So this weekend, the tea party people had a 'culmination' of their protests in a march on the capitol.
It was extremely hard to find a source of a definitive crowd size that isn't a conservative blog or news outlet.
ABC news reported the size of the crowd was 60-70 thousand, which is not a large protest at all by DC measures, but more than this movement has been able to assemble thus far.
The leader of the tea party movement proceed to cite ABC news as his source and state it was 1-1.4 million. Michelle Malkin cites the same thing and reports it as a crowd of 2 million.
Nate Sliver notes that there were 2 million people at the capital for Obama's inauguration, and it was chaos.
Another notes that when Obama appeared to speak last May to speak in Oregon and had 75,000 people come to see him there, for comparison. (Silver also made a comprehensive total of all the protests in April.)
NBC's David Shuster spoke with the D.C. park police, who said that FreedomWorks' own estimate of 30,000 was "generous".
Shuster also reported later that in his experience covering twenty plus years of D.C. marches, "when the crowd goes only as far as 3rd st, it is 50,000 or less."
Another article makes note that the crowd isalmost entirely white.
This brings up the ever present question, "Would this movement exist or be half as 'popular' if our president wasn't a black man?" Using terms like 'I dont trust the president' when he hasn't honestly done anything untrustworthy, you know, like leading us into a war based on a lie, invoke images of people being wary of the black man.
Unfortunately, this extremely vocal and fringe minority has gotten far more press than they deserve, considering their small size. (Truthers, moreso)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
Another article makes note that the crowd isalmost entirely white.
This brings up the ever present question, "Would this movement exist or be half as 'popular' if our president wasn't a black man?"
Why is it impossible in this country to dislike Obama without being labeled a racist?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded. http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
Why is it impossible in this country to dislike Obama without being labeled a racist?
If tea party members weren't continually spouting racist epitets and holding up racially charged signs...and weren't almost entirely white...
It isn't impossible to dislike him without being labeled a racist all, but things add up, and it is honestly a valid question, considering conservatives haven't been so organized or so upset about stuff in quite a long time...and Obama hasn't done anything worse than previous presidents, the only difference being that he is black.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
Let's be fair, he has proposed to spend more than any other president in history. That seems like something conservatives would be up in arms about that has nothing to do with race.
Let's be fair, he has proposed to spend more than any other president in history. That seems like something conservatives would be up in arms about that has nothing to do with race.
Do we have a source for that statement?
He is proposing to spend more than the 4 trillion+ Bush spent while in office? Keeping in mind that almost 1 trillion of this was for the wars overseas, wars that have no effect on the quality of life in America. (Especially Iraq)
The national debt from January 10:
10,609,758,567,607.17
The current national debt:
11,795,045,980,436.61
1,185,287,412,829.44 since Obama has been in office. (1.1 trillion)
Also taking into account that Obama has identified (he says 2 trillion, experts say 900 billion) ways to cut deficit spending over the next 10 years...I am not buying this as a valid line of reasoning.
Even IF healthcare was put towards all of the 600 billion Obama says it would cost, (but be paid for by cutting costs and trimming fat, etc) he still has a way to go to outspend Bush.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
It isn't impossible to dislike him without being labeled a racist all, but things add up, and it is honestly a valid question, considering conservatives haven't been so organized or so upset about stuff in quite a long time...
That could be because conservatives have been pretty high on the hog for quite a long time.
...and Obama hasn't done anything worse than previous presidents, the only difference being that he is black.
There's no way you can quantify this. Even if Obama were somehow able to do exactly the same things as, say, Bill Clinton, the political environment in the country is different enough that you could expect a different reaction. And I shouldn't need to point out to you that his blackness is not the only difference between him and previous presidents.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Do we have a source for that statement?
He is proposing to spend more than the 4 trillion+ Bush spent while in office? Keeping in mind that almost 1 trillion of this was for the wars overseas, wars that have no effect on the quality of life in America. (Especially Iraq)
The national debt from January 10:
10,609,758,567,607.17
The current national debt:
11,795,045,980,436.61
1,185,287,412,829.44 since Obama has been in office. (1.1 trillion)
Also taking into account that Obama has identified (he says 2 trillion, experts say 900 billion) ways to cut deficit spending over the next 10 years...I am not buying this as a valid line of reasoning.
Even IF healthcare was put towards all of the 600 billion Obama says it would cost, (but be paid for by cutting costs and trimming fat, etc) he still has a way to go to outspend Bush.
Then I was wrong, as I was basing my statement on other, unsourced statements made by members of this forum.
Nevertheless, the belief that he is going to spend more than any other president may still be the culprit, not race.
Then I was wrong, as I was basing my statement on other, unsourced statements made by members of this forum.
Nevertheless, the belief that he is going to spend more than any other president may still be the culprit, not race.
Fair enough.
I think this thread is deviating from its initial point. (I should note that Obama stated today that he doesn't think the protestors are racist)
Lets bring it back to the tea parties, eh? Noone has commented on the shenanigans I linked to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
Fair enough.
I think this thread is deviating from its initial point. (I should note that Obama stated today that he doesn't think the protestors are racist)
Lets bring it back to the tea parties, eh? Noone has commented on the shenanigans I linked to.
So, no ones estimated the crowd size yet, and the leaders of the movement are overstating the turnout? How is this not completely typical of politics?
The "mostly white" bit is total crap. Please - being white and disagreeing with a black president does NOT make you racist, for the last time. Quit trying to guilt people over to your side (and this is a blanket statement for anyone on the left). Not to mention, Obama's hyperpartisan actions standing in stark contrast to his friendly and open rhetoric give ANYONE a reason to distrust him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've officially quit magic. Don't like the crap that WotC's been taking on us.
Do we have a source for that statement?
He is proposing to spend more than the 4 trillion+ Bush spent while in office? Keeping in mind that almost 1 trillion of this was for the wars overseas, wars that have no effect on the quality of life in America. (Especially Iraq)
The national debt from January 10:
10,609,758,567,607.17
The current national debt:
11,795,045,980,436.61
1,185,287,412,829.44 since Obama has been in office. (1.1 trillion)
Also taking into account that Obama has identified (he says 2 trillion, experts say 900 billion) ways to cut deficit spending over the next 10 years...I am not buying this as a valid line of reasoning.
Even IF healthcare was put towards all of the 600 billion Obama says it would cost, (but be paid for by cutting costs and trimming fat, etc) he still has a way to go to outspend Bush.
Well, current estimates put obama at a 9 trillion deficit according to the CBO. The CBO also disagrees a LOT on that 600 billion cost(saying more like 1.5T over ten years) although th 1.5T was from a month ago so the bill could have changed a lot(ie no public option?). Yeah, obama is def. spending more than Bush did. Then again Bush was a conservative and neither are most of the current Republicans. Bush presided over the biggest increase in government spending until Obama came along and beat him.(obamas normal yearly budget is in the 3.5T range).
Using terms like 'I dont trust the president' when he hasn't honestly done anything untrustworthy, you know, like leading us into a war based on a lie, invoke images of people being wary of the black man.
You don't have to invoke a war in Iraq with a lie to get protest. Bush had far more scrutiny than Obama for what he did. And considering the title of the thread, you in fact paint yourself to be very hypocritical. If the TEA Party protests are so small and undeserving of attention, then how does it make sense that Obama doesn't deserve the opposition? That makes you seem to be asserting that Obama deserves NO opposition. Are you suggesting that the country should be run by a dictator? Are all the dissendents astroturfers and racists? And is it because they happen to be white?
I am so tired of Democrat tactics to suppress the voices of millions and millions of Americans. I feel the need to urge people to throw bricks through the windows of politicians like Pelosi just so they can acknowledge opposition exists... as if the town hall protests aren't enough. I only hope you realize what people like you are doing and that there will be consequences. There is a reason why conservatives are very angry because all your liberal buddies up there in Washington refuse to listen. I think you'd know how it feels if the nation was run by a Republican president with a Republican controlled Congress. We have to shout extra loud now just to be slightly heard.
And you can stop pretending Obama has been reaching out some golden handshake to all of us. The only reason he has even acknowledged conservative complaints is because of the protests. And this is after he has already had plenty of time to pass all of his Democratic pork that is the stimulus. He has still to make any serious compromises on important issues.
I am so tired of Democrat tactics to suppress the voices of millions and millions of Americans.
You miss the point of the entire thread.
The point is that the DC tea party protests were not large in size compared to any other conventional protest or gathering made there. (Like for, I don't know, the war in Iraq, which had several 100k+ protests over the years)
The point is that they do NOT number in the millions, and they are so below that mark that they are insignificant in number, with their power and influence is grossly exaggerated.
Relative to the size of the movement, compared to other grassroots movements in the US, they get more news coverage and press than any that have preceded them. It is grossly disproportionate to their actual size, possibly in line with how big they report themselves to be though.
Republicans and Tea Party people are NOT one and the same, but people are trying to conflate this.
There are vastly more GOP members than Tea Party members.
Someone would not be able to run on a Tea Party ticket and get elected.
They would not be able to swing the numbers in any significant way.
The point is that they do NOT number in the millions, and they are so below that mark that they are insignificant in number, with their power and influence is grossly exaggerated.
I think it is doing enough of a job to get noticed not only by media but by left wingers like yourself.
size really doesn't matter it is the coverage that the protest gets. evidently they are doing a good enough job.
PS the only people that were mentioning the protest being in the millions were liberals so then they could try to down play it later.
as for the racist card the only people i know that play the race card are liberals. it is the only way they can defend their position is by trying to label the opposition as racists.
I didn't support clinton and his healthcare plan in the 90's, i didn't support the amnesty bill, so there are 2 major pieces of legislation supported by white men. so what does that make me now a reverse racist?
playing the race card is like bringing up the nazi arguement you automactically lose.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
You miss the point of the entire thread.
The point is that the DC tea party protests were not large in size compared to any other conventional protest or gathering made there. (Like for, I don't know, the war in Iraq, which had several 100k+ protests over the years)
The point is that they do NOT number in the millions, and they are so below that mark that they are insignificant in number, with their power and influence is grossly exaggerated.
Relative to the size of the movement, compared to other grassroots movements in the US, they get more news coverage and press than any that have preceded them. It is grossly disproportionate to their actual size, possibly in line with how big they report themselves to be though.
Yet You're missing the point - clearly, two things are at work here:
1) Many people respond positively to news about TEA party protests; ergo they agree with these protests or else news networks would not be running so much news on them.
2) Healthcare is currently -THE- issue in this country. Of COURSE you'll run a disproportionate amount of news about the issue, just like there was a disproportionate amount of iraq war news when bush was president.
I also don't get the point of your thread - all the things that are happening are completely in norm for politics and news. Are you suggesting that news should change its approach to dissent in general? Or what? It almost seems like you're (again) trying to bash right-wing citizens, but hey, I'm not going to judge.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've officially quit magic. Don't like the crap that WotC's been taking on us.
I also don't get the point of your thread - all the things that are happening are completely in norm for politics and news. Are you suggesting that news should change its approach to dissent in general? Or what? It almost seems like you're (again) trying to bash right-wing citizens, but hey, I'm not going to judge.
I think the point of the thread is to say "Anyone who opposes Obama is wrong and doesn't deserve to be heard". Seriously, so there were only like 40,000 protesters. That's still 40,000 people who chose to show up and protest, and they DO represent millions of people with a dissenting opinion; to say that there aren't millions who disagree with Obama because only 40,000 or fewer people showed up is ridiculous.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded. http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
I think the point of the thread is to say "Anyone who opposes Obama is wrong and doesn't deserve to be heard". Seriously, so there were only like 40,000 protesters. That's still 40,000 people who chose to show up and protest, and they DO represent millions of people with a dissenting opinion; to say that there aren't millions who disagree with Obama because only 40,000 or fewer people showed up is ridiculous.
The bolded part is significant, but I don't think you realize why. If 40,000 protestors that show up represent millions of dissentors, then how many dissentors are represented when 2,000,000 protestors show up? By misrepresenting the number of protetors that show up, they are by extension mispreresenting the number of dissentors represented. THAT is the point that seds is trying to get across, I think (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Frankly, what is saddest to me is how completely un/misinformed many of the protestors are. I've seen photos from the 9/12 rally, and many of the signs were either illogical or just plain unintelligible. It's sad watching someone wave around a sign that reads "Stop stealing from Medicare to fund socialized medicine", completely oblivious to contradiction. It's sad watching someone wave aroudn a sign that reads "Bring back 'We the people'", completely oblivious to the fact that "we the people" elected the man. To these protestors, "we the people" means "we the people that agree with me".
Let's be fair, he has proposed to spend more than any other president in history. That seems like something conservatives would be up in arms about that has nothing to do with race.
The bolded part is significant, but I don't think you realize why. If 40,000 protestors that show up represent millions of dissentors, then how many dissentors are represented when 2,000,000 protestors show up? By misrepresenting the number of protetors that show up, they are by extension mispreresenting the number of dissentors represented. THAT is the point that seds is trying to get across, I think (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
I can't say for sure that you're wrong, but this is not the message he was conveying. It sounded like he was saying under a million people showed up, so the entire protest doesn't matter.
It's sad watching someone wave aroudn a sign that reads "Bring back 'We the people'", completely oblivious to the fact that "we the people" elected the man. To these protestors, "we the people" means "we the people that agree with me".
And apparently to Obama and every other elected officials, "for the people" means "for the people who voted for me, and everyone else can sit on it."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded. http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
The bolded part is significant, but I don't think you realize why. If 40,000 protestors that show up represent millions of dissentors, then how many dissentors are represented when 2,000,000 protestors show up? By misrepresenting the number of protetors that show up, they are by extension mispreresenting the number of dissentors represented. THAT is the point that seds is trying to get across, I think (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
And yet, the point we're trying to make is that every organization that wants to be recognized will do this. (Bolded for your convenience). So now that we acknowledge the fact, what is the point of dwelling on it? As evidenced by the rest of your post, this spam-fest is pretty much verbal masturbation without a valid point to be made.
"Bring back 'We the people'", completely oblivious to the fact that "we the people" elected the man. To these protestors, "we the people" means "we the people that agree with me".
The irony HERE, is that it makes perfect sense - Obama has gone so far back on his campaign promises he no longer remotely resembles his original platform. But nice try.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've officially quit magic. Don't like the crap that WotC's been taking on us.
I PROMISE more uninformed people voted for obama. Both in number and %.
I PROMISE more uniformed people voted for McCain than Obama. Both in number and %.
This is an issue with the US at large, but you are just plain using some misinformation here. The majority of poll results showed that the higher a person's level of education, the more likely they were to vote Obama.
If you think that the average Glenn Beck viewer constitutes someone who is 'informed', then we have a different meaning of the word.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
I PROMISE more uniformed people voted for McCain than Obama. Both in number and %
You can no more make this claim than he can about obama. just a bunch of BS being thrown around here.
This is an issue with the US at large, but you are just plain using some misinformation here. The majority of poll results showed that the higher a person's level of education, the more likely they were to vote Obama.
Which in the end means absolutly nothing. I know some very well educated people and on some things they are very smart. on every day to day items they are dumb as a brick.
trying to equate ones education to something else is well a fallacy.
If you think that the average Glenn Beck viewer constitutes someone who is 'informed', then we have a different meaning of the word.
If you think that the average obama listener constitutes someone who is 'informed', then we have a different meaning of the word.
it works both ways you realize this? most people do not know all the issues. heck most people can't even tell you who the first president of the US was.
The thing that the tea parties have in common is the absolute free reign of government spending. The federal government use to be self efficient. it didn't require taxes to function.
as government spending has risen more and more revenue is needed. now the government is running deficits in the trillions of dollars. the obama deficit is at 1.5 trillion without his healthcare plan.
we are spending mor and more money to pay off interest on loans than other more important things.
Obama promised to be fiscally responsible. so far he has yet to even show that at all. there is no way he can get the federal deficit down to 240b which would be the half way mark. in fact the federal deficit is suppose to get larger not smaller. so much for fiscal responsibility.
i guess people have adopted obama's view on opposition that those people just need to sit down and shut up. i feel sorry for him and liberals in congress.
this isn't going to go away and come 2010 you are going to see a backlash and by 2012 a reversal of power.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
as government spending has risen more and more revenue is needed. now the government is running deficits in the trillions of dollars. the obama deficit is at 1.5 trillion without his healthcare plan.
we are spending mor and more money to pay off interest on loans than other more important things.
Obama promised to be fiscally responsible. so far he has yet to even show that at all. there is no way he can get the federal deficit down to 240b which would be the half way mark. in fact the federal deficit is suppose to get larger not smaller. so much for fiscal responsibility.
I know, right. Unfortunately, deficits happen in a recession. In no way did Obama say it was going to be easy. In fact, he said it would be a hard, long way back to recovery.[/quote]Unfortunately, fixing the healthcare system has to be done. Otherwise, we will be spending more than the purposed amount at a later date. There have been estimates that we will be spending 4.4 trillion dollars on healthcare for one year by 2018. In fact, the cost of healthcare will rise faster than the growth of GDP. You may not like the spending, but it has to be done for the longterm savings.
I know, right. Unfortunately, deficits happen in a recession. In no way did Obama say it was going to be easy. In fact, he said it would be a hard, long way back to recovery. Unfortunately, fixing the healthcare system has to be done. Otherwise, we will be spending more than the purposed amount at a later date. There have been estimates that we will be spending 4.4 trillion dollars on healthcare for one year by 2018. In fact, the cost of healthcare will rise faster than the growth of GDP. You may not like the spending, but it has to be done for the longterm savings.
And yet the CBO claims obama's plan will INCREASE said spending. Funny how that works.
But dont derail the thread - this isnt the healthcare debate/
I know, right. Unfortunately, deficits happen in a recession. In no way did Obama say it was going to be easy. In fact, he said it would be a hard, long way back to recovery
No it wouldn't have been if they had actually used the money correctly. The recession could have been over fairly quickly. No it was extended out because of poor management by the government.
It has only been hard because the government made it hard.
Unfortunately, fixing the healthcare system has to be done. Otherwise, we will be spending more than the purposed amount at a later date. There have been estimates that we will be spending 4.4 trillion dollars on healthcare for one year by 2018. In fact, the cost of healthcare will rise faster than the growth of GDP. You may not like the spending, but it has to be done for the longterm savings.
Yep it can be done without government to do it as well and more government spending.
actually if done properly we will be spending less not more. the only reason that we would spend more is due to the plan being a bad plan to begin with.
Yep it will which is economically disasterous. No it doesn't have to be done. that economic concept has been thrown out with the bath water.
The government doesn't need to spend massive amounts of money. that is just BS. the private sector is more than capable of meeting the needs of people and doing it at a much more efficient and lower cost than government.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It was extremely hard to find a source of a definitive crowd size that isn't a conservative blog or news outlet.
ABC news reported the size of the crowd was 60-70 thousand, which is not a large protest at all by DC measures, but more than this movement has been able to assemble thus far.
The leader of the tea party movement proceed to cite ABC news as his source and state it was 1-1.4 million. Michelle Malkin cites the same thing and reports it as a crowd of 2 million.
Nate Sliver notes that there were 2 million people at the capital for Obama's inauguration, and it was chaos.
Another notes that when Obama appeared to speak last May to speak in Oregon and had 75,000 people come to see him there, for comparison. (Silver also made a comprehensive total of all the protests in April.)
Another article makes the case for even smaller crowd sizes.
Another article makes note that the crowd is almost entirely white.
This brings up the ever present question, "Would this movement exist or be half as 'popular' if our president wasn't a black man?" Using terms like 'I dont trust the president' when he hasn't honestly done anything untrustworthy, you know, like leading us into a war based on a lie, invoke images of people being wary of the black man.
Unfortunately, this extremely vocal and fringe minority has gotten far more press than they deserve, considering their small size. (Truthers, moreso)
Twitter
Why is it impossible in this country to dislike Obama without being labeled a racist?
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded.
http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
If tea party members weren't continually spouting racist epitets and holding up racially charged signs...and weren't almost entirely white...
It isn't impossible to dislike him without being labeled a racist all, but things add up, and it is honestly a valid question, considering conservatives haven't been so organized or so upset about stuff in quite a long time...and Obama hasn't done anything worse than previous presidents, the only difference being that he is black.
Twitter
Do we have a source for that statement?
He is proposing to spend more than the 4 trillion+ Bush spent while in office? Keeping in mind that almost 1 trillion of this was for the wars overseas, wars that have no effect on the quality of life in America. (Especially Iraq)
Useful way to find out the national debt: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
The national debt from January 10:
10,609,758,567,607.17
The current national debt:
11,795,045,980,436.61
1,185,287,412,829.44 since Obama has been in office. (1.1 trillion)
Also taking into account that Obama has identified (he says 2 trillion, experts say 900 billion) ways to cut deficit spending over the next 10 years...I am not buying this as a valid line of reasoning.
Even IF healthcare was put towards all of the 600 billion Obama says it would cost, (but be paid for by cutting costs and trimming fat, etc) he still has a way to go to outspend Bush.
Twitter
That could be because conservatives have been pretty high on the hog for quite a long time.
There's no way you can quantify this. Even if Obama were somehow able to do exactly the same things as, say, Bill Clinton, the political environment in the country is different enough that you could expect a different reaction. And I shouldn't need to point out to you that his blackness is not the only difference between him and previous presidents.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Nevertheless, the belief that he is going to spend more than any other president may still be the culprit, not race.
Fair enough.
I think this thread is deviating from its initial point. (I should note that Obama stated today that he doesn't think the protestors are racist)
Lets bring it back to the tea parties, eh? Noone has commented on the shenanigans I linked to.
Twitter
So, no ones estimated the crowd size yet, and the leaders of the movement are overstating the turnout? How is this not completely typical of politics?
The "mostly white" bit is total crap. Please - being white and disagreeing with a black president does NOT make you racist, for the last time. Quit trying to guilt people over to your side (and this is a blanket statement for anyone on the left). Not to mention, Obama's hyperpartisan actions standing in stark contrast to his friendly and open rhetoric give ANYONE a reason to distrust him.
Well, current estimates put obama at a 9 trillion deficit according to the CBO. The CBO also disagrees a LOT on that 600 billion cost(saying more like 1.5T over ten years) although th 1.5T was from a month ago so the bill could have changed a lot(ie no public option?). Yeah, obama is def. spending more than Bush did. Then again Bush was a conservative and neither are most of the current Republicans. Bush presided over the biggest increase in government spending until Obama came along and beat him.(obamas normal yearly budget is in the 3.5T range).
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
You don't have to invoke a war in Iraq with a lie to get protest. Bush had far more scrutiny than Obama for what he did. And considering the title of the thread, you in fact paint yourself to be very hypocritical. If the TEA Party protests are so small and undeserving of attention, then how does it make sense that Obama doesn't deserve the opposition? That makes you seem to be asserting that Obama deserves NO opposition. Are you suggesting that the country should be run by a dictator? Are all the dissendents astroturfers and racists? And is it because they happen to be white?
I am so tired of Democrat tactics to suppress the voices of millions and millions of Americans. I feel the need to urge people to throw bricks through the windows of politicians like Pelosi just so they can acknowledge opposition exists... as if the town hall protests aren't enough. I only hope you realize what people like you are doing and that there will be consequences. There is a reason why conservatives are very angry because all your liberal buddies up there in Washington refuse to listen. I think you'd know how it feels if the nation was run by a Republican president with a Republican controlled Congress. We have to shout extra loud now just to be slightly heard.
And you can stop pretending Obama has been reaching out some golden handshake to all of us. The only reason he has even acknowledged conservative complaints is because of the protests. And this is after he has already had plenty of time to pass all of his Democratic pork that is the stimulus. He has still to make any serious compromises on important issues.
You miss the point of the entire thread.
The point is that the DC tea party protests were not large in size compared to any other conventional protest or gathering made there. (Like for, I don't know, the war in Iraq, which had several 100k+ protests over the years)
The point is that they do NOT number in the millions, and they are so below that mark that they are insignificant in number, with their power and influence is grossly exaggerated.
Relative to the size of the movement, compared to other grassroots movements in the US, they get more news coverage and press than any that have preceded them. It is grossly disproportionate to their actual size, possibly in line with how big they report themselves to be though.
Republicans and Tea Party people are NOT one and the same, but people are trying to conflate this.
There are vastly more GOP members than Tea Party members.
Someone would not be able to run on a Tea Party ticket and get elected.
They would not be able to swing the numbers in any significant way.
Twitter
I think it is doing enough of a job to get noticed not only by media but by left wingers like yourself.
size really doesn't matter it is the coverage that the protest gets. evidently they are doing a good enough job.
PS the only people that were mentioning the protest being in the millions were liberals so then they could try to down play it later.
as for the racist card the only people i know that play the race card are liberals. it is the only way they can defend their position is by trying to label the opposition as racists.
I didn't support clinton and his healthcare plan in the 90's, i didn't support the amnesty bill, so there are 2 major pieces of legislation supported by white men. so what does that make me now a reverse racist?
playing the race card is like bringing up the nazi arguement you automactically lose.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Yet You're missing the point - clearly, two things are at work here:
1) Many people respond positively to news about TEA party protests; ergo they agree with these protests or else news networks would not be running so much news on them.
2) Healthcare is currently -THE- issue in this country. Of COURSE you'll run a disproportionate amount of news about the issue, just like there was a disproportionate amount of iraq war news when bush was president.
I also don't get the point of your thread - all the things that are happening are completely in norm for politics and news. Are you suggesting that news should change its approach to dissent in general? Or what? It almost seems like you're (again) trying to bash right-wing citizens, but hey, I'm not going to judge.
Really? So a protest of a single person echoed over and over on Fox would be a valid representation of the public's feeling on the protested subject?
Coverage often gives the impression of quantity - a quantity that does not exist in this case.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I think the point of the thread is to say "Anyone who opposes Obama is wrong and doesn't deserve to be heard". Seriously, so there were only like 40,000 protesters. That's still 40,000 people who chose to show up and protest, and they DO represent millions of people with a dissenting opinion; to say that there aren't millions who disagree with Obama because only 40,000 or fewer people showed up is ridiculous.
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded.
http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
The bolded part is significant, but I don't think you realize why. If 40,000 protestors that show up represent millions of dissentors, then how many dissentors are represented when 2,000,000 protestors show up? By misrepresenting the number of protetors that show up, they are by extension mispreresenting the number of dissentors represented. THAT is the point that seds is trying to get across, I think (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Frankly, what is saddest to me is how completely un/misinformed many of the protestors are. I've seen photos from the 9/12 rally, and many of the signs were either illogical or just plain unintelligible. It's sad watching someone wave around a sign that reads "Stop stealing from Medicare to fund socialized medicine", completely oblivious to contradiction. It's sad watching someone wave aroudn a sign that reads "Bring back 'We the people'", completely oblivious to the fact that "we the people" elected the man. To these protestors, "we the people" means "we the people that agree with me".
Record: 3-2
Simpsons Mafia (Newbie) - Vanilla Mafia - Win
The Fiasco Corporation - Town Reporter - Loss
Doomsday Mafia - Mafia Roleblocker - Win
Battle Royale Mafia - Serial Daykiller - Loss
Danger City Mafia - Vanilla Town - Win
AND members of the Democratic party.
AND the majority of the United States.
Let's not forget those key details.
I can't say for sure that you're wrong, but this is not the message he was conveying. It sounded like he was saying under a million people showed up, so the entire protest doesn't matter.
And apparently to Obama and every other elected officials, "for the people" means "for the people who voted for me, and everyone else can sit on it."
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded.
http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
And yet, the point we're trying to make is that every organization that wants to be recognized will do this. (Bolded for your convenience). So now that we acknowledge the fact, what is the point of dwelling on it? As evidenced by the rest of your post, this spam-fest is pretty much verbal masturbation without a valid point to be made.
I PROMISE more uninformed people voted for obama. Both in number and %.
The irony HERE, is that it makes perfect sense - Obama has gone so far back on his campaign promises he no longer remotely resembles his original platform. But nice try.
I PROMISE more uniformed people voted for McCain than Obama. Both in number and %.
This is an issue with the US at large, but you are just plain using some misinformation here. The majority of poll results showed that the higher a person's level of education, the more likely they were to vote Obama.
If you think that the average Glenn Beck viewer constitutes someone who is 'informed', then we have a different meaning of the word.
Twitter
You can no more make this claim than he can about obama. just a bunch of BS being thrown around here.
Which in the end means absolutly nothing. I know some very well educated people and on some things they are very smart. on every day to day items they are dumb as a brick.
trying to equate ones education to something else is well a fallacy.
If you think that the average obama listener constitutes someone who is 'informed', then we have a different meaning of the word.
it works both ways you realize this? most people do not know all the issues. heck most people can't even tell you who the first president of the US was.
The thing that the tea parties have in common is the absolute free reign of government spending. The federal government use to be self efficient. it didn't require taxes to function.
as government spending has risen more and more revenue is needed. now the government is running deficits in the trillions of dollars. the obama deficit is at 1.5 trillion without his healthcare plan.
we are spending mor and more money to pay off interest on loans than other more important things.
Obama promised to be fiscally responsible. so far he has yet to even show that at all. there is no way he can get the federal deficit down to 240b which would be the half way mark. in fact the federal deficit is suppose to get larger not smaller. so much for fiscal responsibility.
i guess people have adopted obama's view on opposition that those people just need to sit down and shut up. i feel sorry for him and liberals in congress.
this isn't going to go away and come 2010 you are going to see a backlash and by 2012 a reversal of power.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I know, right. Unfortunately, deficits happen in a recession. In no way did Obama say it was going to be easy. In fact, he said it would be a hard, long way back to recovery.[/quote]Unfortunately, fixing the healthcare system has to be done. Otherwise, we will be spending more than the purposed amount at a later date. There have been estimates that we will be spending 4.4 trillion dollars on healthcare for one year by 2018. In fact, the cost of healthcare will rise faster than the growth of GDP. You may not like the spending, but it has to be done for the longterm savings.
And yet the CBO claims obama's plan will INCREASE said spending. Funny how that works.
But dont derail the thread - this isnt the healthcare debate/
No it wouldn't have been if they had actually used the money correctly. The recession could have been over fairly quickly. No it was extended out because of poor management by the government.
It has only been hard because the government made it hard.
Yep it can be done without government to do it as well and more government spending.
actually if done properly we will be spending less not more. the only reason that we would spend more is due to the plan being a bad plan to begin with.
Yep it will which is economically disasterous. No it doesn't have to be done. that economic concept has been thrown out with the bath water.
The government doesn't need to spend massive amounts of money. that is just BS. the private sector is more than capable of meeting the needs of people and doing it at a much more efficient and lower cost than government.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum