DC Protests Draw 2 Million

[Si modo]

See, I provided a link to my claim that lawyers/law firms overwhelmingly support Dems. I would like to see the same from you for your claim that private health care does the same for the GOP. I am not doubting your claim any more than I usually doubt claims without support. I like supporting information; I'm a fan of knowing that I can back up what I say.

Found Here at Followthemoney.org

Excellent! Thanks much. I appreciate that.

 

[Vast LWC]

But how is the 'other side still spending' when the othere side currently has no power to spend? The Dems are in control.

Because the current administration is still paying interest on the pre-existing debt caused by Republicans. Thus, the Republican spending is still ongoing, even though they are no longer in office. Get it?

OK, vast. I'll agree with you (fro grins, but not in the least): none or even only a few who protested against the war were mad about spending; or why don't you tell me what would be adequate proof to you for that?

I simply am clueless as to how someone could think there were few who were against the war because of spending and what one could say to 'prove' otherwise to them

People holding signs at major rallies claiming to be against spending primarily.

Yes it would, and I've asked him to support it several times as well. He can't. I'm sure that I have not provided adequate support to you that there were a significant amount of those who protested the war because of spending. So, no hypocrisy; just gut feels all around. I usually don't give a shit about feelings when discussing politics.

Fair enough.

 

[jreeves]

But how is the 'other side still spending' when the othere side currently has no power to spend? The Dems are in control.

Because the current administration is still paying interest on the pre-existing debt caused by Republicans. Thus, the Republican spending is still ongoing, even though they are no longer in office. Get it?

OK, vast. I'll agree with you (fro grins, but not in the least): none or even only a few who protested against the war were mad about spending; or why don't you tell me what would be adequate proof to you for that?

I simply am clueless as to how someone could think there were few who were against the war because of spending and what one could say to 'prove' otherwise to them

People holding signs at major rallies claiming to be against spending primarily.

Yes it would, and I've asked him to support it several times as well. He can't. I'm sure that I have not provided adequate support to you that there were a significant amount of those who protested the war because of spending. So, no hypocrisy; just gut feels all around. I usually don't give a shit about feelings when discussing politics.

Fair enough.

How's this?

Political Affairs Magazine - NOW Calls for End to War in Iraq, Ready to March on Saturday

The monetary cost is depleting our treasury and saddling future generations with a mountain of debt; domestic programs that help the most vulnerable are set aside while the benefits of building the military complex to sustain the war enrich a few individuals and corporations.


NOW's stance against the Iraq war dates back to 2002, when on the eve of the Iraq invasion and occupation we expressed our opposition to military action. We knew then as we know now, as stated in a resolutions approved by our membership, that women bear additional personal costs in patriarchal wars that ruin their country's physical infrastructure, destabilize their economy, destroy their homes and kill and maim children and families. Eighty percent of the world's refugees and displaced persons are women and children. Women are victims of increased sexual abuse in areas of conflict and in the military, as we have seen here at home at military bases and recruitment centers, and in Iraq. Sexual violence and abduction of women and girls increase significantly under military occupation; perpetrators are rarely appreheded and prosecuted in such violent and hostile environments.

 

[Si modo]

But how is the 'other side still spending' when the othere side currently has no power to spend? The Dems are in control.

Because the current administration is still paying interest on the pre-existing debt caused by Republicans. Thus, the Republican spending is still ongoing, even though they are no longer in office. Get it? ....

Oh. Thank you. And that is really not so different a task faced by most incoming administrations. But, when an incoming administration comes into a near-broke situation and spends more than the previous drunken sailor, that's quite too much.

OK, vast. I'll agree with you (fro grins, but not in the least): none or even only a few who protested against the war were mad about spending; or why don't you tell me what would be adequate proof to you for that?

I simply am clueless as to how someone could think there were few who were against the war because of spending and what one could say to 'prove' otherwise to them

People holding signs at major rallies claiming to be against spending primarily. ....

If you really want, I'll look. Personally, if I were you, I would not take one, two, or even ten pics of signs about drunken-sailor spending as support.

I'll try, though (but honestly, not too hard).

Yes it would, and I've asked him to support it several times as well. He can't. I'm sure that I have not provided adequate support to you that there were a significant amount of those who protested the war because of spending. So, no hypocrisy; just gut feels all around. I usually don't give a shit about feelings when discussing politics.

Fair enough.

 

[bodecea]

I'm really wondering what is so difficult to understand. The innane claim by CF is that no one was concerned about spending during the last administration thus he concludes that this is somehow hypocritical. It's not as there were plenty who protested the war because of spending. Now you ask for links to a group called tea party-likes who existed at that time?

Let's call tea-party-likes as ones who are against idiotic spending (which is what they are). The war was protested for several reasons, one of which was spending. Do you dispute that? Because I really have no idea why you ask for some link to war protesters.

Slick, but not slick enough. ...

If you think I'm here to be slick, you're wrong. I have better things to do than to try to be 'slick' on some forum.

Why would I? It's a strawman.

.... We now call them tea baggers...obviously that is a new term...but I and others want to see some record of tax protests against Reagan/Bush.

Another strawman. I said spending.

.... Anti-war protests are not the same thing.....NOR DID THEY CLAIM TO BE THE SAME THING. ....

No shit. So, what is the point of making any comparison?

I don't believe a comparison was made...by me. The question was placed asking WHERE were the so-called tax/deficit protests during the Reagan/Bush years? Still looking for an answer....not necessarily from you, tho.

 

[Vast LWC]

The monetary cost is depleting our treasury and saddling future generations with a mountain of debt; domestic programs that help the most vulnerable are set aside while the benefits of building the military complex to sustain the war enrich a few individuals and corporations.


NOW's stance against the Iraq war dates back to 2002, when on the eve of the Iraq invasion and occupation we expressed our opposition to military action. We knew then as we know now, as stated in a resolutions approved by our membership, that women bear additional personal costs in patriarchal wars that ruin their country's physical infrastructure, destabilize their economy, destroy their homes and kill and maim children and families. Eighty percent of the world's refugees and displaced persons are women and children. Women are victims of increased sexual abuse in areas of conflict and in the military, as we have seen here at home at military bases and recruitment centers, and in Iraq. Sexual violence and abduction of women and girls increase significantly under military occupation; perpetrators are rarely appreheded and prosecuted in such violent and hostile environments.

While that is a good point, you neglected the preceding paragraph, detailing their primary reason for being against the war:

The human cost of the war in Iraq is enormous. Over 3,000 U.S. military men and women and an estimated 55,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Countless more have suffered serious injuries and most Iraqis live in constant fear. It seems that the only beneficiaries of the U.S. action in Iraq are Halliburton, Bechtel and other disaster profiteers. And now, our president is ready to send even more troops into this carnage, into the middle of what we have created in Iraq: a civil war.

Which was immediately followed by the paragraph you quoted.

And certainly you won't find many members of NOW among the Tea Party goers.

But, a decent attempt nonetheless.

 

[bodecea]

what lie?

That the National Park service gave an estimate of the crowds in D.C.

Does it matter what the number of people are, if the majority of people in this country agree with the crowd?

Do they? And what is the One. Clear. Irrefutable. Message. from the crowd?

 

[Vast LWC]

I don't believe a comparison was made...by me. The question was placed asking WHERE were the so-called tax/deficit protests during the Reagan/Bush years? Still looking for an answer....not necessarily from you, tho.

Well, that is a completely different point indeed.

Were there any protests that were primarily about taxes and deficits during the Bush/Reagan years?

I would tend to doubt it.

 

[Si modo]

.... Anti-war protests are not the same thing.....NOR DID THEY CLAIM TO BE THE SAME THING. ....

No shit. So, what is the point of making any comparison?

I don't believe a comparison was made...by me. The question was placed asking WHERE were the so-called tax/deficit protests during the Reagan/Bush years? Still looking for an answer....not necessarily from you, tho.

OK. I'm not being snarky here, but we have a failure to communicate. You said tea party/anti-spending protests are not the same thing as anti-war protests. I agree (with the caveat that a significant amount of those opposed to the war were opposed mainly due to what they viewed as unnecessary spending (THE tea party issue)). So, why would anyone want to know something that is irrelevant (I view incomparable situations as irrelevant when analyzing a situation.)?

 

[jreeves]

That the National Park service gave an estimate of the crowds in D.C.

Does it matter what the number of people are, if the majority of people in this country agree with the crowd?

Do they? And what is the One. Clear. Irrefutable. Message. from the crowd?

Here read it...
TeaPartyExpress.org | About

 

[jreeves]

The monetary cost is depleting our treasury and saddling future generations with a mountain of debt; domestic programs that help the most vulnerable are set aside while the benefits of building the military complex to sustain the war enrich a few individuals and corporations.


NOW's stance against the Iraq war dates back to 2002, when on the eve of the Iraq invasion and occupation we expressed our opposition to military action. We knew then as we know now, as stated in a resolutions approved by our membership, that women bear additional personal costs in patriarchal wars that ruin their country's physical infrastructure, destabilize their economy, destroy their homes and kill and maim children and families. Eighty percent of the world's refugees and displaced persons are women and children. Women are victims of increased sexual abuse in areas of conflict and in the military, as we have seen here at home at military bases and recruitment centers, and in Iraq. Sexual violence and abduction of women and girls increase significantly under military occupation; perpetrators are rarely appreheded and prosecuted in such violent and hostile environments.

While that is a good point, you neglected the preceding paragraph, detailing their primary reason for being against the war:

The human cost of the war in Iraq is enormous. Over 3,000 U.S. military men and women and an estimated 55,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Countless more have suffered serious injuries and most Iraqis live in constant fear. It seems that the only beneficiaries of the U.S. action in Iraq are Halliburton, Bechtel and other disaster profiteers. And now, our president is ready to send even more troops into this carnage, into the middle of what we have created in Iraq: a civil war.

Which was immediately followed by the paragraph you quoted.

And certainly you won't find many members of NOW among the Tea Party goers.

But, a decent attempt nonetheless.

Did the paragraph you quoted state primarily or any other such language? I think they were against the war for all of the reasons listed....

 

[Vast LWC]

Does it matter what the number of people are, if the majority of people in this country agree with the crowd?

Do they? And what is the One. Clear. Irrefutable. Message. from the crowd?

Here read it...
TeaPartyExpress.org | About

Funny though that, when asked, no-one at the Tea Party seemed to be supporting that "message":

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y"]Tea Party Interviews[/ame]

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Immediately after the incident, when the press conference was re-started, Bush made a very strong point - the shoe-thrower was acting out to gain attention - and was successful, seeing as how every news source led with that story the next day. This is a tactic that is used by both sides, and filters down to these boards as well - the actions of a few do NOT represent the whole, nor should they get the attention that they do get. Just like the 3 ACORN workers in that video have been used to demonize all of ACORN, the secessionists in Texas have been used to demonize all Cons, etc etc. I could go on all day. This is just a distraction from what's really going on - and I know that you and I don't agree on what should be done, but at least can we agree that these distractions are nothing more than that?

ROFL.. Well except that ALL OF ACORN is but one of a litany of communist front groups... comprised of sub-intellects and halfwits... each one of which should be charged, arrested and tried on sedition; based upon nothing but their presents in the company of such front groups...

And there is nothing extreme about discussing secession from a government which has clearly been subverted by everything your nation stands against.

Finally, its hilarious that you feel that you're an American... having had nothing BUT the opportunity to advocate for ANY of the immutable principles on which America rests; and in your entire body of work advanced on this board you've advocated for nothing BUT that policy which stands antithetical TO those principles...

"Everything your nation stands against"
Very telling of your mindset.
How about some of what this Nation stands for? Let me refresh your memory a bit.

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal"
"Four score and seven years ago our forefathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal"
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Closed minded blinded by hate lowly flotsam such as yourself deserves no voice.
You should remove the globe and anchor from your avatar you only disgrace it posting your hate laced rhetoric under it.

It is truly unfortunate that there is no way to hold members tangibly accountable for their words...

IF if were possible for instance to set a wager, where in you were to risk say $10,000 dollars... against my $10,000... I'd challenge you to show where ANYTHING that I've ever posted on this board... IN ANY WAY contests ANY of those sentiments or any America principle.

Where, upon your certain failure to produce such a conflicting position of mine, I'd relieve you of your property and therein teach you to THINK... before you advance such nonsense.

Now with that said... The ideological left; with you being no exception, advocate AGAINST the principle that man is endowed by our creator with equal, unalienable rights... You further advocate against holding the individual accountable for recognizing, respecting and maintaining the UNALIENABLE RESPONSIBILITIES INTRINSIC TO THOSE RIGHTS.

What's more, that anti-American advocacy is at the VERY FOUNDATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT...

There's nothign REMOTELY American about YOU, or any of your comrades...

 

[EriktheRed]

Interview today with one of the leading Teabaggers:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fymdNxn82M&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Anderson Cooper DESTROYS "Tea Party" Leader Mark Williams[/ame]

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

But how is the 'other side still spending' when the othere side currently has no power to spend? The Dems are in control.

Because the current administration is still paying interest on the pre-existing debt caused by Republicans. Thus, the Republican spending is still ongoing, even though they are no longer in office. Get it?



People holding signs at major rallies claiming to be against spending primarily.

Yes it would, and I've asked him to support it several times as well. He can't. I'm sure that I have not provided adequate support to you that there were a significant amount of those who protested the war because of spending. So, no hypocrisy; just gut feels all around. I usually don't give a shit about feelings when discussing politics.

Fair enough.

How's this?

Political Affairs Magazine - NOW Calls for End to War in Iraq, Ready to March on Saturday

The monetary cost is depleting our treasury and saddling future generations with a mountain of debt; domestic programs that help the most vulnerable are set aside while the benefits of building the military complex to sustain the war enrich a few individuals and corporations.


NOW's stance against the Iraq war dates back to 2002, when on the eve of the Iraq invasion and occupation we expressed our opposition to military action. We knew then as we know now, as stated in a resolutions approved by our membership, that women bear additional personal costs in patriarchal wars that ruin their country's physical infrastructure, destabilize their economy, destroy their homes and kill and maim children and families. Eighty percent of the world's refugees and displaced persons are women and children. Women are victims of increased sexual abuse in areas of conflict and in the military, as we have seen here at home at military bases and recruitment centers, and in Iraq. Sexual violence and abduction of women and girls increase significantly under military occupation; perpetrators are rarely appreheded and prosecuted in such violent and hostile environments.

ROFLMNAO... and it is as HILARIOUS NOW as it was then...

These are the same people who went to work pissing away orders of magnitude more then was spent in the entire GWOT over 8 YEARS... in 6 months...

The thing to remember is that when EVER you find a Leftist proclaiming something akin to "FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY"... you're looking at a liar.

They were lamenting the cost of defending FREEDOM... because it was eating into the money THEY WANTED TO SPEND TO SUBSIDIZE THEIR SACRED COWS...

 

[paperview]

Do they? And what is the One. Clear. Irrefutable. Message. from the crowd?

Here read it...
TeaPartyExpress.org | About

Funny though that, when asked, no-one at the Tea Party seemed to be supporting that "message":

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y"]Tea Party Interviews[/ame]

Wow. Buncha loony tunes. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[Vast LWC]

These are the same people who went to work pissing away orders of magnitude more then was spent in the entire GWOT over 8 YEARS... in 6 months...

See now, here's the thing, in this entire conversation we've been having for quite a few pages now, no-one has been LYING, and it's remained moderately enjoyable for it.

But now here you come and bring out the completely false accusations. Sigh.

The thing to remember is that when EVER you find a Leftist proclaiming something akin to "FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY"... you're looking at a liar.

And the childish name-calling. Double sigh.

They were lamenting the cost of defending FREEDOM... because it was eating into the money THEY WANTED TO SPEND TO SUBSIDIZE THEIR SACRED COWS...

Finishing with Hyperbole and meaningless rhetoric. The Trifecta.

 

[drsmith1072]

Regardless of the numbers being what they are, and neither side being credible in the count, the sentiment is profound.

LOL If that's what you have to keep repeating to make yourself feel better. Just know that repetition doesn't make it true.

LOL so you are basically saying "size doesn't matter and that it's what is in the heart that counts" HAHA

 

[drsmith1072]

I'd say that's more appropriate for your side Ravi. You want to believe it's a fringe movement, so you do. Despite the evidence of your own eyes.

What evidence?? Your delusions and dishonesty are only evidence of your gullibility.

 

[Vast LWC]

Regardless of the numbers being what they are, and neither side being credible in the count, the sentiment is profound.

LOL If that's what you have to keep repeating to make yourself feel better. Just know that repetition doesn't make it true.

LOL so you are basically saying "size doesn't matter and that it's what is in the heart that counts" HAHA

ROFL. Nice.