The March on washington crowd est.

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.

Got a link for that?

And I don't want a link to a picture of your talking anus.
 
Millions of ppl nationwide protesting in an organized fashion.

I don't call that "fringe".

Whatever you say.
Then the mainstream conservative moevement is made up of people carrying signs calling Obama Hitler, Commie, Muslim, Terrorist, Socialist, Tyrant, Nazi and saying next time they'll come armed?
Your definition of the mainstream is fine by the Democrats I'm sure, but you might want to check with the foam-free wing of the GOP before making that statement.
 
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.

26 October 2002 - 100,000 in Washington and 50,000 in San Francisco
18 January 2003 - 500,000 in Washington and 150,000 in San Francisco
15 February 2003 - 1,000,000 in New York City, 250,000 in San Francisco, 100,000 in Los Angeles, 50,000 in Seattle, with smaller protests in Minneapolis, Sacramento, Chicago, Detroit, Austin, Buffalo, and San Diego
 
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.
I'd like to ask you a question:

In, say...Circa 2006, what would YOU say the number, percentage-wise, of Americans who were against the war was? I'm not asking for any serious accounting, just want to know what you think this number tallied in at.

Could you take a stab at it? How many Americans do you estimate were against the war?
 
Last edited:
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.

The number of protesters, not the physical size of each protester.
 
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.

The number of protesters, not the physical size of each protester.
psst --Polk: I think she was making a phunny.
 
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.

26 October 2002 - 100,000 in Washington and 50,000 in San Francisco
18 January 2003 - 500,000 in Washington and 150,000 in San Francisco
15 February 2003 - 1,000,000 in New York City, 250,000 in San Francisco, 100,000 in Los Angeles, 50,000 in Seattle, with smaller protests in Minneapolis, Sacramento, Chicago, Detroit, Austin, Buffalo, and San Diego

Once again. Protesting a war is not the same as protesting violations of citizens' rights.

People always protest wars. What's going on now is a serious movement against restructuring of the US.
 
The Wall Street Journal - the nation's pre-eminent conservative newspaper - said that "tens of thousands" of protesters marched in the streets.



Protesters March on Washington - WSJ.com

Lots of folks here on the right really do not understand "progressivism", "fascism", "socialism", "communism", etc. Either they are ill read, or stupid.


MANY many folks here on the left either don't understand the true meaning of such terms -- or they lie about it for various reasons. They can also be stupid, but their disingenuity is motivated by other concerns.

Isn't it hilarious how these idiots are so DETERMINED to project that there is some unknowable element to socialism? And it must apparently be some sort of high secret, because NONE of the idiots that proclaim this bilge ever seem willing to share this high knowledge...

There's nothing even particularly challenging about socialism kids... It's the species of reasoning wherein all human rights are possessed by a mythical entity known as "The People"... NOT THE INDIVIDUAL or even the SUM of individuals that comprise a society... just "The People" which inevitably relates to THE GOVERNMENT; OKA: The State; or that which represents "The People."

It's a humanist notion where the highest authority is humanity and thus the reasoning requires that the highest authority is Human Goverenance... which in every manifestation of this long discredited Ideology, requires that human rights are whatever that high authority says they are... which in effect means that you have no rights, except those which THE HUMANIST say you have.

And while there are many strains of this cultural virus... they all backwash into those overider points of unsustainable idiocy.
 
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.

26 October 2002 - 100,000 in Washington and 50,000 in San Francisco
18 January 2003 - 500,000 in Washington and 150,000 in San Francisco
15 February 2003 - 1,000,000 in New York City, 250,000 in San Francisco, 100,000 in Los Angeles, 50,000 in Seattle, with smaller protests in Minneapolis, Sacramento, Chicago, Detroit, Austin, Buffalo, and San Diego

Once again. Protesting a war is not the same as protesting violations of citizens' rights.

People always protest wars. What's going on now is a serious movement against restructuring of the US.



Yes, poor you. So oppressed.
 
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.

26 October 2002 - 100,000 in Washington and 50,000 in San Francisco
18 January 2003 - 500,000 in Washington and 150,000 in San Francisco
15 February 2003 - 1,000,000 in New York City, 250,000 in San Francisco, 100,000 in Los Angeles, 50,000 in Seattle, with smaller protests in Minneapolis, Sacramento, Chicago, Detroit, Austin, Buffalo, and San Diego

Once again. Protesting a war is not the same as protesting violations of citizens' rights.

People always protest wars. What's going on now is a serious movement against restructuring of the US.

Indeed so. And when there is no Constitutional MANDATE in doing so. I have yet for ONE person show me where it says Congress or the POTUS may do these things.

And before ANY lib gets started? I don't care a WIT of the past or precidents.

Still is unlawful as to the Constitution. Oh? And one other thing? "General WELFARE" Clause doesn't cut it either.

Good form, AllieBaba. You happen to be correct.
 
Are you not a she?
One must wonder why you think that and why it's so important to you.
wow.

I had an inkling you were flaky last night when you went off gasket with the "YOU brought it up" jazz, (as you incorrectly stated), but man, now I'm getting a better insight into how deep it goes.

You get upset when someone even calls you a she.

If you're a he, I would have thought you would have corrected me, and I do believe I saw one or two of your comrades refer to you as a she, leading me to believe you were. You haven't corrected, so I was left with the impression you were.

What a Freak man.

If you like, I can call you an "it." Would that be better?
 

Forum List

Back
Top