An impressive showing. Isn't that more than came to the 2009 Inauguration? Yes:
The National Park Service says it will rely on a media report that says 1.8 million people attended President Obama's inauguration.So then, today's event was the biggest ever in Washington?
David Barna, a Park Service spokesman, said the agency did not conduct its own count. Instead, it will use a Washington Post account that said 1.8 million people gathered on the US Capitol grounds, National Mall, and parade route.
"It is a record," Barna said. "We believe it is the largest event held in Washington, D.C., ever."
UPDATE: Questions about the actual size of the admittedly huge crowd.
पोस्ट्स
२१६ टिप्पण्या:
216 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Yea, Man!
Someone told me today that this was just astroturf, so I suggested he fire his landscaper and get some artificial grass, because obviously he can't tell the real thing from the fake.
Blue Dog Alert!
If only 10% of the marchers send Joe Wilson a 20 dollar donation, then he will recieve 2 million dollars in campaign contributions.
"Tea partyers waiting for leader to emerge
Sal Russo is charged with turning the passion on display at the conservative "tea party" events into political action. But who will lead them past Saturday's huge rally in Washington? If there is a Ronald Reagan-type out there to take the reins, Russo doesn't know who that person is. "It's opened for a leader. I don't see anyone out there that can grab it," he says."
haha cnn's current lead story on their website and in the front page teaser they can't even resist casting the whole thing negatively. what liberal media?!
I got news for you newssters: the 1.8 million people in DC today are the real liberals.
Makes you proud to be an American. This is what a federal republic is supposed to look like!!
I couldn't help thinking of an old TV special about American history in which, at one point, actors portraying the men killed in the Boston Massacre gave their names and said, "I died fighting for freedom". The actor playing Crispus Attucks, the only black man killed that day, was saved for last, saying, "I died fighting for freedom. I hope it was worth it".
On days like this, the answer, of course, is, "Yes".
WV "makabow" What most men can't do at Christmas.
2 million people. LOL. Ohhhkay.
Wife and I both tried to donate all of last night and several times today. Apparantly, the server that handles the donations is not able to handle all of the traffic.
We will not give up and we will donate if it takes all week trying to get in
The left wants to laugh at this or ignore it. Which is exactly what children do.
The atmosphere was rowdy at times, with signs and images casting Mr. Obama in a demeaning light.
The atmosphere was toady at the times, with signs and images casting Mr. Obama in a deferring light.
You obviously have not compared the pics from the inauguration with those of today, Garage.
"Up to two million people ..." Perhaps the spin in the NYT will be that the same right wing nut job marched around the US Capital two million times. Nothing to see here, folks, just move along.
the Washington Times website features an AP article that merely says "tens of thousands" of protestors turned out. Of course what do they -- a conservative local paper -- know compared to the UK's Daily Mail?
You obviously have not compared the pics from the inauguration with those of today, Garage
Where are the aerial shots? I could not find any on the web.
Was this highly publicized beforehand? I follow the news to a fair extent, and didn't hear anything about this market until Wednesday.
I was there. It wasn't close to 2 million people. The crowd filled the area in front of the Capitol up to 3rd Street. By contrast, for the Inauguration, the Mall was filled up to the Washington Monument. (That's another 1.3 miles, or 6.5 times farther.)
Fox News is estimating "tens of thousands" and the Washington Times says 75,000.
I think this is just a sign that you shouldn't trust the Daily Mail. (Actually, I'm guessing that number is based on predictions made before the event.)
What is amazing is how the MSM is ignoring this event. There were a lot of people there today. Seems like at least a million. I am going from links like this one Glenn Reynolds had.
Meanwhile, Charles Johnson, still smarting after the rejection by Ace and Powerline, is now accusing R.S. McCain of being a white supremacist and Stephen Green of facilitating his evil racism.
Does CJ have a brain tumor? He is even more insane than Andrew Sullivan.
I've seen aerial shots and rooftop shots. The crowd was immense. Go to NRO, go to Insty, go to Cspan. Go to Lucianne.com
FLS, the "tens of thousand" cite is from the AP boilerplate. You'll also find it at CNN and MSNBC.
Here is a cool time-lapse of the crowds, via the Corner.
Nixon ignored only a quarter million marchers 40 years ago and went down in history for it: link
LA Times says "tens of thousands", NYT just "thousands". NYT says the protesters filled the Capitol lawn and "spilled over" onto the mall. Pics I've seen show wall to wall people from the Capitol to past the Washington Monument.
wv: patemnis: tumnus the faun's brother.
Althouse used the 2 million estimate to see if she could get Hdhouse or Dtl's head to explode.
@Garage
Who you going to believe, the media or your lying eyes?
I don't think it was quite 2 million.
But the original estimate was for 450k and even the NYT is reporting that the number of people blew away that prediction.
The police had the crowd size at roughly 1.2 million around midday and, if purely anecdotal evidence is to be believed, individual bloggers report police telling them that this was the largest crowd they had ever seen.
As for my personal opinion, well I'd say I wouldn't be surprised if it was 800k-1 million.
Where did you see pictures with crowds to the Washington Monument? When I was there, the Mall was pretty empty -- just the usual tourists.
The Washington Times says the organizers estimated the crowd at 75,000. I don't see why they would underestimate it by a factor of more than 20.
Bailey Quarters, R.S. McCain estimated 1,000,000 at least and he was there too.
But he is a "racist" (because CJ says so) and hangs out with questionable people...
Stephen Green links a guy who estimates the crowd over 2,000,000.
The crowd filled the area in front of the Capitol up to 3rd Street.
So basically, tens of thousands of people.
You guys have to see Independence Day fireworks on the Mall. Ten times as many people as today's crowd.
What's amazing is that these are conservatives protesting. This is a really odd phenomenon.
This is all because of Obama too. No one trusts Obama. They think he is a socialist and wants to be a dictator.
To come up with a fair estimate, you can do a reasonablenes check to support the estimate.
The charter bus data woud help with the estimating, and ask the area hotels how busy they were, ditto for the restaurants. Maybe the local mass transit was busier that usual. Since the transit is probably run by liberal Dems, I am sure they keep exact stats on their traffic and passenger volume [sarcasm]. Also find out how many windows were broken at the White House and how many dumps were taken on its lawn.:)
Now maybe we'll see some real entitlement reform.
The only question now is whether the Democrat Party is going to commit suicide for Zero.
Also find out how many windows were broken at the White House and how many dumps were taken on its lawn.:)
Guys looking like a cross between a ninja and a swat team member would have grabbed any pooper before his turd hit the lawn.
DC Traffic Cam of Constitution Ave showing the just how big it was
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoPud1TeubM
What's amazing is that these are conservatives protesting. This is a really odd phenomenon.
Why is this odd? Conservatives hate a Democratic President who happens to be a bit different than the recent ones. Completely expected.
No way was it even a million people.
Looks like a heck of a lot of folks on that traffic cam.
I was there today and the crowd was immense. Around one we finally worked our way to a bit of high ground and the crowd stretched down the mall as far as you could see.
When we were walking to the mall around 11:00 a stream of people were leaving who said they had been there since 8:00. I have never seen anything like it. Do not discount the millions estimates.
For some reason I turned on CNN for the first time in probably 5 years. They were running with a "opponents of Obama are racist" story. They immediately lost me. I guess they'll continue to contend with MSNBC for the same 150,000 viewers. Best of luck assholes.
Ricpic said:
"The only question now is whether the Democrat Party is going to commit suicide for Zero."
Well put Ric.
And we may see a rash of announcements "that so and so has decided he will not run for re-election".
I would bet that people who saw few people there versus people who saw many were just there at different times. This thing went on all day. We watched a bit of it this afternoon on CSPAN, and it was still going when we turned it off.
I'm sure the vast majority of people would not stand out there all day long listening to speakers.
Listen, believe whatever you want, but it was it not even in the same ballpark as the Inauguration. I was at both of them.
The second thing you link (from VodkaPundit) talks about the National Mall, but the event wasn't on the Mall, it was on Pennsylvania Avenue. Like I said, there was no one on the mall, and I read somewhere that they didn't even have a permit for the mall.
McCain says the crowd was metered at 450,000. I don't really know what that means, and I sure would like to see a source for it.
All I know is that I rode my bike from my house (about a mile from the White House) down Pennsylvania Avenue at about 1:30 and did not see significant numbers of people until 3rd Street.
By contrast, when I walked to the Inauguration, I encountered huge crowds at 17th and K (Farragut North Metro) and those people were heading south and ended up near the Washington Monument, as did I.
"Was this highly publicized beforehand? I follow the news to a fair extent, and didn't hear anything about this market until Wednesday."
Isn't that interesting. Of course it was well-publicized, if you were in the group of people paying attention. It's been in the planning stages for several months, at least, I would think. (I didn't go and I wasn't involved so I'm not an expert, but I have read reports of it going back quite a ways.)
Of course, if your standard for measuring "well-publicized" means was it covered by the traditional, mainstream media, then the answer is probably no. Much of that segment of the media goes out of its way to ignore events they don't relate to and they do their best to minimize (or demonize) that sort of thing when they are forced by circumstances to cover it. So I think it's fair to say that millions of people had no clue this was happening today.
It didn't just spring up out of nowhere, though, whether they bothered to notice or not.
Here's a pic of the Promise Keepers rally in 1997. Note that their million (or so) attendees fill the Mall from the Capitol to the Washington Monument:
http://www.usa2076.com/proguns/images/pkrally1.jpg
It doesn't matter what anyone here or the MSM say. The Blue Dog Democrats and wavering Republicans know. That is all that matters. This march was addressed to Congresscritters all of whom are up for reelection. You can bet they know how big the attendance was. And I assure you, they will not be underestimating it.
Bailey, did you look at the traffic cam video? Also, you were there at 1:30. Sounds like the big part was over by then.
I think the March - bottom line -destroyed the credibility of those Obamites in the media and his loyal proxies that all these "teabagger" protests are not authentic, not a mass movement.
There was an early, desperate effort to use every Alinsky and Herbert Marcuse tactic in the book to delegitimize and demonize detractors of The One.
That phase of tactics appears to have been defeated.
chickenlittle said...
Nixon ignored only a quarter million marchers 40 years ago and went down in history for it: link
The difference is Nixon had a vision - Peace With Honor - and to get there he bombed the crap out of N Vietnam, destroyed their Cambodian logistics lines, and decimated their complete air defense network. And had to wait 4 years to get there - because 1st he had to triangulate reapprochement with China, and detente with the Soviets. Had Nixon sent the B-52s against the North in 1969, vs 1972 - the risk of triggering a wider war, a resumpltion in Korea or direct war with Chinese troops pouring into Korea and SE Asia was just too high.
He ignored the protestors. One month later, desperate N Vietnamese sued for peace. One month after that, the POWs came home. But two years after "Nixon's Bomings" the communists had adroitly used the Democrats in US Congress to stab S Vietnam in the back and win the peace.
Why do those of you refuse to believe a traffic cam care about the number anyway?
The Dems and Obama can pass whatever bill they want, so why don't they man up and do it?
That's the thing about a march -- people are moving. It's rather like trying to count neon tetras. For a thing like the inauguration people are pretty much stationary.
Arial time lapse.
Also the Lincoln Memorial comparison does not apply because the permit was for something like 100,000. As a result people had to shunted to side streets when the crowd overflowed. And again, it was a crowd that was continuously flowing, not standing around waiting to be counted. But do, spin the number however you wish, your estimate is irrelevant.
Astroturf. That's fantastic. I have a sister that distorts perception like that. I've often wondered how she manages to get by.
MKay...it was a hella lot of people. The MSM wants to minimize the actual numbers of people who were in Wash. DC.
What they need to realize is that those who were in DC represented the tip of the iceberg. For every marcher in DC there are 5 to 10 who couldn't make it there and who would have.
The undertow is huge. Hope Obama knows how to swim.
Actually, no I don't. Drown you bastard!
Is Althouse seriously - with a straight face - trying to claim there were 2 million people there today? Laughable.
I don’t see anyone attempting to claim a national leadership of this movement.
I think that’s a positive for its goals, at least going into the congressional elections.
They were running with a "opponents of Obama are racist" story.
Well, there WERE racist signs at this event. For example, signs telling Obama to go back to Africa.....
And, please, there were not 2 million people there. I'll be the first to say there was a nice turn-out (a large percentage of whome were quite kooky -- see Little Green Footballs' posts on what many of the people at the event were up to, for example), but it would be hard to argue it was 1 million let alone 2 million.
what I would like to know is how many of the folks there were there to protest abortion, immigration, welfare issues, LaRouse Obama Hitler wackos, guns, vs people actually focued on the health care issue.
I saw the traffic cam pictures. It looks like the traffic cam is at 12th street or so and looks down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol. Pennsylvania Avenue is a pretty wide street -- 6 lanes -- but the mall is a lot wider -- two blocks across.
And obviously a lot more people can fit in a space when they're standing still than when they're walking.
I've run in the National Race for the Cure a few times. That usually has 45,000 participants plus probably thousands more organizers and well-wishers. It's huge -- I always end up having to jog for about 10 minutes before even crossing the starting line. This crowd looks comparable to that. Maybe a little bit more spread out.
Someone said that the Mall was packed all the way to the Washington Monument. If so, I really would like to see pictures of that, but none of the pictures I've seen were on the Mall.
The Washington Times says the organizers estimated the crowd at 75,000. I don't see why they would underestimate it by a factor of more than 20.
Althouse has to go along with InstaPundit B.S. Furthermore, she's now married to a guy who's a massive fan of Dick Cheney's torture. When they are out in public, they blog about how they try and annoy others around them by going on about how they love Cheney and Bush to total strangers. Most recently, at a movie theater.
Is Althouse seriously claiming there were 2 million people there today?
this picture shows a packed Mall.
wv: plowee = one who is plowed
Tonight, two out of three of the local TV news stations actually covered this story before it got to the Obama speech in Minnesota! I was very surprised.
This anecdote adds credence to what Cford noted- the bottom line is the Tea Party movement has arrived and the media can no longer ignore it.
wv = subdud
Loafing Oaf said:
"When they are out in public, they blog about how they try and annoy others around them by going on about how they love Cheney and Bush to total strangers. Most recently, at a movie theater."
Althouse has a stalker!
@fls The march organizers couldn't get a permit for the Mall, it was already booked.
That's why the police allowed the to march begin early as the permitted space was seriously overflowing and blocking traffic.
Again, I repeat, why do you care? You don't consider the protests legitimate so their numbers should be of no consequence.
That is a picture of the Mall alright, but it wasn't taken today.
Notice how the area directly in front of the Capitol is empty? There's not even a stage set up. That's where the rally was.
Notice how Pennsylvania Avenue is empty? (That's the diagonal street to the left.) That's where the march was (i.e. what the traffic cam was showing.)
Also, today was overcast, not sunny.
And the National Museum of the American Indian is mysteriously missing from the picture. Strange.
Why do those of you refuse to believe a traffic cam care about the number anyway?
1. I believe the traffic cam. It indicates no more than a few tens of thousands of people passed that way. Plus I've been to the Mall on the Fourth of July. People walk away on every access road and it still takes forever. Two million people coming via Constitution Ave would take days.
2. If you try to bullshit me on easily verifiable facts, how can I believe your less grounded assertions? And then where am I going to go for entertainment?
Fred4Pres - are you saying the quotes from RS McCain on LGF's post are fake? That the association Johnson says he has to American Renaissance is untrue?
That pic looks like it's from the Inauguration to me. The placement of the people looks like the satellite photos from that event.
somebody posted it on facebook saying it was from today. That's all I know.
wv: expedist - one who expedites
kimsh - thanks for that photo.
Why I asked about publicity is because every time there is a big liberal march in Washington, whether it be against the Iraq war, the "Million Man March" etc. It gets played up for weeks - and then ends up being something of a dud (but still played up in the media). If I had known about this ahead of time, there is a good chance I would have gone down to D.C. The fact that so many people showed up for an event that was somewhat under the radar is astonishing.
Kimsch @10:41 link shows the Mall crowded, but others have said that the Mall was not the location for today's protest.
The linked photo also seems to have been taken on a sunny day, yet the time-lapse videos show that DC was mostly overcast today.
Count me as a skeptic. I've been in DC all weekend and did not notice unprecedented crowds. Granted I wasn't down on the Mall but I was downtown. And during Inauguration, you didn't need to be down on the Mall to realize the city was swarming with visitors.
I've noticed a lot of libs citing LGF theses days. They used to talk about how bad it was and accuse people of spending too much time there. What changed?
60,000 to 70,000 according to ABC News.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protest-crowd-size-estimate-falsely-attributed-abc-news/story?id=8558055
In other words, Althouse and the Republican wingnuts LIE!
LGF is still a very conservative blog. But they believe in evolution and mock the Nirthers. Therefore, they are now considered RINO's.
And yes - that is an accurate description.
It's not from the Inauguration either. It was clearly taken during the summer sometime. And the Capitol grounds were full for the Inauguration -- they actually build a stage and seating area on the front steps of the Capitol. Also, for the Inauguration, there were several jumbotrons, including one this side of 14th Street.
Plus, that Museum's been there for awhile. So, this picture's pretty old.
You'll notice that there's some kind of stage set up this side of 3rd Street. I'm guessing this is a 4th of July concert or something.
Freeman @10:57 -- the trees and grass don't look like that photo was taken in January.
what I would like to know is how many of the folks there were there to protest abortion, immigration, welfare issues, LaRouse Obama Hitler wackos, guns, vs people actually focued on the health care issue.
Pretty much all of it ...dipshit. (and I mean that in the kindest sweetest way.) Except that I don't know what this LaRouse thing is. Who is that?
Do you seriously think this is a one issue revolt?
People are pissed off at government in general. We are tired of the over reaching and intrustive anal probe that we are getting from Obama. AND and not JUST Obama but from government for the last 10 years... or longer
60,000 to 70,000 according to ABC News.
Which is quite respectable. Whereas claiming this crowd was the biggest ever in DC, when we have a good handle on how much room it takes to put a million folks in a DC rally, is ludicrous.
Here I assume the Tea Partiers want to be taken seriously.
I do believe that tonight's thread is first time Loafing Oaf has commented without mentioning Sarah Palin.
Did she finally let go?
This was massively promoted on Fox News. Is that really respectable?
What I see is a bunch middle aged, sore losers protesting that they lost the election. In other words, a bunch of whiners.
Which is fine. But also kind of pathetic.
Althouse, of course, know very well where the line "up to 2 million people" came from, as she reads InstaPundit. That came from an article before the event took place, and then this British paper just grabbed the "up to 2 million" part of it because they didn't have the foggiest idea of how many people came. Of course it was nowhere near 2 million.
It's too bad that propaganda web sites such as this one feel the need to BS readers so much. It was a large turn-out at the event, but why the need for web sites such as this to LIE?
Birthers, truthers and now strengthers: people questioning the strength of movements.
Althouse should post an apology to her readers for leading them to believe this was "the biggest event ever in Washington". YOU LIE!
It's too bad that propaganda web sites such as this one feel the need to BS readers so much. It was a large turn-out at the event, but why the need for web sites such as this to LIE?
Yep...can't trust wingnut, strengther sites like Althouse and the Boston Globe. Better surf the net until you find a crowd estimate you like better.
I've noticed a lot of libs citing LGF theses days. They used to talk about how bad it was and accuse people of spending too much time there. What changed?
I've been registered at LGF for YEARS, under this same screenname. It's quite possible that some of the people mentioning LGF are doing so because LGF is demonstrated that it is a more principled and less hyper-partisan blogger than, well, than you are.
Interesting.
Tens of thousands isn't such a big deal, just a few wackos.
But if it trips the magic million number, now that really means something.
How about 400,000 or even just 100,000? How many people must march to really make a point?
How big and when was the last big liberal protest march?
The Boston Globe says tens of thousands too.
The Iraq War Protest March in 2003. About 6-10 million people according to wikipedia, although that was a worldwide March.
If you recall, that protest was mocked by conservative blogs.
Excellent post, Althouse, except there were far more than 2 million people there. I read online that it was more like 15 or 20 million. In fact, one website said there were up to 45 million. So, if you average it all out and compare it with the pics from the demonstrators and the traffic cam stills, there were probably around 17 or 18 million people there. Awesome.
Lawgiver: I've already stated I think they had a very large, respectable number of people at this event. But it's laughable for people to claim it was 2 million when it was obviously nowhere close to that. Hey, why doesn't Althouse say it was 10 million, then, since we're apparently allowed to just inflate figures many times over whenever we feel like it? What the hell! Who cares about reality! And if you call a blogger on a lie, that means you're just a "lib" who is on the evil side.
I didn't say 70,000 was a small number.
In fact, I think that is quite a lot of middle aged, sore losers. A shocking number really. Who knew that there were that many middle aged, sore losers with nothing better to do on a Saturday.
downtownlad: And who knew there were so many John Birch Society nutters around, too?
It's quite possible that some of the people mentioning LGF are doing so because LGF is demonstrated that it is a more principled and less hyper-partisan blogger than, well, than you are.
LOL Where did that come from? And here I had just commented that a picture supposedly from today showing a huge crowd was probably a picture from Obama's Inauguration.
Peter, re: trees and grass, hmmm. I don't know.
The Los Angeles police estimated that there were 500,000 people at a pro-immigration protest in March 2006. That didn't have much impact that I recall.
Acually LoafingOaf, if I still had my blog, I would have written about how the current Republican Party has now been transformed into an updated version of the John Birch Society.
That is not an exagerration. Go read about the John Birch Society and its views - and they are now mainstream in the current Republican Party. In fact, you don't conform to them, you are labeled a RINO.
The Los Angeles police estimated that there were 500,000 people at a pro-immigration protest in March 2006. That didn't have much impact that I recall.
I think it had impact, but it was the opposite of what was intended.
The Los Angeles police estimated that there were 500,000 people at a pro-immigration protest in March 2006. That didn't have much impact that I recall.
Yes, the rally with all the Mexican flags, I remember it well. Odd how that wasn't covered much either.
The opposite impact Freeman? Compare Obama's Hispanic vote in 2008 with Bush's Hispanic vote in 2004.
Name me one race that tipped in the Republican's favor because of immigration? I can name you plenty that tipped in favor of Democrats.
Who are these people anyway who sit around and get enraged, because there is some Mexican cleaning a neighbor's apartment?
Someone is clearly evil if they're not happy until illegal immigrants are refused entry to an emergency room, so they can be left to die.
1 million, 2 million, 15 million man march- it doesn't matter- the Obama administration has been weakening lately and will cave to growing pressure.
2010 is right around the corner.
The media is putting out numbers between 40,000 to 2 million. No one can blame the average person for not having a clue what to believe. Blame the craptastically politicized media for the disinformation campaign.
I bet at one time it was someone's job to get an accurate crowd count. Now the media just pulls numbers out of their ass.
I have no idea what actual number to believe. But the videos show pretty impressive crowds. More than I expected.
lots of pics here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2338125/posts
More pictures here. You count the people. Too many for me. So Boston Globe and WaPo say "tens of thousands." These are the same media outlets that refused to mention Van Jones until he had already resigned. What controversy? Their credibility is blown.
wv = gareat. What Tony the Tiger said. How big was the crowd? It was a gareat big crowd.
Someone is clearly evil if they're not happy until illegal immigrants are refused entry to an emergency room, so they can be left to die.
As my wife (an immigrant and a nurse) reminded me tonight: nobody is being refused treatment- nobody is going to be refused treatment. The problem is getting someone to pay for their treatment.
I think it's immoral that someone could expect a doctor or nurse to work for for them for free-that's tantamount to slavery.
my son lives in DC and he said the metro crowds were remarkable and reminiscent to him of the inauguration.
As I said chickenlittle - you want the immigrants to be left to die.
How pleasant.
You also want to make it illegal for an immigrant to buy health insurance with their own money. In other words, instead of letting the immigrant pay for his own health care, you want the American taxpayer to be forced to pick up the tab. That makes you a moron.
Of course Oscar Wilde had something clever to say about slavery:
The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends.
OSCAR WILDE, The Soul of Man Under Socialism
As I said chickenlittle - you want the immigrants to be left to die.
I didn't say that you twerpy little fuck, so STFU!
How big and when was the last big liberal protest march?
I don't know. But I do know that the conservative, Christian, Promise Keepers put a million men in the National Mall, back in 1997 -- and they filled the Mall.
Man, do the lefties sound nervous around here tonight. I bet they fear that Obama and the Democratic majority might just listen to the tens of thousands of marchers.
Don't worry. Obama won't listen. Neither will Pelosi and Reid. They don't care a bit about what all those hicks, rednecks and racists have to say. Keep pushing forward with your plan.
It's exactly what you said. You said it is IMMORAL for a nurse or doctor to treat someone who can't pay.
So if you show up at the emergency room and can't pay, you think it's IMMORAL for a nurse or doctor to treat them.
Nice set of MORALS you have there.
I get the feeling that you are severely challenged by reality DTL.
It must really suck being you.
Oooh, oooh...a Free Republic link. This one is pretty great, too:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/
Now, which one of you conservatives is going to call these people out like you did the Code Pink gals, the Truthers, and the anti-war/"Bush is Nazi" protesters? Anyone?
Are we surprised that chickenlittle - a homophobic, racist - wants immigrants to die?
I'm not.
I said it it's immoral for them to expect to be treated for free, not to be treated- get the difference?
according to his blog, zachary paul sire writes for porno magazines... lol
Yes chickenlittle, so they if they have no money, you want them to be left to DIE.
I understand exactly what you said.
This is the deal with the 2,000,000 figure: it was a number that Pelosi and the Dems wrote in a memo beforehand, trying to jack up expectations to a ridiculous level so that anything less than that would seem a failure.
Link Here
Then apparently the British paper picked that number up from the memo and reprinted it.
This was obviously not the largest gathering in the history of Washington, as it would have been if it were 2,000,000 people.
But it was a hell of a lot larger gathering than expected.
that's not what he said. who is this downtownlad person? he sounds kinda desperate.
I get the feeling that you are severely challenged by reality DTL.
It must really suck being you.
It does suck to be him. He's always angry, always name calling. He hates pretty much everyone, what an existence.
My take on those pro-immigration protests is that you are all right. The protesters waving Mexican flags fanned the passions of those who were opposed to immigration. They, in turn, applied pressure to prevent passage of the immigration bill in 2006. This reinforced the wedge that's been growing between the GOP and Hispanic voters.
And loaf, your snarky response to Freeman was misplaced. She is one of the more reasonable conservatives on these threads.
Are we surprised that chickenlittle - a homophobic, racist - wants immigrants to die?
I'm surprised you can even live with yourself sometimes. I mean really dude- lighten up!
It's exactly what he said. It is also the Republican position.
The only reason emergency rooms are even forced to treat people, including immigrants, is because Democrats forced this through Congress when they took over the Senate in 1986.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
The act specifically covers illegal immigrants. Can somebody please name 3 Republicans (besides the Maine Senators) who would be opposed to repealing this act?
This is how to handle illegal aliens who show up at the emergency room:
(1) Give them the treatment they need. Then rather than making the hospital or the county pay for it, send the bill to Washington, D.C. where it will be submitted to the Mexican government for payment, or else that amount withheld from foreign aid or some other funds otherwise being sent to Mexico. (This is Karl Denninger's idea.)
(2) When they are well enough, deport them back to Mexico to be cared for by their own people and their own government.
Problem solved! It's not that complicated.
There's no such thing as a reasonable conservative. I've documented pretty clearly how Freeman Hunt is homophobic on this thread. She has said quite vociferously that all gay people are "intrinsically evil".
I don't hate people. I mock them. If you want to see hate, then you should have gone to the March in Washington today. Hate against black people (thus the Confederate flags). Hate against gay people (thus the signs condemning "sodomy"). Hate against immigrants. Lots of hate to go around.
@DTL: What we really need is more and cheaper routine healthcare: more Wal-Mart clinics, more nurse practioners, more devolution of routine care away from highly paid physicians-that sort of thing. And everybody should pay for their own routine healthcare out of pocket like they do car maintenance-less of this $10 co-pay stuff.
@DTL You are by far the most inclusive hater on this forum-perhaps not the nastiest hater-but your scope and breadth for hatred is truly astonishing.
Doubt me? should we take a vote?
This is Karl Denninger's idea.
I knew Karl back when everyone referred to him as "yamhead."
Good times.
Actually, I pay zero for my health care now. It's free. And I get nothing deducted out of my paycheck. And I have private insurance to boot.
How? Well I don't live in the United States anymore. I think it's brilliant. I used to get $4500 a year deducted from my payroll to pay for insurance, and then I had to pay about $1000 a year in deductables and co-pays. And I'm 100% healthy, with zero illnesses. Now that $5500 a year will be mine. And if I get a serious illness, such as cancer, everything will still be free. And I live in a country with one of the highest life expectancies in the world.
And taxes are massively lower too. Go figure.
dtl: If you think that mild-mannered, middle-America protest was full of hate, you really don't have a sense of proportion or perspective.
I'd like to know how someone could voice a belief in maintaining sovereignty, traditional morals and traditional American culture (including the Confederacy) without being called a hater by someone like you. In your eyes, to believe in traditional America as it existed for the last 400 years is to be filled with hate. By your standards, virtually every American hero, leader, public figure, and citizen of the last 400 years is a "hater". That's a club I'm proud to be a member of.
You remind me of the sign at the march today that said "It Doesn't Matter What I Put On This Sign, You'll Call It Racist." You cheapen the meaning of the word "hate" by applying it to everything like that. You're the boy who cried wolf. Sooner or later people will just give up and say fine, then I'm filled with hate. Call it what you want, I don't want America to turn into Mexico, I don't want to pretend two homosexuals can get "married", and I don't want a socialist for President, regardless of his color. If that makes me a "hater", then I'm a hater. So what?
downtownlad:How? Well I don't live in the United States anymore. I think it's brilliant.
Oh my god I think it's brilliant too! Yes yes yes...please encourage other who feel like you do to make the same brilliant choice!
@MnMark lol!
"The protesters waving Mexican flags fanned the passions of those who were opposed to immigration."
Because, of course, *immigration* implies the transferring of loyalties and waving Mexican flags sends the opposite message.
I think that there is plenty of space in the US for pride about heritage... of my relatives who fly flags at all, they fly the US flag and the Norwegian one... properly. (Former Marines will do that!) In any case, I think that many people are far too sensitive on the issue.
However... the big Mexican flag waving super immigrant (but don't specify "illegal" or you're a hater even more) rally did not seem at all, even remotely, about asserting that anyone involved was interested in proclaiming loyalty, association and *identification*, with the United States.
They may have been... but that's not the impression given.
Getting back on topic:
Who believes that this grassroots revolt is not strengthening?
Well, there WERE racist signs at this event. For example, signs telling Obama to go back to Africa.....
Show us a picture please, then show us proof that the holder of the sign is not a plant, but was a mainstream member of the group.
Otherwise shut up with your claims.
@DTL: your situation is irrelevant: it's there, not here.
I don't want to pretend two homosexuals can get "married", and I don't want a socialist for President, regardless of his color.
Yes - that makes you a hater.
Lots of pictures here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/12/912-signs/
As I said - a bunch of middle aged, sore losers. So pathetic.
Well, I went through all the photos in that link ZPS provided at 12:02.
Only one guy was willing to go the full monty, calling for a repeal of Social Security, among other things.
Quayle, we've really fallen through the rabbit hole if we've got to prove that those holding objectionable signs aren't plants. Heck, maybe the people waving giant Mexican flags at the pro-immigration rally in 2006 were plants. Maybe Code Pink is made up of plants.
Only one guy was willing to go the full monty, calling for a repeal of Social Security, among other things.
He just hates FICA, as do many.
Heck, maybe the people waving giant Mexican flags at the pro-immigration rally in 2006 were plants. Maybe Code Pink is made up of plants.
Heck maybe everybody but me commenting here is a plant: do do do-doo, do do do-doo! :-)
I like the chickenlittle health care reform plan (12:12). It looks like it would scarcely take any Federal (i.e. taxpayer) dollars to implement. Maybe none at all! I remember when a doctor didn't need a full-time employee to handle insurance paperwork. You could go to the office, get a bandage or a prescription, pay out-of-pocket a reasonable amount, and be done with it. I even remember doctors making house calls! I'm such a fossil, I'm surprised I can type. I should be writing this with a fountain pen.
This health care initiative has nothing to do with actual health care. It's a power grab, pure and simple. People are recognizing this, and they don't like it. having recognized this much, they are seeing the other stuff going on, and they don't like that either.
American style rights are negative rights. You don't have the right to anything. You have the right to be free from many things. Or used to, anyway.
wv = bedumper. A job title for a category of health care employees under ObamaCare. Patients who were too far down the waiting list to receive treatment in time, and have died in bed, will be dumped out of bed by the bedumper.
He just hates FICA, as do many.
Try to buy an annuity with a cost of living adjustment, and tell me how much it will cost. Social Security is a low risk part of anyone's retirement plan.
I just noticed my 401K looks pretty good right now.
This health care initiative has nothing to do with actual health care. It's a power grab, pure and simple.
Sure, like fluoridated water is a plot to sap our vital bodily fluids.
Quayle, your call: plants or not?
One
Two
Three
Four
peter, here are some much more to the point pix:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/the-beck-brigade.html#more
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/09/12/the-patriot-act-warrantless-wiretapping-black-sights-torture-extreme-rendition#more
FLS, fluoridating the drinking water didn't require a thousand-page bill in Congress, mandates for every person in the country to buy a few thousand dollars worth of it a year or be fined, and a trillion dollars of taxpayer money. That's a silly or disingenuous comparison.
FLS, that previous set was for Quayle. Here are some more Obama=Hitler posters, probably all carried by plants, too.
One
Two
Three
Four
"Go back to Africa" is rude and insulting, but how is it racist?
It certainly crosses my personal line to the side of "not helpful" but he sort of did make a big deal about being from Kenya, or seemed to.
Maybe we could get a list of approved rude and insulting things for people who are determined to be rude and insulting to say. No?
Peter... first, I've got no particular problem with bringing fascism into a political discussion by people who fear a loss of freedom.
Secondly, I see one... a picture of Obama between Hitler and Stalin (I think)... so does Obama = Hitler, or does Obama = Stalin? Two posters with swastikas. And one poster clearly labled "LaRouche" with Obama with a Hitler mustache.
American style rights are negative rights. You don't have the right to anything. You have the right to be free from many things. Or used to, anyway.
That's actually a profound way of putting things, and you're right. But I fear that too many people have lost sight of that.
I can see we're getting new astroturfers like "Baily Quarters" to tell us us how there wasn't close to 2 million people today. They sound VERY scared to me. I don't do protests, but I'm seriously thinking about it.
Not to pick nits, but I never said the posters were racist. I was responding to Quayle's demand for photos of posters that suggested that Obama should be sent back to Africa. There was one that directly said that.
If the current health care proposal is socialist, then there's a whole lot else that the government does that is socialist. Maybe this is a legitimate last straw that has finally got to people, but I didn't see this same level of outrage when Bush pushed through Medicare, Part D. Can we repeal that already?
Do you think it's socialism when the state takes money from corporations and distributes it to the people?
Does your answer change if the state in question is Alaska?
2 million is indeed a large number. But then, America is a large country. And what's the incidence of mental illness here?
"Go back to Africa" is rude and insulting, but how is it racist?
Well, doesn't that say a everything?
I think I am understanding the mindset of the teabaggers, etc. a whole lot better now.
It certainly crosses my personal line to the side of "not helpful" but he sort of did make a big deal about being from Kenya, or seemed to.
He made a big deal about being the son of immigrants, specific country of origin notwithstanding. If you don't understand the benign and customary significance of that in political speechmaking and American patriotism, then mebbe you need to go back to whatever country your forebears who helped populate Minnesota came from.
How about: son of an immigrant.
"If the current health care proposal is socialist, then there's a whole lot else that the government does that is socialist."
Of course there is. I tend to lean slightly libertarian... more on some days than others... sometimes outright objectivist... and even from that perspective I don't see it as an all or nothing sort of thing. There's a lot in gray-ish areas and quite a bit that is firmly and forthrightly socialist... public schooling, for one.
The idea that one can't be against ever greater control of larger swathes of the economy without being against every last thing that redistributes some wealth or establishes some element of authority over our lives is a false argument. The choice isn't between being an anarchist on the one hand and a full blown communist on the other. There is everything in between, too.
People are genuinely concerned and they were holding the Tea Party things long before the Democrats started pushing the health reform bill. I think that the tipping point was the un-read, illogical, stimulous bill and the mortgage crisis.
(I think some of the very earliest signs were things like "honk if you're paying my mortgage.")
Try to convince people that their financial problems can be solved by spending as much money as fast as possible and the reality of their own lives says that's a lie. Try to convince them that they ought to pay their own mortgage and someone elses as well, and they're going to be angry because they will rightly understand that they are being punished for being fiscally responsible.
Top that off with nationalizing banks and buying GM and then add a side of health care reform (with the same stimulous sized bill that no one had read) and protests that this is not a first step to nationalized health care have no legitimacy.
It doesn't exist in isolation to the rest of it.
How about: son of an immigrant.
Oh, ok. Good point. Except that it wasn't a point - just a correction that makes no impact on my argument.
Good correction.
See, that's my point, MUL.
If I ran for something or other and wrote a book about my father who didn't even immigrate but went back to Norway after banging my mother in his viking raid... and someone told me to "Go back to Norway" it really wouldn't be racist.
Now, if it was someone from Ace of Spades they might say, "Go back to Norway you leperous stinking Scandi cod sucker" which would be racist, or at least more-so.
Synova makes some of the most hilarious comments on here. I've gotta admit, I almost kind of admire the way she so casually, and yet, so unabashedly states, in such a down-home, folksy way, some of the strangest and most intriguing things I read on the intertubes.
Actually... Obama isn't the son of an immigrant because his father did not immigrate to this country.
That's a nit and I don't regard it.
I'm just in a pedantic mood.
Synova, I suspect that if McCain had won the presidency, most of the big ticket items in the recovery -- the GM buyout, the continued bank bailouts -- would have happened, but there would be no calls that this was a socialist takeover of the economy.
Had Mitt Romney won and urged a health insurance scheme similar to the one he signed in Massachusetts, I don't think there would be this level of reaction.
Gingrich praised end of life planning as a great way to control health care costs, and no one charged him with promoting death panels.
Just as there was something about George W. Bush that unhinged many on the left, there's something about Obama that unhinges many on the right.
Looking through the posters carried to the DC protests on Saturday, I see something more than a desire to stand up for liberty and self-reliance.
Although I suppose his mother was an immigrant, some generations removed, since she's not Native American, so far as I know.
Even if it was 2 million, that's twice as much as the nutty Promise Keepers, or as Louis Farrakhan's crowd. But it doesn't mean the opposition has the credibility that Obama has over them - sinking poll numbers notwithstanding.
Obama beat McCain (the "liberal" Republican) by TEN MILLION votes. An ardent showing of two million devoted wackos is impressive - (but mostly to fellow wackos who are simply in need of affirmation, though). How it affects the dynamic between which side has greater credibility among those of us with better things to do (and more rational thoughts about policy) remains to be seen. But at least you strange ones are learning how to peaceably assemble and aren't bottling up the talk-radio inspired hatred, channeling it into the odd lone wacko who goes to shoot at the White House, the way you did when Clinton was in office.
And I'm sure there were displays of (productive, but ultimately unsuccessful) opposition of this sort and magnitude (relative to the population) back when FDR was doin' his thang.
I think you guys are learning how to self-soothe. We'll get to accommodating to reality later. How touching to watch.
Hahah, I just love how furiously and obsessively it's got the regular Obama groupies posting.
I also love how desperately they're trying to smear the whole movement based on a handful of loony signs. Wanna go to zombietime.com and look at photos of loony signs picked out from anti-war protests? You going to judge the whole anti-war movement by the same standards, or would you rather stick with the transparent double standard caused by brainless partisanship?
If I ran for something or other and wrote a book about my father who didn't even immigrate but went back to Norway after banging my mother in his viking raid... and someone told me to "Go back to Norway" it really wouldn't be racist.
It wouldn't be racist because people in America don't look down on Norwegian Americans due to a legacy of enslavement, disenfranchisement, and forced segregation. And not because of the strange rationalizations you concoct.
Keep trying, though.
I don't know if you're right about McCain, Peter. Not that he wouldn't have done the same things but that people wouldn't have complained... early Tea Parties involved some pretty ecumenical condemnations of politicians and shouting down of Republicans who dared to show up and act innocent.
Would Romney have attempted a Massachusetts type health care reform? As I understand it, that's not really going so well for them. I think he'd have avoided it altogether.
As for Newt... if he was suggesting a government run and mandated program and seemed in a position to see it implemented the reaction might be different. Very few people dispute the wisdom of making plans for end of life care and decisions... they care if it's the government or not.
Um, I'm an "Astroturfer" because you don't like what I have to say? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
If you want to live in a fantasy world, be my guest. But doesn't it strike you as odd that Fox News, the Washington Times, and the event's organizers agree with my estimate?
You going to judge the whole anti-war movement by the same standards, or would you rather stick with the transparent double standard caused by brainless partisanship?
Good point, MC! You realize that the left has wackos, too! (Just like the right does).
But the left can also do something that your side can't. It can come up with... ideas!
Of course, I realize that gets you all in a tizzy and provokes cries of interventionism, or "SOCIALISM" or whatever. But you gotta admit, coming up with a plan (and one that might even be successful in its aims) takes a little bit more brainpower than just calling names, like "brainless". Na na na na na I can't hear you...
@montana urban legend
You could be in a "this is your brain on partisanship" community service add. Don't get into party politics, kids, it'll wreck your brain.
Republicans have no ideas for American healthcare should be like? Hey, have you ever tried seriously listening to your political opponents, or do you just 'listen' to the strawman version of them that exists only in your own head?
I don't condone comparisons of Mr Bush to Hitler. But the idea that you could force a Hitler comparison out of expanding access to health care is an even more desperate stretch than a comparison based on the violence of launching a war of choice.
And, oh yeah. Hitler was much smarter than Bush. Bush was kind of like a Forrest Gump figure, as far as presidents go. Likeable, lucky and oblivious. But not evil.
No fright here.
MUL, eventually we have to be *allowed* not to be racist anymore.
We elected Obama president, as you yourself pointed out by a significant margin, which suggests rather strongly that very few people are actually prejudiced against people who are black.
Or do you allow NO ONE the right to have different political opinions?
Over and over and over again we've been told by one moral scold after another that no one is really upset about taxes or spending... it's all racism. All of it.
I'd heard one sign at the march said, "It doesn't matter what I write on this sign, you'll call me racist."
And that is true. So very true.
So while I might normally cringe at "Go back to Africa" and assume that it probably was more than "I want you to leave"... I don't assume that any longer. People are so tired of being called racist for disagreeing with this President that a whole lot of people aren't trying any more. They don't *care* anymore.
They might even see rubbing people's noses in it a plus.
Which isn't a *racist* motivation.
I don't know. You don't know. But I do know that a movement about pushing back is likely to have a few people in it who are pushing back.
Republicans have no ideas for American healthcare should be like? Hey, have you ever tried seriously listening to your political opponents, or do you just 'listen' to the strawman version of them that exists only in your own head?
If Republicans ever had serious proposals of their own, they're not doing a good job of publicizing them now. The narrative (whether fair or not, whether you like it or not) is that they're just saying "NO!" and banging their hands like toddlers. I, personally, don't have a set opinion on which approaches are the best, and I'm even partial to HSAs, stopping regulations that prevent us from purchasing insurance across state lines, etc. But I'm convinced the Dems (or at least Obama) are more serious about actually doing something.
I'm not a Democrat. But I do think the right is motivated more by base emotion than by a genuine interest in meeting the needs of the electorate or at least even engaging those needs with productive arguments. It also suffers under leadership that is much, much worse - and the legacy of a win-at-all-costs mentality that it promoted for the last twenty years. Sorry.
MUL:
You can count on the lefties to do projection. They'll accuse their opposition of whatever it is they are doing themselves. Who is doing "Na na na na na I can't hear you..." but the president who keeps giving the same speech over and over, going a thousand miles from Washington so as not to have to view the people opposing his policies.
"Hitler was much smarter than Bush." Bush is peacefully retired, living with his beautiful wife, and his lovely daughters are doing pretty well. He left the country in pretty good shape. Hitler shot himself in a bunker as his dreams collaped around him and his nation was destroyed.
WTF?
@montana urban legend
Both Bush and Obama are so not like Hitler that trying to score points quibbling over which of them is more like Hitler is the kind of idiotic nonsense produced by advanced cases of partisanship-induced brainrot.
Unless someone is planning to conquer half the world and round up, imprison and murder large numbers of innocents, comparison to Hitler is just meaningless.
"We elected Obama president, as you yourself pointed out by a significant margin, which suggests rather strongly that very few people are actually prejudiced against people who are black."
Tens of millions of people elected Obama, Tens of millions more didn't, or didn't vote. As long as voting is your yardstick, there are still more people who didn't vote for Obama than who did. How that translates into "very few" (which I don't necessarily dispute, no matter how ill-defined such a term is) is something that I think you'll have to use your creative powers of interesting mathematics to demonstrate.
"Or do you allow NO ONE the right to have different political opinions?"
Errr... this is incoherent and has nothing to do with the other thing.
"Over and over and over again we've been told by one moral scold after another that no one is really upset about taxes or spending... it's all racism. All of it."
Who is this "we"? The "we" that Glenn Beck and company define? The "we" that views itself as victimized by a demand for rational opposition and a sense of respect for the wishes of the majority when it comes to the democratic political process?
"I'd heard one sign at the march said, "It doesn't matter what I write on this sign, you'll call me racist."
And that is because your fellow-travelers are finally starting to embrace a much more accurate description: Defeatists.
Once you and yours start to understand why you are no longer resonating with a sufficient slice of the electorate for your party's wishes to prevail, then you will be on to a more advanced stage of the grieving process. But getting past denial is crucial and the sense of defeatism signifies that you have at least accomplished that. Good work.
"And that is true. So very true."
Another self-evident conclusion? Or a self-fulfilling prophecy?
"So while I might normally cringe at "Go back to Africa" and assume that it probably was more than "I want you to leave"... I don't assume that any longer. People are so tired of being called racist for disagreeing with this President that a whole lot of people aren't trying any more. They don't *care* anymore."
This is just the most back-assward attempt at logic I've ever heard. I'm not sure why you're sense of defeatism makes you deny racism for what it is, but hey... far be it from me to define priorities on behalf of groups prone to such cognitive dissonance.
"They might even see rubbing people's noses in it a plus."
Kind of like a chimp throwing its feces, eh?
"Which isn't a *racist* motivation."
Well, it's a selfish motivation - a feature which is a part of racism.
"I don't know. You don't know. But I do know that a movement about pushing back is likely to have a few people in it who are pushing back."
I'll kind of let this sad lament stand, as (even though I don't understand it fully) I get the impression that it represents a needed sense of self-reflection that has been very rare among the hard-core GOP as of late.
You can count on the lefties to do projection. They'll accuse their opposition of whatever it is they are doing themselves. Who is doing "Na na na na na I can't hear you..." but the president who keeps giving the same speech over and over, going a thousand miles from Washington so as not to have to view the people opposing his policies.
A president can address his opposition or ignore it. I think Obama has given time for the debate to air and has concluded that rational objections can be addressed, while the bulk of the irrational objections can stand to go ignored. You are also ignoring the obvious fact of who has more credibility with more of the country on this: Obama or the Naysayers? It's not the naysayers. You are not in a strong position, politically, to demand that he completely abandon everything he promised while running. You just aren't.
"Hitler was much smarter than Bush." Bush is peacefully retired, living with his beautiful wife, and his lovely daughters are doing pretty well. He left the country in pretty good shape. Hitler shot himself in a bunker as his dreams collaped around him and his nation was destroyed.
WTF?
I admit that, if your benchmark is the end of the Third Reich, Bush perhaps did leave the country in pretty good shape. But I feel sorry for you if that's the highest standard you feel American presidents need to surpass. Personally, I'd prefer voting for someone with higher expectations of his performance.
Unless someone is planning to conquer half the world and round up, imprison and murder large numbers of innocents, comparison to Hitler is just meaningless.
Yes, MC. I agree. Any references at all to Hitler in American political discourse are illegitimate reflections of such hatred and ignorance that they shouldn't be entertained by anyone with a sense of perspective, let alone a high school education. But I didn't start them, I know they (or at least the political movements dominant in the era in which Hitler took power) are alluded to frequently here, and they can be so much fun!
Ok. I'll stop.
Who is this "we"? The "we" that Glenn Beck and company define? The "we" that views itself as victimized by a demand for rational opposition and a sense of respect for the wishes of the majority when it comes to the democratic political process?
"We" are growing, steady and surely.
Or should I say: steadily and surly?
MUL... you're not a conservative, right?
So you don't get called a racist merely for being a conservative, right?
How likely is it that you might not notice that someone else is being called a racist yet again for no reason other than that they are a conservative?
If you want a good example go back to the primary campaigns last year when what is consistently directed at conservatives was suddenly turned on Hillary and even Bill. Look at how appalled and shocked and angry they were, look at how appalled and shocked and angry Ferraro was at being called a racist. It hadn't happened to them before. They were *liberals* and *liberals* don't have to face that. They were *Democrats* and *Democrats* don't have to face that.
It happens to conservatives all the time.
And for identical behavior that gets no similar comment, normally, when it's a Democrat... but this time Hillary was running a campaign against Obama so the rules were changed.
During the campaign I read opinions that said that being offended by being pre-emptively called a racist by Obama was proof of racism.
Nothing has changed.
It's steadily gotten worse.
Is it defeatist to have an attitude of "screw it, I don't care anymore?" Or is it empowering to reach a point where you refuse to be bullied any longer?
Peter Hoh said:
"Maybe this is a legitimate last straw that has finally got to people, but I didn't see this same level of outrage when Bush pushed through Medicare, Part D."
Good point.
During Bush's tenure, most of the focus was on his foreign policy, and not too many people paid close attention to his domestic policies (accept for the Social Security reform that died) or the growing economic crisis. And paid the price.
Obama has a trust problem. His past associations with radicals caused many to distrust him before the election. And in the past eight months his administration continues to makes things worse by dismissing people's concerns as the ranting of lunatics and racists. They feel, rightly, that he is trying to silence the opposition. It fosters fears that he has dictatorial aims.
But he is also bearing the brunt of people's anger at politicians in general, over the effects of the economic collapse. It became a wake-up call. People feel betrayed by the govt. Those who lost their jobs and have seem their wealth destroyed, are angry. And fair or not, the party in power bears the brunt of an angry populace.
People do not see how running up deficits or growing the govt, will help improve their chance of getting a job, or keep their taxes reasonable so they can grow their businesses. There is genuine fear of an even bigger meltdown looming due to his economic policies. Obama needs to address those fears. Or the protests will get bigger.
IMO if McCain or Romney were president, acting like Obama and pursuing similar policies, they would be in the same boat. All presidents sink or swim based largely on the economy.
MUL... you're not a conservative, right?
Before I retire for the evening, let's just stop right there and clear the air. I'm not an intellectual or political tribalist, period. I'm a pragmatist. Read my blog masthead. I think the ideas of John Locke (the common legacy of both "classical" liberalism and today's "conservatism") were and remain the most important foundation for modern politics, but that leaves the door open for a wide range of ideological diversity in ordering the policies we consider today.
With the very clear lines drawn by extremely obvious exceptions, I simply refuse to consider politics or policy from a primarily ideological lens. I have certain ideological or moral boundaries, red lines - that are widely accepted by most others - which I would not cross, and from there I go on to consider things primarily from a pragmatic perspective. This makes me flexible. It also makes me informed and willing to understand that politics do not simply exist to reinforce a narrow understand of the world as I alone, in conjunction with some silly, self-congratulatory faction, prefer to see it.
That said, we can debate what is fair treatment for righties versus lefties, etc. But the way I keep my sanity amidst the political bullshit is not through a lawyerly, Althousian appeal to a false sense of partisan "balance". I do it with as realistic, sensible and clear-eyed an understanding of history and the empirical sciences as I can achieve.
History is not necessarily on the side of conservatives. It is not necessarily on the side of the left, either.
But conservatives today must understand that their desire to see things "the way they once were" introduces a source of error into how they judge the effects of what was once wrong with society.
The wrongs of the past have to be judged based on the (more limited) moral environment of the time. But the past often lives with us in ways that today's conservatives often, hypocritically, inexplicably, fail to appreciate.
If you don't understand the significance of blacks being defined as 3/5ths of a person in the American Constitution, and want to equate that harm with every other grievance every one else (often with a political axe to grind) wants to lay claim to, well, I don't think there's much hope for you in understanding how societies come to terms with correcting their errors and transgressions.
I hope that makes some sense to you, at least for now. If not, we can discuss it further tomorrow.
MUL at 3:50:
"If you don't understand the significance of blacks being defined as 3/5ths of a person in the American Constitution, and want to equate that harm with every other grievance every one else (often with a political axe to grind) wants to lay claim to, well, I don't think there's much hope for you in understanding how societies come to terms with correcting their errors and transgressions."
Count your blessings, MUL, that you are not writing for publication, but just in blog comments. The whole point of the 3/5ths business was to diminish the political power of the slave states. Since Congressional districts were drawn up according to population, the way that the opponents of slavery could cut back the political power of the slave states was to count slaves, who could not vote, as fractional persons. That's slaves, not "blacks" — the sentence in the Constitution does not mention color, unless you want to argue about Indians.
[Here it is: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."]
Had the slaves been counted equally, the slave states would have had more Representatives in Congress, and the South would have had far more power than, in fact, it did, in the history of America before the Civil War. You have missed the point of something you think is important, and gotten it exactly backwards.
Although what all this has to do with how many people attended the event in Washington today, or yesterday by now, is beyond me.
Andrew Sullivan points to Nazi signs, defends the purity of Obama's motives, and says "Why I am not a tea-partier." link
I thought, decent of him not to use the left's deprecatory phrase.
Then association kicked in: he can't.
The Sunday NYT online has
Clijsters Wins as Williams Is Penalized
U.S. to Expand Review of Detainees in Afghan Prison
The Fading Public Option (on objections from the insurance industry)
In Wisconsin, Hopeful Signs for Factories
Financial Crisis, One Year Later
Tales From Lehman’s Crypt
In short, how Bush screwed the country up.
WOW!
The crowd in Washingto must have been FAR LARGER than even Althouse's liberal commentators ever feared. Why else would so many of them - some who have been pretty quiet for awhile - be out in force on this one thread and be posting post after post? Almost as if they are trying to drown out other opinions?
Who cares if it is the "largest" number ever? I don't know too many people who believe the numbers posted in papers or read on the news. If the source loves the message, attendance is HUGE. If it doesn't, then the claim is "tens of thousands" - even when visuals of the day prove it is far larger than that.
Two million for Obams's innaguration is no more - or less - believable than two million yesterday.
Based on the pictures I saw (not the ones posted here) - 1/2 million to a million easily. So, one has to ask why the Washington Post, etc, wants to claim "tens of thousands"?
Perhaps the lower number allows them to also claim that it's SOLELY a Republican/Conservative march. But, 1/2 million to a million - well, then people won't believe ONLY Republicans are involved.
That is the REAL story - not the numbers alone. The marchers were from a variety of political thoughts - and they are not happy. Everyday citizens who spent their own money and time to come to Washington to express an opinion about their concerns.
Politicians who simply dismiss yesterday are idiots ... who are going to get the chance to see much more of their home districts in 2010.
Montana Urban Legend Political Philosophy, Cliff's Notes Edition:
"American history makes me feel bad, therefore conservatives are racist."
we have the usual libtard idiots disputing the size of the crowd--By all means drive on with that line of shit.
As VNJAG and Ohio Ann point out, doesnt make a damn bit of difference what you fools think--this protest was directed at elected representatives who KNOW what the size of the crowd meant.
This demonstration--irrrespective of its size--will put the fear of god into wavering reps.
So please libtards--continue to offer your silly rationales for your judgments about the size of the crowd--the people who care about the size of the crowd--your elected reps--KNOW
I read Althouse pretty much ever day. And have for years. Never have I seen anyone named "Bailey Quarters" post here. Odd he shows up in this thread to claim no more than a few thousand showed up.
Go back to Kos Bailey. No one is buying it.
I vaguely recall Bailey Quarters posting before. Isn't there a way to search? Maybe not, the Search function doesn't appear to look in the comments.
I think it was a thread on Loni Anderson.
"Bailey Quarters" has commented here thricely, previously back in 2006.
Oddly, searching for "Bailey Quarters said" misses two of the three comments.
And in the past eight months his administration continues to makes things worse by dismissing people's concerns as the ranting of lunatics and racists.
And in the past eight months, concerned people have undercut their concerns by appearing to be ranting lunatics and racists.
If I say "Obama = Hitler" or "70,000 = 2,000,000," I don't expect anyone to take seriously anything else I say. In fact I would have thought that those who buy and display the Obama/Hitler signs were agents provocateurs, and no real conservatives at all.
Oh my god, you guys are so pathetic. If you want to believe that there were actually 25 times as many people there than there are actually were, be my guest.
I just thought you might want to hear from someone who lives in DC and was at both the Inauguration and this event. But I guess this is some kind of no fact zone. Whatever.
The talking points have gone out among the left--minimize the crowd size, quick, call the photos faked, quick!
I saw the live coverage on TV yesterday and I know it was a huge crowd.
Huge enough to send the Big O running in fear to Minnesota.
Chicken.
CBS Sunday Morning News reported today that the SEIU labor union leader deployed his members to attend the rally yesterday, and had the nurse members wear their scrubs.
ASTROTURF.
Sad how they are working against their own interests. Poor little plebes. Clucking at the aggressive, manipulative union. I see what the miner's union does around here, and the enforcers, and the miners and their wives have told me stories. Lawdy lawd. I don't think they realize we live in a free country. Woe to the one who doesn't toe the line.
The talking points have gone out among the left--minimize the crowd size, quick, call the photos faked, quick!
I saw the live coverage on TV yesterday and I know it was a huge crowd.
Huge enough to send the Big O running in fear to Minnesota.
Chicken.
CBS Sunday Morning News reported today that the SEIU labor union leader deployed his members to attend the rally yesterday, and had the nurse members wear their scrubs.
ASTROTURF.
Sad how they are working against their own interests. Poor little plebes. Clucking at the aggressive, manipulative union. I see what the miner's union does around here, and the enforcers, and the miners and their wives have told me stories. Lawdy lawd. I don't think they realize we live in a free country. Woe to the one who doesn't toe the line.
Ok Hector Owen - whatever you say, you are entirely vindicated in your implication that racism against blacks was not a strongly ingrained feature of American life from before the founding of the republic.
Oh wait, no you're not.
And just because you fancy yourself such an astute student of history, I fully anticipate your lecture to me on just how many or what proportion of slaves in America were not, as you say, "black".
You think that technicalities vindicate you. The only technicality that matters is that there were free blacks in free states. The fact that "slaves" and "enslaved blacks" could have been used interchangeably, that one was a euphemism of the other, seems to completely elude you.
So yes, the fact that the Constitution mentions the diminished personhood of slaves (who were purposely, not incidentally, exclusively black), does mean that racism was such an ingrained feature of this country that even the founding document for our system of government had to address it.
Find me a single historian who disagrees.
It is simply idiotic to even attempt to assert otherwise. And I think that, on some level, deep within the recesses of your dissimulating mind, you must know this.
But that was a very talented try. Not a very valiant try. Just talented. A talent for such dissembling is impressive - just not in a positive way.
Ok ok Liz. We get the point. Do you want to post that a third time? It will make it more likely that my detractors will be forced to respond on the buried section of the comments on the second page!
Or maybe I'll just try it myself. Hey, propaganda works both ways, Wingers! (It seems to be all you know these days.)
Ok ok Liz. We get the point. Do you want to post that a third time? It will make it more likely that my detractors will be forced to respond on the buried section of the comments on the second page!
I've documented pretty clearly how Freeman Hunt is homophobic on this thread. She has said quite vociferously that all gay people are "intrinsically evil".
LOL! You always pick the most ridiculous targets. Who's the other one? Oh yeah, Chip Ahoy. Keep em comin' DTL.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा