but it isn't authoritarian by nature... nor should it be confused with fascism. And for the record, I don't think mixing a little socialism in to temper the results of pure capitalism is necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Si modo]

Any attempt to silence opposition is a tenet of fascism. Ignore the honest opposition to your peril, regardless of your party.

not really.... perhaps tyranny, or despotism or authoritarianism. But words have particular meanings and distorting those meanings because one side wants to vilify the other is disingenuous.... (the comments in bold below, btw, are my own and not Dr.Britt's)

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. do we really need to ask who likes flag-waving...even if it's an empty gesture?

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. TOPgitmo? (which btw, really neds to be shut down now)

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. TOPWOT?

4. Supremacy of the Military -
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. TOPgiven the whining about the left being wimps, I don't think we need to go here.

5. Rampant Sexism -
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homo-sexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. TOP*ahem*

6. Controlled Mass Media -
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. TOPevery admin likes to control the message... some just do it better than others

7. Obsession with National Security -
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. TOPorange alerts?

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. TOPwhich is the party of the religious right? libs are g-dless, right?

9. Corporate Power is Protected -
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. TOPagain...not something "libs" generally get accused of...nor should they be

10. Labor Power is Suppressed -
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. TOPagain...which party is always whined about as being "commie" and "pro-worker"?

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. TOPwho uses the word elitist, again?

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.do we need to go here?

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. TOPpower corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely and I don't think anyone is immune to some type of corruption...for every delay there's a rangel. the question becomes what are they being corrupt about?

14. Fraudulent Elections -
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

everyone likes being able to control the result... and the fact remains that we aren't very good with close elections...it's a problem

Definition of Fascism

Socialism deals solely with the means of production of goods and ownership of property... admittedly one can say that so-called "liberal" policies are closer to socialist ideology than fascist, it isn't authoritarian by nature... nor should it be confused with fascism.

No, really; one of the tenet's of fascism is to silence the opposition.

From its violent beginnings in the spring of 1919, the impulse of Italian Fascism was to silence opposition, through intimidation or coercion. Fascism's first spectacular event was the destruction of a newspaper office: the Socialist newspaper of which Mussolini had been editor until 1915. In power Mussolini inherited established practices of censorship which came to be extended to school reform, media regulation and innovative cultural policy. Mussolini's first press officer, when he fell from grace, spent years in prison and internal exile. Over the twenty years in power the Prime Minister's Press Office developed into an independent industry, first presided over by Mussolini's son-in-law, Galeazzo Ciano, becoming in 1937 the world's first Ministry for Popular Culture. (Ciano was shot as a traitor in 1944). Censorship and Common Sense in Fascist Italy, 1922-43 tells the stories of policy makers and implementers, and of the ordinary people caught up in its machinations, whether as eager supporters or as victims.

Censorship in Fascist Italy, 1922-43

[Emphasis added]

 

[Liability]

And?

Libs love to silence their opposition.

 

[Polk]

Yeah, I remember all these teabaggers bitching about Bush's spending run amok. Or how warrentless wiretaps were a threat to liberty. O wait... no, that never happened.

Actually it did, among the libertarians. There has been a tea party movement for years. But much smaller without the GOP taking it over, and unless you are in touch with what the Libs are doing you wouldn't have heard about it.

Meh. Whatever they were then they were transformed when they were taken over. The only thing missing from these TEA rallies distinguishing them from Republican rallies are the anti-abortion demonstrators.

I'm sure they're there too. I mean, you've got people protesting child labor laws there.

 

[Polk]

Any attempt to silence opposition is a tenet of fascism. Ignore the honest opposition to your peril, regardless of your party.

About 100,000 of the kooks gathered together yesterday in Washington and got front page news coverage (the anti-war protests didn't get that, even though they had much higher turnout). If they're being silenced, it's a form of silencing I've never seen before.

 

[obama2ndterm]

ep 11 2009, 10:41 am by Ronald Brownstein
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy

Thursday's annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau's principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush.

It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.

The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.

Economists would cite many reasons why presidential terms are an imperfect frame for tracking economic trends. The business cycle doesn't always follow the electoral cycle. A president's economic record is heavily influenced by factors out of his control. Timing matters and so does good fortune.

But few would argue that national economic policy is irrelevant to economic outcomes. And rightly or wrongly, voters still judge presidents and their parties largely by the economy's performance during their watch. In that assessment, few measures do more than the Census data to answer the threshold question of whether a president left the day to day economic conditions of average Americans better than he found it.
If that's the test, today's report shows that Bush flunked on every relevant dimension-and not just because of the severe downturn that began last year.

Consider first the median income. When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income-the income line around which half of households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent.

That leaves Bush with the dubious distinction of becoming the only president in recent history to preside over an income decline through two presidential terms, notes Lawrence Mishel, president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. The median household income increased during the two terms of Clinton (by 14 per cent, as we'll see in more detail below), Ronald Reagan (8.1 per cent), and Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (3.9 per cent). As Mishel notes, although the global recession decidedly deepened the hole-the percentage decline in the median income from 2007 to 2008 is the largest single year fall on record-average families were already worse off in 2007 than they were in 2000, a remarkable result through an entire business expansion. "What is phenomenal about the years under Bush is that through the entire business cycle from 2000 through 2007, even before this recession...working families were worse off at the end of the recovery, in the best of times during that period, than they were in 2000 before he took office," Mishel says.
Bush's record on poverty is equally bleak. When Clinton left office in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in poverty. When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since 1960.) Under Bush, the number of people in poverty increased by over 8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase occurred before the economic collapse of 2008.

The trends were comparably daunting for children in poverty. When Clinton left office nearly 11.6 million children lived in poverty, according to the Census. When Bush left office that number had swelled to just under 14.1 million, an increase of more than 21 per cent.

The story is similar again for access to health care. When Clinton left office, the number of uninsured Americans stood at 38.4 million. By the time Bush left office that number had grown to just over 46.3 million, an increase of nearly 8 million or 20.6 per cent.

The trends look the same when examining shares of the population that are poor or uninsured, rather than the absolute numbers in those groups. When Clinton left office in 2000 13.7 per cent of Americans were uninsured; when Bush left that number stood at 15.4 per cent. (Under Bush, the share of Americans who received health insurance through their employer declined every year of his presidency-from 64.2 per cent in 2000 to 58.5 per cent in 2008.)

When Clinton left the number of Americans in poverty stood at 11.3 per cent; when Bush left that had increased to 13.2 per cent. The poverty rate for children jumped from 16.2 per cent when Clinton left office to 19 per cent when Bush stepped down.

Every one of those measurements had moved in a positive direction under Clinton. The median income increased from $46,603 when George H.W. Bush left office in 1992 to $52,500 when Clinton left in 2000-an increase of 14 per cent. The number of Americans in poverty declined from 38 million when the elder Bush left office in 1992 to 31.6 million when Clinton stepped down-a decline of 6.4 million or 16.9 per cent. Not since the go-go years of the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson administrations during the 1960s, which coincided with the launch of the Great Society, had the number of poor Americans declined as much over two presidential terms.

The number of children in poverty plummeted from 15.3 million when H.W. Bush left office in 1992 to 11.6 million when Clinton stepped down in 2000-a stunning decline of 24 per cent. (That was partly because welfare reform forced single mothers into the workforce at the precise moment they could take advantage of a growing economy. The percentage of female-headed households in poverty stunningly dropped from 39 per cent in 1992 to 28.5 per cent in 2000, still the lowest level for that group the Census has ever recorded. That number has now drifted back up to over 31 per cent.) The number of Americans without health insurance remained essentially stable during Clinton's tenure, declining from 38.6 million when the elder Bush stepped down in 1992 to 38.4 million in 2000.

Looking at the trends by shares of the population, rather than absolute numbers, reinforces the story: The overall poverty rate and the poverty rate among children both declined sharply under Clinton, and the share of Americans without health insurance fell more modestly.

So the summary page on the economic experience of average Americans under the past two presidents would look like this:
Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent.

Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent.

Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent.

Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent.
Adding Ronald Reagan's record to the comparison fills in the picture from another angle.

Under Reagan, the median income grew, in contrast to both Bush the younger and Bush the elder. (The median income declined 3.2 per cent during the elder Bush's single term.) When Reagan was done, the median income stood at $47, 614 (again in constant 2008 dollars), 8.1 per cent higher than when Jimmy Carter left office in 1980.

But despite that income growth, both overall and childhood poverty were higher when Reagan rode off into the sunset than when he arrived. The number of poor Americans increased from 29.3 million in 1980 to 31.7 million in 1988, an increase of 8.4 per cent. The number of children in poverty trended up from 11.5 million when Carter left to 12.5 million when Reagan stepped down, a comparable increase of 7.9 per cent. The total share of Americans in poverty didn't change over Reagan's eight years (at 13 per cent), but the share of children in poverty actually increased (from 18.3 to 19.5 per cent) despite the median income gains.
The past rarely settles debates about the future.

The fact that the economy performed significantly better for average families under Clinton than under the elder or younger Bush or Ronald Reagan doesn't conclusively answer how the country should proceed now. Obama isn't replicating the Clinton economic strategy (which increased federal spending in areas like education and research much more modestly, and placed greater emphasis on deficit reduction-to the point of increasing taxes in his first term). Nor has anyone suggested that it would make sense to reprise that approach in today's conditions. But at the least, the wretched two-term record compiled by the younger Bush on income, poverty and access to health care should compel Republicans to answer a straightforward question: if tax cuts are truly the best means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why did the Bush years yield such disastrous results for American families on these core measures of economic well being?

 

[Si modo]

Any attempt to silence opposition is a tenet of fascism. Ignore the honest opposition to your peril, regardless of your party.

About 100,000 of the kooks gathered together yesterday in Washington and got front page news coverage (the anti-war protests didn't get that, even though they had much higher turnout). If they're being silenced, it's a form of silencing I've never seen before.

It's one I've never seen before, either. I have yet to see a White House who can't even acknowledge the existence of the group. Yes. Yes it is something I have never seen before.

 

[goldcatt]

Actually it did, among the libertarians. There has been a tea party movement for years. But much smaller without the GOP taking it over, and unless you are in touch with what the Libs are doing you wouldn't have heard about it.

Meh. Whatever they were then they were transformed when they were taken over. The only thing missing from these TEA rallies distinguishing them from Republican rallies are the anti-abortion demonstrators.

I'm sure they're there too. I mean, you've got people protesting child labor laws there.

These kind of protests left and right bring all kinds of squirrels out of the trees. Hard to say what the one thing they have in common is, other than being opposed to the current Administration. But why are they opposed? You ask 20 people you'd probably get at least 10 different answers, 9 of them true. Never saw a protest bigger than 10 people that was monolithic, I doubt they exist.

 

[obama2ndterm]

.....Yesterday's "Tea Party" demonstrations were, depending on your news source and ideological perspective (don't these two things go hand-in-hand these days?), either a victory for ordinary citizens spontaneously standing up against government tyranny, or a paltry gathering of dingbats who threw an ugly tantrum at the behest of FOX News. If you're a fan of Karl Rove's Wall Street Journal column, you probably think the former. If you get your kicks on DailyKos, the latter version of events may seem more accurate.

Our own Matt Lewis and Tommy Christopher had some good reports from the soggy front lines in the DC battle. Nationwide, there may have been as upwards of 250,000 disgruntled Americans who took to the streets for some good old fashioned teabagging fun. Oh, wait, even that term seems to have a double meaning.

There's a whole lot of YouTube footage out there today, and, from this writer's perspective, it makes clear that this uprising (whether spontaneous or choreographed) was more of anti-Obama phenomenon than anything else. While the tea symbol is meant to hark back to Boston and the colonist's revolt against "taxation without representation", the fact that President Obama was just elected by a margin of 8 million votes, and swiftly delivered on his campaign promise to cut taxes for 95% of working families in the country, seems beside the point. Instead, we were returned to a McCain/Palin parking lot state of mind, where the signs (some home-made, some pre-fabricated) attacked the president on everything from waterboarding to birth certificates to socialism. Is this a way of discounting the demonstrations? Perhaps.

A vocal minority really does hate our president, and they gathered in somewhat impressive numbers yesterday to exercise their First Amendment rights. In terms of the PR war, however, I must say that the whole spectacle did not present a very comprehensible message, other than general unhappiness. You hate paying taxes? Well then fix your own damn roads. You don't like the bailouts? Try living in a world in which all of our banks were left to fail. Andrew Sullivan coined the term "Tea Tantrums" last week, and that sums up much of the way I feel about this. While these demonstrations represented honestly-held beliefs, their lack of a reckoning with the problems that face our nation, and the absence of a alternative plan (how will the government pay for defense if we abolish income taxes?) puts the participants in an ideological corner.

 

[Polk]

Meh. Whatever they were then they were transformed when they were taken over. The only thing missing from these TEA rallies distinguishing them from Republican rallies are the anti-abortion demonstrators.

I'm sure they're there too. I mean, you've got people protesting child labor laws there.

These kind of protests left and right bring all kinds of squirrels out of the trees. Hard to say what the one thing they have in common is, other than being opposed to the current Administration. But why are they opposed? You ask 20 people you'd probably get at least 10 different answers, 9 of them true. Never saw a protest bigger than 10 people that was monolithic, I doubt they exist.

A very fair point.

 

[mudwhistle]

To some extent, IMO you have a point here.
However the Dems haven't made the mistake of pairing their own extremist base with the already extreme fundamentalist relgious movement - which makes it more difficult for the GOP to disengage if it chooses (and more likely the extremists will turn on them if they try, since it's not just this life they believe depends on advancing their political agenda).

The Dems are ruled by their extremist base. Witness the Health Care debacle, Cap & Trade, you name it.

It really doesn't seem to matter to them that they cause the deficit to become out of control and cause wholesale unemployment. They still insist on ramming it through regardess of the consequences.

 

[goldcatt]

To some extent, IMO you have a point here.
However the Dems haven't made the mistake of pairing their own extremist base with the already extreme fundamentalist relgious movement - which makes it more difficult for the GOP to disengage if it chooses (and more likely the extremists will turn on them if they try, since it's not just this life they believe depends on advancing their political agenda).

The Dems are ruled by their extremist base. Witness the Health Care debacle, Cap & Trade, you name it.

It really doesn't seem to matter to them that they cause the deficit to become out of control and cause wholesale unemployment. They still insist on ramming it through regardess of the consequences.

The extremists have too much influence in both parties. Extremism and "neo" philosophies seem to be all the rage these days on all "sides".
My point being, the GOP will have a harder time divorcing themselves if they decide to venture back into the mainstream because of the nature of the extremist base they adopted and cultivated. Rallies like these with people carrying signs that do not meet the legal definition of inciting violence, but to the average person flipping on the news look liek it, aren't helping the cause.
There's only so much rallying the base will do when the Base is limited to the fringes - yes, on both sides.

 

[AllieBaba]

Millions of ppl nationwide protesting in an organized fashion.

I don't call that "fringe".

 

[Polk]

Millions of ppl nationwide protesting in an organized fashion.

I don't call that "fringe".

Except it wasn't millions of people, and the protesters were much smaller than the anti-war protesters, which I'm going out on a limb and guessing you considered fringe.

 

[WillowTree]

poor ole libtards head explosions. tsk tsk tsk.

 

[AllieBaba]

Millions of ppl nationwide protesting in an organized fashion.

I don't call that "fringe".

Except it wasn't millions of people, and the protesters were much smaller than the anti-war protesters, which I'm going out on a limb and guessing you considered fringe.

Nationwide. Over a period of months. And growing.

Trouble in Obamaland.

 

[paperview]

Millions of ppl nationwide protesting in an organized fashion.

I don't call that "fringe".

Except it wasn't millions of people, and the protesters were much smaller than the anti-war protesters, which I'm going out on a limb and guessing you considered fringe.

Oh course. Anti-war protesters are fringe.

Teabaggers are Real Americans.®

 

[JakeStarkey]

What you rightards are refusing to recognize is the impact of the numbers. Your 30 million is not growing. The other 270 million despise you. It's all over for the agenda-driven activist right wing of the GOP. The great majority of Americans love BHO and hate you.

 

[AllieBaba]

Anti-war protesters were few, far between, unorganized. And the press did everything they could do to make them look like HUGE numbers were appearing with creative camera angles and over-reporting.

That's not happening here. Well, except now the lib press is attempting to downplay the huge numbers. "Hey, 2 million didn't show up, what a failure!"

What a joke.

 

[Si modo]

Millions of ppl nationwide protesting in an organized fashion.

I don't call that "fringe".

Except it wasn't millions of people, and the protesters were much smaller than the anti-war protesters, which I'm going out on a limb and guessing you considered fringe.

Oh I don't know. I saw some protesters who were well over 6' tall yesterday.