Sounds Like Great Turnout,Wonder if Anyone Is Listening

[bonnie]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112781731&ft=1&f=1003

Thousands Pack Downtown D.C. To Protest Spending

Protesters rally at Freedom Plaza in Washington Saturday. Jose Luis Magana/AP

Enlarge Jose Luis Magana/AP

The crowd's chants included "Enough, enough" and "We the People," and "You lie, you lie."

Protesters rally at Freedom Plaza in Washington Saturday.

The crowd's chants included "Enough, enough" and "We the People," and "You lie, you lie."

Thousands of people marched to the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, carrying signs with slogans such as "Obamacare makes me sick" as they protested the president's health care plan and what they say is out-of-control spending.

The line of protesters spread across Pennsylvania Avenue for blocks, all the way to the capitol, according to the D.C. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency. People were chanting "enough, enough" and "We the People." Others yelled "You lie, you lie!" and "Pelosi has to go," referring to California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

Demonstrators waved U.S. flags and held signs reading "Go Green Recycle Congress" and "I'm Not Your ATM." Men wore colonial costumes as they listened to speakers who warned of "judgment day" — Election Day 2010.

Richard Brigle, 57, a Vietnam War veteran and former Teamster, came from Paw Paw, Mich. He said health care needs to be reformed — but not according to President Barack Obama's plan.

"My grandkids are going to be paying for this. It's going to cost too much money that we don't have," he said while marching, bracing himself with a wooden cane as he walked.

FreedomWorks Foundation, a conservative organization led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, organized several groups from across the country for what they billed as a "March on Washington."

Organizers say they built on momentum from the April "tea party" demonstrations held nationwide to protest tax policies, along with growing resentment over the economic stimulus packages and bank bailouts.

Protesters say unchecked spending on things like a government-run health insurance option could increase inflation and lead to economic ruin.

Protesters rally at Freedom Plaza in Washington Saturday.

Protesters say unchecked spending on things like a government-run health insurance option could increase inflation and lead to economic ruin.

Many protesters said they paid their own way to the event — an ethic they believe should be applied to the government. They say unchecked spending on things like a government-run health insurance option could increase inflation and lead to economic ruin.

Terri Hall, 45, of Starke, Fla., said she felt compelled to become political for the first time this year because she was upset by government spending.

"Our government has lost sight of the powers they were granted," she said. She added that the deficit spending was out of control, and said she thought it was putting the country at risk.

Norman Kennedy, 64, of Charleston, S.C., said he wants to send a message to federal lawmakers that America is "deeply in debt." He said though he'd like everyone to have free health care, he said there's no money to pay for it.

"We want change and we're going to get change," Kennedy said. "I want to see fiscal responsibility and if that means changing Congress that will be a means to that end."

Other sponsors of the rally include the Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform and the Ayn Rand Center for Individuals Rights.

[bonnie]

The sky is falling...the sky is falling

Not sure what you are reading but I must have missed the "sky is falling"

It was a political protest by a goodly number turning out that are against what the government and this administration is doing and planning on doing.

Can you share with me the humor that you saw? I didn't see humor but I did see a large crowd with common concerns as to where this country is heading

[bonnie]

I doubt that Obama can hear anything except his own voice but it will bee interesting to see the impact on any that will be running for office again next year.

Tax Protesters Plan Denver Rally

DENVER (AP) ― President Barack Obama and the health care overhaul will be main targets of protesters gathering in Denver.

Saturday's rally by several anti-tax "tea party" groups are planning a rally at the Colorado Capitol. The event is one of many "Tea Party Patriots" rallies nationwide, which have already drawn thousands in other states. the protesters oppose expanding the federal government and oppose the policies of Obama and the ruling Democrats in Congress.

A morning seminar is planned before the rally at the University of Denver to discuss policy and advocacy tactics.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't think anyone ever imagined that there would be protesters in the streets over national health care. I think this really shows how conservatives have become much more organized over the past couple of decades. Conservatives use to stay home and write letters while liberals would take to the streets in protest.

[bonnie]

I don't think anyone ever imagined that there would be protesters in the streets over national health care. I think this really shows how conservatives have become much more organized over the past couple of decades. Conservatives use to stay home and write letters while liberals would take to the streets in protest.

When liberals take to the streets it is democracy in action.If conservatives do they are dooms dayers and it is hilarious.

One mistake in what you said,the turnout at these rallies and marches are not all conservatives.

Many are independents and heaven forbid,liberal's that are seeing their rights erode right along with the conservatives

[bonnie]

A march today, but is it a movement?

Politico

Joe Wilson brought a taste of the summer’s contentious health care town halls to the floor of Congress Wednesday night, and on Saturday thousands of fired-up conservatives are planning to bring some of that anger to the streets outside the Capitol.

Borrowing tactics more familiar to protestors on the left, they’re pouring into the Washington area in hundreds of buses, newly engaged grassroots activists who plan to march down Pennsylvania Avenue and voice their mounting displeasure with their government. Their issues are a hodgepodge, ranging from the bank and auto bailouts to President Obama’s push to overhaul the nation's health system to concerns about perceived erosion of First and Second Amendment rights.

Saturday’s “Taxpayer March”– at which organizers expect anywhere from 20,000 to 200,000 people – as well as dozens of smaller marches around the country, will prove that the fledgling “Tea Party” movement is real, according to Mark Williams, a conservative radio talk show host from Sacramento who is vice chairman of Our Country Deserves Better PAC, a political action committee that is co-sponsoring the march.

“If I’ve learned one thing in 30 years of doing activist talk, it’s that you can’t manufacture this kind of thing,” said Williams. “I could get on the radio and rant and rave until I was blue in the face, but if it’s not out there, it’s not going to happen.”

But whether the marchers reflect a small minority’s continuing anger over the more liberal direction the country began taking in the 2008 election or something deeper that could have repercussions in 2010 and 2012 is one of the questions the march may begin to answer.

Equally important for Republicans is whether Washington’s institutional conservative leaders and groups will be able to channel this energy to help the party’s candidates, or whether it will remain diffused, fueled by radio and television talk show hosts and susceptible to extremist positions that could do more harm than good to the GOP.

GOP strategist Craig Shirley, whose 2005 book chronicles the significance of Ronald Reagan’s failed 1976 presidential bid in reinventing the GOP, thinks the activism of the Tea Party movement could have a similar role today.

“At that point, the Republican Party was essentially an empty vessel, and the movement took its ideas and poured them into it,” Shirley said. “What we’re seeing today is somewhat analogous, but all they’re doing so far is anti-liberalism, which doesn’t necessarily have a political philosophy or an agenda of its own.”

Shirley said the Tea Party movement “can’t sustain itself just as anti-liberal movement. It’s got to evolve. And it will.”

But Sam Tanenhaus, whose recent book, “The Death of Conservatism,” traces the split in the conservative movement between “revanchist” forces and those more willing to participate in the political process, predicts the Tea Party activists won’t have much lasting impact on mainstream politics.

Instead, he compares what's happening now with the peak of the John Birch Society in the early 1960s, during Kennedy’s presidency.

“These are Americanists, is what they used to call themselves,” he said. “This is similar to that in many respects,” he asserted, explaining that the Tea Party contingent has shown the same deep suspicion towards Obama that the Birchers felt towards Kennedy.

“That’s what we’re seeing now,” he said. “They’re looking to recover a lost America.”

It was Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning Texas Republican, who first dusted off the Tea Party nomenclature in 2007 during his bid for GOP presidential nomination, as both a fundraising technique and an homage to the 1773 Boston tax revolt that played a major role in sparking the American Revolution. Some modern conservative activists use “Tea” as an acronym for “Taxed Enough Already.”

In February, tens of thousands turned out to Tea Party protests around the country, and on April 15, tens of thousands more took to the streets for Tax Day Tea Parties. But it was last month’s congressional town halls, when constituents turned out in droves to voice their displeasure with their federal lawmakers, that drew attention to the movement.

But defining the movement beyond its generalized sense of grievance is difficult.

“Where the real problem comes in, is that – because it’s so organic – if you ask 1,000 people what this should be, you’ll get general agreement on the broader theme that we have to get the government back under control, but you’re going to get 1,000 different answers on the specifics,” said Williams, who has been traveling on the Tea Party Express, a bus caravan that started in his hometown of Sacramento and zigzagged across the country, holding rallies at 30 stops along the way.

“We don’t want to turn this into some kind of organization with a top-down hierarchy,” he said. “We want to keep it a democratic kind of organization, but people have to be herded into the same general direction, which is kind of what we’re doing here.”

There are two divergent explanations for the energy behind the marches, and they reflect two different sides of the conservative movement, each with a different vision for its future.

One is represented by FreedomWorks, the fiscally conservative non-profit group chaired Dick Armey, the former House Republican Leader turned lobbyist. It helped plan and promote the Tea Parties, town hall protests and Saturday’s march using online organizing techniques similar to those employed for years to great effect by liberal groups and more recently by Obama’s own presidential campaign. And because of its involvement, and that of other established conservative groups, many on the left have been quick to dismiss the entire movement as something manufactured by big-money Republican interests.

It was FreedomWorks that set up the main march website (which lists FreedomWorks as the lead march sponsor) and has handled the permitting and logistics for the march. By the time all the bills are paid, group officials say they expect they’ll have spent about $600,000 on everything from sound and stage equipment to port-a-potties and security, though they asked other conservative groups to chip in as much as $10,000 each to co-sponsor the event.

Though there’s been some sniping in conservatives circles about FreedomWorks’ efforts to use its infrastructure to co-opt or “own” the Tea Party movement, the group stresses that the marchers have used the group’s website and online social networks to organize themselves and plan – and fund – transportation and lodging.

“People are saying FreedomWorks is trying to jump to the front of the bus,” said FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon. “But we helped organize hundreds, if not thousands, of Tea Parties, and we helped with the town halls and we built a network and we gained some credibility as being a helpful organization to people as they wanted to get involved in activism.”

He predicted Saturday’s march would be the “largest gathering of fiscal conservatives in history” and that it would demonstrate “a new center of gravity forming in the conservative movement. The gun guys, they can turn out a crowd. The abortion guys, they can turn out a crowd. And for the first time ever, the fiscal conservatives will be able to, too.”

FreedomWorks has seen its membership and online donations spike as a result of its involvement in the Tea Party movement, Brandon said. And, he said, FreedomWorks picked September 12 for the march before the Tax Day Tea Parties to give activists something to work towards and because it was about the time Congress was scheduled to return from its summer recess.

The other version of the march’s genesis is that the popular conservative Fox News television host Glenn Beck set it in motion when he unveiled what he called The 9-12 Project during a March broadcast in which he urged viewers to try to recreate the united America that emerged the day after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

“It’s not about politics,” Beck said during the March broadcast. “You actually believe in something. And you thought for a while there your politicians did as well. And now you kind of realize well, maybe they don’t.”

Beck’s 9-12 project rhetoric leans much more towards fiery populism than anything coming from FreedomWorks and, while it certainly takes Democrats – and Republicans, for that matter – to task for reckless deficit spending, it also includes a heavier element of religious and social conservatism.

Beck has voiced support for the marches and will broadcast from Washington Saturday afternoon. He even recorded a two-minute video welcoming marchers to the city though it’s unclear whether FreedomWorks will play it before the march. But he has downplayed characterizations that he’s leading the marches or the movement.

Some activists, however, look to him more than any national conservative leader or group.

“Glenn is probably the unofficial leader of the group – he doesn’t want to be, but he is – more than any national group,” said Brian Britton, who heads the Greeley, Colo. 9/12 group, which he estimates has an email list with about 400 members.

Britton and his group are going to a Saturday march in Denver, which he hopes will attract as many as 10,000 people. He sees the movement as most effective at mobilizing to affect local and state debates, and said it doesn’t lend itself to national political organizing.

“It’s like trying to harness a bees’ nest,” he said, explaining “Within our group, there are a lot of people who are just as upset at what the Republicans did when they controlled the presidency and the Congress. A lot of the people look at Washington itself as being broken.”

The schedule of speakers for the Washington march includes a handful of fiscally conservative Republican officials and conservative celebrities – such as Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina (whose political action committee is also listed as a march co-sponsor) and Reps. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Tom Price of Georgia, as well as actor Stephen Baldwin.

But Brandon, the FreedomWorks spokesman, said the group purposefully created a speaking roster heavy on grassroots activists from around the country.

“We wanted to keep the politicians and the TV folks to a minimum and leave this to the Tea Party folks and I think that they’re going to go back even more energized than ever,” said Brandon, who plans to wear full Revolutionary War regalia to the march.

After Saturday, he said the next step would be to organize activists by congressional district around key issues of their own choosing, possibly including opposition to Democratic proposals to overhaul the nation’s health care system, and to cap and trade carbon emissions.

“Are we going to keep this movement going forever?” Brandon said. “Probably not. Every movement has its life cycle. But I think we’re at the beginning of the life cycle

[bonnie]

Thousands Gather At Rally. Must be astroturf

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/politics/13protestweb.html

Thousands Rally in Capital to Protest Big Government

Amanda Lucidon for The New York Times

A crowd marched toward the Capitol as people from around the country gathered to express their discontent with the government.

By JEFF ZELENY

Published: September 12, 2009

WASHINGTON — A sea of protesters filled the west lawn of the Capitol and spilled onto the National Mall on Saturday in the largest rally against President Obama since he took office, a culmination of a summer-long season of protests that began with opposition to a health care overhaul and grew into a broader dissatisfaction with government.

The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.

Protesters gather and wave flags on Capitol Hill during the Tea Party Express rally on Saturday in Washington, DC. More

Amanda Lucidon for The New York Times

Protesters in Washington D.C. during a rally on Saturday.

On a cloudy and cool day, the demonstrators came from all corners of the country, waving American flags and handwritten signs explaining the root of their frustrations. Their anger stretched well beyond the health care legislation moving through Congress, with shouts of support for gun rights, lower taxes and a smaller government.

But as they sang verse after verse of patriotic hymns like “God Bless America,” sharp words of profane and political criticism were aimed at Mr. Obama and Congress.

Dick Armey, a former House Republican leader whose group Freedomworks helped organize the protest, stood before the crowd and led the rallying cries in nearly the same spot where Mr. Obama took his oath of office eight months ago.

“He pledged a commitment of fidelity to the United States Constitution,” Mr. Armey said, suggesting that Mr. Obama was in violation of what the founding fathers intended the size and scope of the government to be.

“Liar! Liar! Liar! Liar!” the crowd shouted back, echoing the accusation that Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, hurled at the president three days earlier during his address to Congress.

The demonstrators numbered well into the tens of thousands, though the police declined to estimate the size of the crowd. Many came on their own and were not part of an organization or group. But the magnitude of the rally took the authorities by surprise, with throngs of people streaming from the White House to Capitol Hill for more than three hours.

The atmosphere was rowdy at times, with signs and images casting Mr. Obama in a demeaning light. One sign called him the “parasite in chief.” Others likened him to Hitler. Several people held up preprinted signs saying, “Bury Obama Care with Kennedy,” a reference to the Massachusetts senator whose body passed by the Capitol two weeks earlier to be memorialized.

Other signs did not focus on Mr. Obama, but rather on the government at large, promoting gun rights, tallying the national deficit and deploring illegal immigrants living in the United States.

Still, many demonstrators expressed their views without a hint of rage. They said the size of the crowd illustrated that their views were shared by a broader audience.

“I want Congress to be afraid,” said Keldon Clapp, 45, an unemployed marketing representative who recently moved to Tennessee from Connecticut after losing his job. “Like everyone else here, I want them to know that we’re watching what they’re doing. And they do work for us.”

As Mr. Obama traveled to Minnesota on Saturday to rally support for his health care plan, he flew over the assembling crowd in Marine One. The helicopter could be seen flying overhead as the demonstrators marched down Pennsylvania Avenue.

“This is not some kind of radical right-wing group,” Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said in an interview as dozens of people streamed by him. “I just hope the Congress, the Senate and the president recognize that people are afraid of what’s going on.”

Mr. DeMint and a few Republican legislators were the only party leaders on hand for the demonstration. Republican officials said privately that they were pleased by the turnout but wary of the anger directed at all politicians. And most of those who turned out were not likely to have been Obama voters anyway.

Protesters came by bus, car and airplane, arriving here from Texas and Tennessee, New Mexico and New Hampshire, Ohio and Oregon. The messages on their signs told of an intense distrust of the government, which several people said began long before Mr. Obama took office.

For the most part, Democrats stayed silent on Saturday, with the exception of a small group of counterdemonstrators who gathered behind a roadblock to protest what they called a “right-wing rally.” Many were members of the clergy, who said they were concerned about misinformation propagated by opponents of health care legislation.

“We’d like to have an honest debate,” said Chris Korzen, director of the nonprofit Catholics United. “I don’t see a lot of substance here.”

While there was no shortage of vitriol among protesters, there was also an air of festivity. A band of protesters in colonial gear wended through the crowd, led by a bell ringer in a tricorn hat calling for revolution. A folk singer belting out a protest ballad on a guitar brought cheers.

In conversations with demonstrators, people identified themselves as Republicans, libertarians, independents and former Democrats. Several speakers denounced the Obama administration’s health care plan as “socialism.” A few Confederate flags waved in the air, but there were hundreds of American flags and chants of, “U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” A young girl held a sign saying, “Don’t redistribute the wealth of my Barbies.”

Ruth Lobbs, 57, a schoolteacher from Jacksonville, Fla., said she flew to Washington on Saturday to protest how she believes the government has violated the Constitution. She said she did not vote for the president, adding that her anger has been building for years.

“It’s more than Obama — this isn’t a Republican or a Democratic issue,” Ms. Lobbs said as she held a yellow flag that declared, “Don’t Tread on Me.”

“I don’t know if anything will come of this or not,” she said, “but this is a peaceful way of showing our frustration.”

[Ted Oplinger]

Just tagging in, Bonnie...

With the 60's being so in vogue across the nation right now...

...seing the young with all the 60's fashioned dress and peace signs and all;

...seeing the nostalgis of Woodstock in the movies;

...seeing the romanticism concerning all things "hippie";

It is only fitting another event from the 60's takes place as well: the revolt against government spending that resulted from the excesses noted from LBJ's "Great Society" overreach which resulted in...lots of inflation and economic malaise that wasn't properly addressed and resolved until Reagan took office (Nixon had his hands too full with trying to resolve the US presence in Vietnam with a victory, and of course, Watergate).

The Democrat party didn't take that revolt seriously, and was rewarded with holding the White House only 8 years out of the next 40 yrs. The first tenure they had was close in result. Carter only edged Ford by a marginal amount in the popular vote on a scandal plagued campaign hyped by the media - the Electoral College made the margin appear bigger than it really was. Carter was so bad (and such a champion trying to restart all things "Great Society" that the econmy really nosedived), he was rewarded by getting booted out after 1 term. The Democrat party was then "rewarded" with another 12 years out of the White House, and likely would have been longer had Perot not split the conservative vote in the '92 election, allowing Clinton to win with less than 50% of the vote.

If Nixon had never allowed the Watergate thing (or had the skills of his opponents at not getting caught at it), the Democrats would likely have been shut out of the White House solidly for the 70's and 80's.

It is quite evident the Democrat party and its supporters aren't taking this revolt seriously either, gauging by the tone of their responses in the way they approach and respond to conservatives, libertarians, federalists/Constitutionalists, and all things generally pertaining to Middle America.

Calling Middle America's protest "astroturfing" will only heighten the alienation, and strengthen the vigor of opposition to those who have led this irresponsible government (currently, the Democrat party), and those who've enabled this profligate waste to pass into law (that would be the current Republican leadership, who couldn't find a consistent spine and a voice to oppose even if these slapped them in the face).

It will be interesting to watch and see how this all plays out.

[lazarus]

It's all bogus. Not a wimper about billions wasted on war but now....! LOL. Folks are willing to enslave their children for bombs and bullets but not for health. That's twisted values.

Why don I believe this outrage is purely political? Folks are upset that the Democrats are doing the spending not Republicans? Here is an example.

Bush Administration used "emergency" budgeting procedures that circumvented congressional oversight and led to billions of taxpayer dollars spent on extras and pet projects not directly related to the war.

Republicans/Conservatives voted time and time again for war funding bills.

When Ron Paul spoke out against this excessive spending conservatives lambasted him, why? It served their political agenda to spend the money.

I guess the response will be, oh its much worse now! LOL. Excessive spending is excessive spending.

Didn't Reagan prove that deficits don't matter....oops, sorry they do when it's a Democratic deficit.

Run for the hills! "The Muslims are taking over"!!!!!

[Dr. Shane]

I'll make a few of points.

Many vocal conservatives like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity were pulling their hair out over all the spending done by the Bush Administration. It is simply no accurate to say that conservatives supported Bush's spending but not Obama's.

Reagan ran up defense spending because of his philosophy of "Peace Through Strength". Democrats controlled Congress at the time and would load up Reagan's defense bills with a lot of pork barrel spending. So the Reagan deficits were not run up by him alone. By the end of the decade, Reagan had won the Cold War without a shot being fired. So all his defense spending paid off. The defense budget was then drastically cut by then President GWH Bush and later additionally cut by President Clinton.

Wars are fought by deficit funding. When a nation decides to go to war it also decides to fund such a war. We cannot agree to go to war and then complain about the cost of the war. If we go back to all the GW Bush budgets and remove the cost for the war and Homeland Security, we will see that we would have been running nearly a balanced budget during his term. It isn't a big secret how the budget was balanced under President Clinton. Clinton didn't have a war and Homeland Security to pay for.

The Iraq War has cost the US just under $1 Trillion so far - over a period of more than six years. Americans spend over $2 Trillion on health care each year. The money spent on the war is just a drop in the health care bucket.

[bonnie]

Quote:

It's all bogus. Not a wimper about billions wasted on war but now....! LOL. Folks are willing to enslave their children for bombs and bullets but not for health. That's twisted values.

Your comparison may be called bogus as well.

Once the decision is made to go to war,most reasonable people understand that it is going to cost.

The more well known democrats had the same level concern of George Bush

Quote:

Why don I believe this outrage is purely political? Folks are upset that the Democrats are doing the spending not Republicans? Here is an example.

Maybe because then it is not Obama"s responsibility. If the only outrage is because of race as Maureen Dowd says we have to look elsewhere to blame the current fall of Obama's poll's.

Quote:

Bush Administration used "emergency" budgeting procedures that circumvented congressional oversight and led to billions of taxpayer dollars spent on extras and pet projects not directly related to the war.

Quote:

Republicans/Conservatives voted time and time again for war funding bills.

Not sure where you were during this time but as Shane said,many did object,time and time again. Where Obama comes under fire now is because he has ignored and gone against almost all of what he claimed he was about and would do.

No transparency,less than any president in recent history.Posting all proposed bills on the internet for 5 days.

Going line by line to stop unnecessary and wasteful pork barrel spending. Maybe the study of chinese prostitutes come to mind. Regardless of how and when this was included,which was stupid beyond all reason,line by line would have shown the most dense president this needed to be removed

Rushing into passing bills without knowing what is in there.

A large number of czars,not accountable to anyone but him.

Placing a communist in a position of power.

Ridiculing those that dare to question his decisions.

Quote:

When Ron Paul spoke out against this excessive spending conservatives lambasted him, why? It served their political agenda to spend the money.

Have you ever paid attention to why people were so upset with Bush? The main reason was he was spending like a liberal democrat.

Quote:

I guess the response will be, oh its much worse now! LOL. Excessive spending is excessive spending.

A rare agreement. Setting the war aside,once that decision was made,reason dictates that it is going to cost. And cost big.

Excessive spending is excessive spending no matter who has done so and when.

Obama is now president and is spending on a level never seen before. Appointing those of more than questionable backgrounds and ideology. He is telling those that disagree with him to shut up,he is not willing to listen.

His health care bill is a complete unknown. He has denied what is in the bill of the house. He claims this will not add to the deficit. No one,not even many on his own side believes that.

He cannot/will not lay out the frame work and what it means of health care. He can only denounce any with legitimate concerns. But trust him,and give him that much power and control over the lives of the american citizens.

Quote:

Didn't Reagan prove that deficits don't matter....oops, sorry they do when it's a Democratic deficit.

It does matter no matter who does it. It also matters the amount getting so high there is no hope for decades of pulling out of it. It matters when the president is so demeaning to those that oppose what he is doing. Ramming something thru as in health care and cap and trade. Taking over 2/3 of a private industry,dictating,targeting private citizens from the presidents bully pulpit

Quote:

Run for the hills! "The Muslims are taking over"!!!!!

Somehow,whether the accusation,claim or implication even fits into a discussion there seems to be those that cannot get past that.

This..Why don I believe this outrage is purely political? and the muslim crack could indicate to some that the outrage by liberal's is not purely political

Could the criticism of those from the other side have a racial component??

Most SDA's I know are not claiming the "muslims" are taking over. How many have dismissed or no longer believe end time events as most SDA's did believe,I have no idea.I do believe the frame work is being laid out for it to take place quickly when that time comes.

That is you interjecting something that hasn't been.

[Ted Oplinger]

It's all bogus. Not a wimper about billions wasted on war but now....! LOL. Folks are willing to enslave their children for bombs and bullets but not for health. That's twisted values.

Why don I believe this outrage is purely political? Folks are upset that the Democrats are doing the spending not Republicans? Here is an example.

Bush Administration used "emergency" budgeting procedures that circumvented congressional oversight and led to billions of taxpayer dollars spent on extras and pet projects not directly related to the war.

Republicans/Conservatives voted time and time again for war funding bills.

When Ron Paul spoke out against this excessive spending conservatives lambasted him, why? It served their political agenda to spend the money.

I guess the response will be, oh its much worse now! LOL. Excessive spending is excessive spending.

Didn't Reagan prove that deficits don't matter....oops, sorry they do when it's a Democratic deficit.

Run for the hills! "The Muslims are taking over"!!!!!

[bonnie]

The criteria to judge Obama is to check what Bush did.

Trying to figure out how Bush was wrong and doing far,far more is right.

Pretty lame if the only defense of Obama is "well Bush did it"

You notice not one that is pro-Obama here can give a opinion on the health bill. Only an opinion on Bush and conservatives are available.

[Ted Oplinger]

Thta's true, Bonnie. Actually, I recall one did give an opinon on another thread, and didn't respond very well to a point-by-point rebuttal and refuting of his argument...but you're right - not an opinion rooted in the facts written in the bill.

I noticed the "bombs or babies" rhetoric I responded to, comes right out of the speech Rep. Stark (D) gave on the Congressional floor, which had the notable event of him calling president Bush a liar.

I guess it's OK to call a president a liar only if one is hiding on the floor of Congress in session, but not OK if it's to his face in front of a joint session...

[bonnie]

Thta's true, Bonnie. Actually, I recall one did give an opinon on another thread, and didn't respond very well to a point-by-point rebuttal and refuting of his argument...but you're right - not an opinion rooted in the facts written in the bill.

I noticed the "bombs or babies" rhetoric I responded to, comes right out of the speech Rep. Stark (D) gave on the Congressional floor, which had the notable event of him calling president Bush a liar.

I guess it's OK to call a president a liar only if one is hiding on the floor of Congress in session, but not OK if it's to his face in front of a joint session...

Personally I think it is pathetic. Obama can only be defended because Bush did same in their eyes. He cannot be defended on the policies he is ramming down everyone's throat,he can only be defended by saying Bush did it so now they accept Obama doing it.

Pathetic.

This is the smartest man to occupy the white house?

[lazarus]

Many vocal conservatives like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity were pulling their hair out over all the spending done by the Bush Administration. It is simply no accurate to say that conservatives supported Bush's spending but not Obama's.

Well, not really. They were gung ho about Bush's war spending. If fact, if you did not vote for a war spending bill you did not support the troops. Some may have opposed Medicare but GOP elected representatives voted time and time again for Bush's budgets. The very same people marching voted these same GOP Congressmen and Senators.

Quote:

So the Reagan deficits were not run up by him alone.

Veto?

Quote:

Wars are fought by deficit funding. When a nation decides to go to war it also decides to fund such a war. We cannot agree to go to war and then complain about the cost of the war.

That's my point. Conservatives won't complain about war funding because it was a policy that they wanted and supported. If Bush had wanted to invade/attack Iran funding would not have been an issue.

Quote:

If we go back to all the GW Bush budgets and remove the cost for the war and Homeland Security, we will see that we would have been running nearly a balanced budget during his term.

That's like saying if it wasn't for those mortgage payments we wouldn't be in foreclosure"

GBW was not forced to go into Iraq or create the DHS. They were policy decisions that were very costly and in one case clearly a mistake.

Like Cheney said "deficits don't matter", especially if the spending is on something you like.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Well, not really. They were gung ho about Bush's war spending. If fact, if you did not vote for a war spending bill you did not support the troops. Some may have opposed Medicare but GOP elected representatives voted time and time again for Bush's budgets. The very same people marching voted these same GOP Congressmen and Senators.

Many top democrats were gung ho as well. Read their statements if you haven't. Once our men and women are in harm's way they need to be supported.

Bush opposed what was happening with Medicare and Social Security deficits. I think he even got boo'ed for bringing it up didn't he?? Same as when he was shot down for concerns over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Regardless,not enough was done. The very same people marching also voted for Obama this time. The conservative republicans have always opposed Obama. Their opinon and input into the polls is not to likely to hurt Obama. New numbers coming out will.If you think Bush has so much unconditional support why do you think his poll numbers were so low. Or why the republican party was often referred to as democratic light

Quote:

That's my point. Conservatives won't complain about war funding because it was a policy that they wanted and supported. If Bush had wanted to invade/attack Iran funding would not have been an issue.

I don't think most people want war. That is rather a silly statement when most families either would have loved ones in harms way or personally know some that did.

We had two very close family members in Iraq,two deployments each. There was not a day we didn't pray for them to be safe and the war to end

Quote:

If we go back to all the GW Bush budgets and remove the cost for the war and Homeland Security, we will see that we would have been running nearly a balanced budget during his term.

Quote:

That's like saying if it wasn't for those mortgage payments we wouldn't be in foreclosure"

Not quite.

Quote:

GBW was not forced to go into Iraq or create the DHS. They were policy decisions that were very costly and in one case clearly a mistake.

Like Cheney said "deficits don't matter", especially if the spending is on something you like.

As president he did feel there were decisions to make. War has always been costly and I believe it will always be so.

A bit different than taking over 2/3 of the auto industry,wanting to control your health care,what you drive,how far,

firing and hiring CEO's of private companies and even a silly light bulb as of 2012. To be replaced with light bulbs with mercury,others will cease to be marketed.

[lazarus]

Quote:

I don't think most people want war. That is rather a silly statement when most families either would have loved ones in harms way or personally know some that did.

We had two very close family members in Iraq,two deployments each.

There you go again. Arguing against a point that was not made. That's a counterproductive habit. Who said most people want war?

[bonnie]

Quote:

I don't think most people want war. That is rather a silly statement when most families either would have loved ones in harms way or personally know some that did.

We had two very close family members in Iraq,two deployments each.

If conservatives won't complain about war and funding it because it was a policy they wanted that says to me conservatives had to be for and want war.You have no idea and no basis for saying if Bush wanted to go to war with Iran there would not have been an issue

That's my point. Conservatives won't complain about war funding because it was a policy that they wanted and supported. If Bush had wanted to invade/attack Iran funding would not have been an issue.

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

So the Reagan deficits were not run up by him alone.

Veto?

[lazarus]

Bush's little "excursion" into Iraq.

Just for clarification. Are you calling it that?

[lazarus]

The Dems never had a veto proof majority during the Reagan years.

Quote:

This is why Obama and the Democrats really doesn't care about vast amount of deficit funding on the healthcare issue (making Bush's war spending look miserly by comparison), in spite of their superficial protestations - it's a policy they support.

Exactly, both parties don't care about deficit spending when its a policy they support. For the third time "deficits don't matter". Why do you think this Icon of conservatism said this. I note no one has responded to this.

Quote:

A much, much smaller budget with ample funding for those things the Constitution says we need to fund.

The Founding Fathers wisely left the constitution broad enough for there to be a debate about what is allowed by the constitution.

[Dr. Shane]

They [conservatives] were gung ho about Bush's war spending.

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted_Oplinger

Bush's little "excursion" into Iraq.

Just for clarification. Are you calling it that?

Yes, I am - but for much different reasons than Bush's opponents want to think. Shane makes the case nationally and internationally in the post above.

It was quite clear after 9/11/2001 that many leaders around the world conceded a huge mistake was made when they told Bush 41 he couldn't complete the hat trick and take out Hussein during the liberation of Kuwait - without incurring the wrath of the international community.

Our troops were only 60 miles from Bagdad, with no opposition facing them.

Clinton thought seriously about it, but was restrained from doing so by the anti-war Left - no real justification. Bush wouldn't have done it, either, but 9/11 forced his hand, just as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait forced his father's hand.

That Bush seriously screwed up the fight up until he put Petraeus in charge makes it "his little incursion".

That takes nothing away from the fact it needed to be done, regardless of who was in the WH.

[Ted Oplinger]

The Dems never had a veto proof majority during the Reagan years.