Political Discussions
March on Washington
Posted by Agit8r • 9/13/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: 9/12 project, march on washington, people who dress like uncle sam but dislike government o_0, tea protesting americans
Here is a site with footage. Some are news clips, and some first hand video, with narrative by some androgynous kid:
www.examiner.com/x-16023-Sacramento-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m9d12-Video-...
User Comments
-
My wife ran into two protestors on a bus. It didn't even register on my radar screen. Apparently the numbers were small enough to localize and limit its impact on the city, which tends to be affected outside the areas of protest for the really big ones.
My Sunday paper hasn't made it to my apartment this morning. (Grrrr.) But the Washington Post's main website seems to overlook it, unless I click "today's paper," and then you get the story, which is on the front page:
> Lashing Out at the Capitol
> Tens of Thousands Protest Obama Initiatives and Government Spending
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/12/AR2009091200971.ht...
And here's a picture of the front page: www.webcitation.org/5jl8JaacJ
I'm just wondering what the one guy was doing with his gas mask. Was his face cold? Fetish? More like some sort of strange persecution complex.
Their "We own the dome!" misses the mark. They lost the last election, and they are clearly a minority.
But it is nice to see would-be conservatives using these methods. Maybe they'll remember that the next time they want to criticize people for marching in the cause of peace or human rights.
Meanwhile, some on this board will be thrilled if the read the Washington Post article (first link), because they'll hear people repeating phrases they like to use here. I wanted to include a story from the ultra conservative Washington Times, but its website is too disorganized and unnavigable for me to find it, though maybe someone will get lucky and it will appear in one of its rotating headlines. Meanwhile, here's their front page image: washingtontimes.com/cover/ (Unfortunately, it is not a permalink, and I was unable to cache it.)
By the way, here's a link to the Washington Independent from the 11th, as the first tea baggers started trickling into town:
washingtonindependent.com/58591/tea-party-protesters-arrive-in-d-c-cheer-wi...
The picture rubs me the wrong way. Why? There's something wrong about medicare recipients who get health care at taxpayer expense but don't think the rest of us deserve any health care. Leaving that aside, though, was this supposed to be the culmination of something started last tax season? if so, I'm even less impressed.
Lastly, here's some political analysis of what this protest means for the GOP: www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27077.html-
HahahahahHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHahahahahahahahHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahaha
OMG the first thing I saw was an upside down flag.
When we flew and upside down flag we were literally physically assaulted for violating the symbol of the US. BUWahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
And the gas mask? Anarchists usually wear those and left leaning protesters at anti-war protests to protect themselves from chemical spray.
Hahahahah *rolls over in fits of laughter* hahahahahaha
Looks like the right has been taking protest lessons from us Un AMerican lefties...
Buwahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha
I think I just busted my gut........ -
That reminds me of you making the local news for an anti-Iraq War protest.
By the way, the Politico piece (last link) in my previous comment contains quotes from the protestors not in the Washington Post piece. It emphasizes the radical nature of many who have little use for the GOP either.
And they quote that increasingly prominent talking head, Glen Beck, who more or less lumps the GOP and Democratic party into the same pot at this point. (I guess he's trying to distinguish himself from Limbaugh, meaning he has to up the ante on crazy.) -
Yep, and boy did I catch hell for that! LOLLOLOLLOL
I'm sorry but this is just too rich, too priceless for me not to laugh at.....
Regarding the uped anti on crazy - I agree. -
I think the first video on my link with the sixties music/analogies is ironic as well.
-
Oh man, I'm still laughing about all this.
The very same tactics that just last year (!) were deemed UnAmerican, UnPatriotic, Anti-American, offensive, stupid, and pointless drivel from left-over hippy, commie, traitorous, dirty, smelly, stupid, naive, jealous, America-hating-cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys are now being used by the people who called themselves the Pro-America, patriotic Victory Gorillas!
(And yes, those are the actual names they called us and themselves LMAO)
I'm so flattered.... *bats eyelashes* -
they seem to be treated quite more civilly in our nation's capital than far less threatening protesters were in St. Paul last summer
-
Yep.
-
I wonder how impervious they are to irony. I've seen examples on these boards. (And I just watched a guy on a publicly funded bus system in DC on publicly funded roads talk about how it is wrong to tax him to provide services to other people . . . )
-
[bc doing the double post thing again]
-
I was supprised at the number of signs protesting MSNBC. like the one on the first video there where their hosts were labled "Bastard," "Cunt" etc.
-
That's a lame attempt to copy the protests against the genuinely outrageous editorial policies of Fox "News." Only they get it wrong with that language, undermining whatever complaint about a bias they might have.
-
"They lost the last election, and they are clearly a minority."
If that is your evidence for why they are clearly a minority, you have forgotten that the date is no longer November 2, 2008. It's been almost a year since that election, and a lot has happened. -
The diminutive size of the protest tells me something.
The Politico piece I cited near the top raises another issue, however. My statement about losing the election assumes that the protestors all supported Republicans. But is that the case? Are they from further right, disillusioned by both parties? The Politico piece offers some anecdotal evidence to that effect, though we don't know any more than that at present. -
"Apparently the numbers were small enough to localize and limit its impact on the city..."
"The diminutive size of the protest tells me something."
Ha ha! You sound like you work for MSLSD. So funny, I KNEW you would attempt to minimize this mark!! At least you are consistent. Tell us, what are you afraid of? Because it looks like a lot of people to me.
-
Gee, there are no replies to this thread now... Odd.
-
Believe it or not, I do not scan this thread for every reply of yours to every sub thread. Insinuating that there is something wrong with my position because I did not reply does not amount to an argument. It is more like taunting.
I get the newspaper and I saw the pictures. I also know that the protest had no impact on traffic outside of the immediate area, as really big protests do. My sense of the size is relative to bigger events I have experienced in this city I've lived in now for some twelve years, and also what I've read about earlier protests. Yes, the pictures look full. But go to those locations on any given weekend when there's some sort of event, and then the protests diminish in significance. -
Yes, upwards of 1.2 million people is hardly significant...
-
1.2 million?
What source have you for such a figure? -
He doesn't. Not a credible one. Not even if you added up the other locations.
The number in the papers here was "tens of thousands." The largest number I have heard is 50 to 70 thousand, and that was from a conservative source of some sort.
A number on the scale he talked about would have had everyone talking, and I would have felt it while moving about other parts of the city. -
It just occurred to me what antics was doing. He took the maximum capacity estimates from the inauguration (see the picture of the mall with numbers) and figured that because there were protestors in these various areas, they must equal the number in those estimates.
That doesn't work, though, because those estimates were for a packed mall, and those pictures show plenty of space around the people. Moreover, he shows pictures from the pool back by the Lincoln Memorial, and he shows pictures from the pool near the Capital building, but there is nothing in between, let alone any pictures of people totally packed in like we were in January, or even like a crowded fireworks day, when maybe 500,000 show up.
Nice try though. It's a little like taking a snapshot of a Potemkin village and pretending it is something more.
You get a similarly misguided effort here: strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/10545 This author claims that the inauguration is a seated event, which is nonsense. It's only seated in the area around the Capital building and the pool in front of it. But that doesn't bother this blogger, even though he observes that the crowds didn't even make it to the Washington monument.
To make my above statement about my being unimpressed clear. I know there were a lot of people. But I remain unimpressed by the crowd relative to those who supported Obama on 1/20, for instance, or relative to a decent public even on a nice summer day. Considering how right-wingers don't usually go in for this sort of thing, however, I suppose it was a pretty good showing. I wonder what their attitude will be when those of us on the left go out there again. -
Yes, I do have a citation as to the size of the crowd.
Here is an aerial view of the crowd on 9/12 -
And here is the chart that is used by the National Park Service to estimate crowd sizes.
As you can see at the time the above aerial view was taken, there were very close to one million in attendance. The 1.2 million estimate I quoted was one I heard on the radio from an ABC News break. It was evidently retracted by ABC sometime after that. None the less, at around one million people, it is a very large crowd and makes a very large statement about the discontent of the American public with the present administration and Congress in general. -
You got anything better than a bunch of amateurs looking at pictures of a place they have not physically been present in with one or two million other people at the same time?
(You might also want to provide direct links to those pages, because their publishers appear to frown on hot-linking.) -
Mark, did you notice the population of your fair city tripling last weekend?
-
That's the thing, Agit8r. Besides trusting the Washington Post, which has quite a bit of experience in these things, I know that when there are that many people in the city, I notice it everywhere, for they fill restaurants, the roads, and so on. Memorial Day is one such weekend, because that's when Rolling Thunder roars in, but so do a lot of other veterans with quieter means of transportation. I notice it when bus service and Metro service are severely challenged and then it is commented on the next day. There was none of that here.
FYI, here's a reporter from the Washington Examiner, a conservative newspaper that's usually pretty good on local stuff, on Metro ridership and his personal crowd estimate. You can read his logic and how he feels maybe as many as 100,000 were here. www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Estimating-nu... -
I've got to admit, I'm puzzled though about the "Record Innaugural Crowd" graphic near the middle of this subthread.
Is this for comparison's sake, or what? -
The assumption of antics and some other bloggers is that you can take the Mall as a vessel that contained so many people in one situation, and if people were standing in those same places in another situation, there must have been as many people. The problem is that the capacity crowd pictures they are using for reference involved standing-room only crowds, a situation that did not obtain last weekend.
I think if I were to go as high as humanly possible without going into fantasy land, that estimate by the Washington Examiner guy makes some sense. The increase in Metro ridership numbers tell a story. So do his comparisons to July 4th, though I would also like to see the numbers for a ball game when the Washington Nationals might actually win. Here's one measure of a particularly heavy Metro day for a Nats game with higher numbers than for the protest or July 4th: www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=2673 -
How open minded...
"The assumption of antics and some other bloggers is that you can take the Mall as a vessel that contained so many people in one situation, and if people were standing in those same places in another situation, there must have been as many people."
Yes, clearly when the street is full of people, shoulder to shoulder one time it just cannot be compared to the same street just as full with people shoulder to shoulder another time...
-
Except the relevant comparison is not people in a street shoulder-to-shoulder, but rather people on the Mall. since that is what you are basing your "1.2 million upon." And the people on the Mall were not shoulder-to-shoulder. Not even close.
-
-
Watching you two duke it out is always so much fun!
But seriously, I went to a protest on Mercer Island, WA on the 4th of July this year that had about 800 there. Not as large as the Vietnam War protests of yesteryear but much of that just has to do with a more apathetic public. -
Anyone reading this sub-thread should jump down to see how a picture of an old event was being used to lie about the size of this event: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/march-on-washington#comment_1132...
-
-
At least one of the congressmen who was their (Dewitt?) stated, "these people want their country back . . . it is not the last six months. It is the last 10 years," though a doubt many in that crowd picked up on the comment.
I have a lot more respect for an anti-big government protest than an anti-Obama protest.-
Jim DeMint wants his country back from the Republican controlled congresses from 1999 til 2007?
interesting...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_DeMint#External_links -
He seems to be a conservative's conservative's.
I find it less ironic that he wants the country back from a republican controlled congress than many people who have voted for larger government calling themselves republican. -
well, perhaps the greater irony (shown in the link above) is that HE has been serving in congress since 1999.
here's a breakdown of his politics, btw:
www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Jim_DeMint.htm -
I honestly don't know anything about the guy except the couple of links here. He is but one voice in congress. Just because he has been part of it, doesn't mean that either the outcome has been of his liking nor shouldn't he continue to fight for improving (to his ideals) the outcome further.
-
-
Any riots? Any broken windows, Cars turned upside down, Fires started?
Oh, nevermind, that's how the left "protests"...
Seems like it turned out to be a nice, orderly, voicing of opinion all in all. If only the left could learn something from that.-
Trading in stereotypes again? You've obviously never seen how peaceful most protests and protestors from the left have been in this city I call home.
The last time things got violent in this city (and many others), was when MLK was shot. -
But it is so much easier making up his own facts.
-
Making up my own facts,
Seems to me that the tea party crowd is staying reserved and calm as a rule. But maybe you have other facts..
Or should I wait for you to make some up? -
the facts that are being made up are those that left wingers turn cars over during protests. You're perhaps thinking of NBA Championship celebrations?
-
Yes, csi. The left never gets violent or out of hand. I mean take for example the protests at the RNC in September of 2008. Did you see any violence? Any rock throwing or shop windows being broken? Any bodily harm?
Well, yes as a matter of fact, you did...
"Monday started out peacefully enough, a relief to many. But as the afternoon wore on, small groups peeled off from the main rally, and that’s when things started to go bad. Road flares were thrown into garbage dumpsters, and then the fiery receptacles were pushed into position to to block traffic.
Shop windows were busted. So were police car windows. Protesters threw rocks, bottles, even garbage at the thickening rows of police in riot gear.
“They linked arms and tried to prevent us from going in," said Heath Fahle, the state party's executive director. "They were pushing and shoving, and we were pushing back, just trying to get by."
He added: “They were grabbing at purses, at credentials, spitting on the delegates.”
One protester wrestled with 83-year-old Fred Biebel and stole his credentials. Another spit on Lila Healy, the mother of the state’s GOP party chairman, and hit her in the face.
When former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, who used to work for the CIA, stepped in front to protect her from the crowd, a bottle full of water and bleach was thrown in his face."
See? Completely peaceful.
latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/rnc-protests.html -
And gosh, there are no replies to this thread now, either... Very odd.
-
-
No, more like
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article46...
www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=24607
www.liveleak.com/view?i=841_1231395664
www.urbansurvivalstories.com/story.php?storyID=52
Things like that..
You know, All that stuff we can file under:
"Things we don't see at the tea party protests"-
True, we can't file violence under Tea Party Protests. We can file lack of tolerance and narrow-mindedness though:
www.boiseweekly.com/CityDesk/archives/2009/09/13/tea-party-inspired-by-raci... -
being that the offenders were clad in black, it may be hard to determine who, if anybody, they were affiliated with.
Anti-war protesters were not limited to "the left." They included some 10,000 Ron Paul supporters.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Republican_National_Convention#Protests -
Yes of course, because out of control spending, corporate bailouts, excessive national debt et. al is Sooooooo openminded...
Sigh.
Agit,
Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty and 10,000 Ron Paul supporters attended the Rally for the Republic, a protest convention on September 2, 2008, held a few miles from the Xcel Energy Center at the Minneapolis Target Center in direct contrast to the Republican National Convention.[35]
At least READ your own links.... -
"Yes of course, because out of control spending, corporate bailouts, excessive national debt et. al is Sooooooo openminded...
The narrowmindedness was in reference to the movement's leaders' ability to instill fear in the working class, of programs that would mainly benefit them.
But since you brought up bailouts, excessive national debt and out of control spending, are you referring to the present administration, or to Bush's, with its $700 billion bailout program and an increase of $4.7 trillion in the national debt?
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/22/rahm-emanuel/5-tril... -
My god you really don't get it.
The people I know that participate in this, were against the 700B bailout package, they have never liked the growing of government and the increase of the national debt.
Now, the argument that because x was spent in the last decade, spending twice that again in the next decade shouldn't be a problem is rather limited.
The congressional budget office has projected 9 trillion in added debt over the next 10 years. And I, along with those that I know participate in this thinks that's too much. Most of them would like to see the national debt DECREASE.
They are now warning that they may have to increase the debt limit from it's current 12.1 trillion.
voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/08/national_debt_cap_will_n...
No, stopping this spending isn't narrow minded. It's responsible.
Edited to add:
To inform people and protest about increased debt in a shriking economy isn't "instilling fear". It's informing. -
As much as I disagree with a lot of your opinions, I nonetheless respect them because you are informed. The same with socialism. Although I find many virtues in it, I have to have some respect for your dislike of it since you lived under it longer than I did.
But many of the people participating in the Tea Party protests (poor, working class) don't have the slightest clue what socialism is, nor do they understand that an expansion in socailized medicine may benefit them. Many haven't the foggiest idea what the national debt means, nor how it will (or will not) effect them. The protest leaders are not explaining economics to these people; they're merely playing on the people's fear of government and taxes, their patriotism and their belief in the Founding Fathers.
Protesting against something stupid because you understand that it's stupid is responsible. Protesting against something because someone tells you to protest against it, without fully researching its pitfalls or benefits, is narrow-minded. -
99% of all protests are populated by people who don't know, care, or understand the full implications of what they are protesting for or against.
The War is a perfect scenario, although it is easy to dislike war, it is easy to want troops at home with their families. I never heard a single protester talking about what negative effects bringing troops home NOW would entail.
When it comes to socialism, socialistic policy bases such as the public option etc. One can either argue as you do, that because one doesn't know everything, one shouldn't protest. Or you can argue that understanding what you don't like about it (potentially long waits, high costs, raised taxes, increased deficit etc) is enough to warrant someone to raise their voice.
To dismiss people because of their background is hardly a smart thing to do. The right did that mistake with the grassroots movement behind Obama, and look what that got us. So in all honesty, this constant belittling and disregarding of the Tea parties is in my book playing right along that line.
Hopefully that shortsightedness will produce the same wake up call that the right got with Obama, letting the right make serious ground in 2010 and 12. -
Hmm, from your own links:
The main protest was peaceful. Some Anarchists did light a garbage bin on fire.
They had come in their thousands – grandmothers, veterans, young families and even disgruntled Republicans bearing banners and peace flags, to demand an end to the five-year conflict. And for the most part, the demonstrations passed off peacefully.
This link describes the violence of Pro-Lifers which are CONSERVATIVES or, RIGHT WING. SO much for that violence being from the left....
Frequent violent protests against abortion clinics, in the form of arson, firebombing, and vandalism, started in the early 1970's in the U.S. after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade theoretically gave abortion access to all women -- at least during their first trimester.
Then, as now, most of the violence appears to be mainly criminal activities by individual religiously-motivated individuals acting alone. However, cases in the 1990s involving the assassination and attempted murder of abortion providers in both the U.S. and Canada have shown that some perpetrators appear to have been sheltered by a network of sympathizers. That shows a degree of organization and conspiracy.
The only violence mentioned in this article is from teh police, nto the protesters:
A group of around 500 anti-Bush protestors were sprayed by police with pepper spray yesterday after they protested a number of Bush's policies on his trip to Oregon.
People chanting "Drop Bush, Not Bombs" blocked a road leading to a bridge and banged on parked cars to get their point across. Three protestors were arrested in the course of the day.
As one said: "I don't think any American boys' lives are worth a barrel of oil. If he (Bush) starts a war against Iraq, it will be to get re-elected. All he cares about is wealth and power."
The BART riots were in opposition to the shooting of an unarmed man by a cop. Hardly something you can pin on the left:
A protest over the fatal shooting by a BART police officer of an unarmed black man mushroomed into several hours of violence Wednesday night as demonstrators smashed storefronts and cars, set several cars ablaze and blocked streets in downtown Oakland.
Read more: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/01/08/MN2N155CN1.DTL#ixzz...
And you had to dig up the LA riots from the early 90's as "proof" of Liberals being violent at political protests?
Do you even read the links you provide?
You provided ONE instance of a SPLINTER group (Anarchists) doing damage.
Where's the rest of the of the angry mob of liberal protesters you claim to be roaming the streets and wreaking havoc on poor, unsuspecting, peaceful patriots?
Oh, wait, there aren't any. -
"out of control spending, corporate bailouts, excessive national debt"
And that was all this was about? I think that the 9/12 Projects list of principles was what this was about. Then again there was the guy with the "Who is John Galt" sign, quoting a book by an Atheist, so who knows. -
Look at some pictures of the protest and read what was said on the sign. Most of them had to do with fiscal policies, political directions that the participants did not agree with. Or a general dislike of the current leadership.
9/12 "members" often support the general points made in this protest against out of control spending etc., but this wasn't a 9/12 specific event. It was on that DATE, but the 9/12 movement has nothing to do with the calendar.
You can find a list of organisations that were part of this here,It is the entire right column, however, not all supporters of this is on the list.
912dc.org/
and you'll quickly see that the 9/12 project was only one group of many. -
so 9/12 was just the primary organizers (we know this due to the date, of course)
-
"so 9/12 was just the primary organizers (we know this due to the date, of course)"
No, we what we know is that Glenn Beck tried to hijack this grassroots event and make himself the "face" of 9/12. His coverage of it was obnoxious and Fox does themselves a big disservice when they let him rant on and on like he was the only person behind the whole thing. -
really? The 9/12 Project has been around since this spring. So when did this spontaineous grassroots event begin its ideation?
-
Yeah they estimated the debt short 2 mil and then predict it to double ofver the course of the next 10. However these estimates leave out the medicare issue (i dont care about social security because there are numerous ways to fix it much more easily than the other). Medicare ill tack on another 5 tril. So if they are estimating a new 12.1 tril then 16.1 sounds even better. Gotta love the comptroller general. Complaints go back so far and yet partisan bickering literally always prevents anything from being done.
-
-
At least the right-wingers left their guns at home when they came to the city. To what degree there is any overlap between the tea baggers and militia types (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/militia-movement) is an open question in my book. I'd rather see this kind of protest, even if it is hoot in the way that has Anok laughing at the top of this thread.
-
Of course they left their guns at home. DC doesn't permit open carry.
Again, your attempt at snicker only proved that these are law-abiding, calm protests.
No wonder Anok who is the Balaclava hiding, stone throwing type thinks it's "funny". I on the other hand see nothing funny with violent protest. -
I don't believe anyone here sees anything funny in violent protests or even supports them. You're setting up yet another straw man.
-
The Tea party protests have shown no violence so far. Until that changes, I don't see how that is a straw man.
Of course, it's much easier to claim that something is something it's not and then dismiss it based on that falsehood than to actually fight the facts. -
Apparently Erik forgot to bring his ability to read with him today. Let's see, what was I laughing at? Oh yes, the upside down flag, the gas mask, and the protests. All protest tactics from Liberals the last 8 years which were condemned as being anti-American by the people who are now doing the exact same thing.
Oh, yeah, and remember that thread where I listed the acts of violence by right wingers against liberal protesters? Where is your rebuttal to that? Where is your outrage?
I forgot, if the right does it, it's OK.
And I've never thrown a single stone. I'm not a violent protester. Though not all Anarchists are peaceful. The last protest I attended was about half Anarchist or Anarchist sympathizers - and it was a completely silent, peaceful protest. Although one of the GoE right wingers did try to pick a fight with a liberal Vet protester on the way back. Us "violent" Anarchists hung back, surrounded the Vet who remained completely silent (the ENTIRE protest even the marching was done in silence) and made sure this guy wasn't going to assault the vet like they usually do at protests.
****oooh scary**** So violent! -
The "outrage" of what, that religious nuts kills people. Yep, that's definately bad, but hardly has ANYTHING to do with the group marching on washington.
The Anarchists destroying property was reflected in the post where you say only the police was responsible for violence. Just FYI, they are allowed to use force to protect property... Just SUCKS when the law is against you doesn't it.
As for your little anecdote.. Where is the proof? Or is this another one of your "you'll just have to take my word for it" stories.
Intimidation and fear tactics, oh wait, i thought those were only used by the right... Guess that little statement didn't work out for you either. Next time, look at the police before they repel protesters, they all but always stand completely silent as a wall. It's a well known intimidation tactic. -
Your stretch of trying to make "Right = Religion" is hardly accurate.
I'm non religious and right, so it doesn't apply at all. Unless of course you can't find anything else to further your statement.
As always it would be easy to use your current and past statements to your downside, but I find it more useful to apply them to my backside.
With that, and following your past example your personal attacks have been reported. -
@CSI: I thought it was clear, but let me try again. Here's the straw man in your statement to which I was referring: You write, "I on the other hand see nothing funny with violent protest." The implication in that statement is that I do. That is your straw man, because, of course, I don't.
-
The only true "straw man" here is your "at least they left the guns".
Which would make it seem like a surprise that these people follow the law. Which of course is exactly what they have been doing all along. So far they have done nothing but follow the laws that apply to them, even the ones that have carried guns where allowed. Which is why there has been no arrests. (or if any, a dwindling small amount of arrests, I for one don't know of any.)
When someone in this group does what the left has done in the past, and starts destroying property, attacking police etc. I'll be the first to denounce it. And I'll be fully supportive when the police knocks them in the noggin for it.
As it is now, these are protesters that are showing composure, restraint, and intelligence. As opposed to what so many on the left would like to portray them as. Maybe that is because the left has shown such lack of those attributes in the past. -
@CSI, maybe we should clarify what a straw man argument is, especially since you see fit to put it in quotation marks, as if it were not a reality for you.
First, though, if you are going to accuse me of making a straw man argument with the guns statement, then you should include the following line that I also used in the statement you quote. I wrote, "To what degree there is any overlap between the tea baggers and militia types . . . is an open question in my book." Without that line, you are accusing me of saying something I didn't, and then you are arguing that this imaginary stance is untenable. Arguing against a stance someone else supposedly holds, but doesn't really hold, is a straw man argument.
Here's an explanation at a site that explains many other logical fallacies: www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
Another straw man of yours: ". . . what the left has done in the past, and starts destroying property, attacking police etc" Your phrasing suggests that a monolithic left has been violent, not specific individuals or small groups in rare situations far outnumbered by lots of big, peaceful, orderly protests. Several of us have already tried to point this out to you, so further clarification of that point shouldn't be necessary. -
No I'm merely stating the fact that the left has shown these tendencies in the past. I can find anti bush protests that turned violent, Anti war protests that turned violent. The list is not exactly short...
Whereas nothing similar has come out of the tea party crowd at all.
As you probably know, the tea party protests and the people participating in them are largely a new occurrence. Your attempts to connect them with anything from McVeigh to whatnot just doesn't ring true. And i suspect you know this even through you insist on doing it.
I understand that the concept of an organized right-wing grassroots movement is new, unusual, and probably scary to those that never expeced to see their opposition gather like this.
But it makes no sense to attempt these connections that you have done.
Other than the fear mongering you often accuse the right of, which of course leads back to the quote i've used before.
"If you want to know what the left is up to... Look at what they are accusing the right of." -
"No I'm merely stating the fact that the left has shown these tendencies in the past. I can find anti bush protests that turned violent, Anti war protests that turned violent. The list is not exactly short..."
this is of course because riot police are DHT riddled wingnuts who want to relive the glory of their ancestors "cracking heads"
-
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/march-on-washington#comment_1125...
Yes of course, that has to be the POLICE that caused all that.
River .... Egypt... something like that.. -
I'm saying that over the last several decades, the MAJORITY of violence at protests are instigated by police. Why is this shocking. All one has to do is observe the professional conduct of officers in non crowd situations, and it is OBVIOUS that some segment of those who HAVE SWORN AN OATH have not the compuction to uphold that oath, and they have fellows who will cover their sins.
-
I dunno about that, but I know that sometimes police also escalate situations through the doctrine they follow.
In DC at the beginning of this decade, there was a peaceful protest of cyclists. The police directed them into a park, and then proceeded to surround and arrest them with no notice that the cyclists should disperse. That stayed peaceful, though, and the charges didn't stick, but it was ridiculous and could have resulted in a significant escalation.
It takes too to tango. If you refuse to let people protest peacefully in a given area and then use force to disperse the crowd, you might find some people—rightly or wrongly—using force to defend themselves, This also happens with relatively minor incidents involving police going for their tasers prematurely.
Back to CSI's and Agit8r's argument though, it has long been a presumption that only the right is law-abiding. And if the right does do something wrong, then there are shouts of "The left does it too! The danger comes from both sides!" CSI is merely repeating these stereotypes, which have long been common in Europe too. -
mark...why do you denigrate your fellow Americans by calling them "tea baggers?" The term is Tea Party Protesters, unless you are against anyone other than people on the left voicing their concerns with our Government? That being the case, it is clear why you would refer to them in the derogatory.
-
Antics- All dissent towards the government stopped and became wrong, racist, astroturfed, and misinformed as of January 20th, 2009. Didn't you get the memo? -
@antics:
There is no way I am going to stoop to that "politically correct" language. They are abusing history, and I will not support their protest by abusing history in turn.
A mutual lack of understanding about names is pretty common in these cases. In abortion it is the anti-choice and pro-choice movements, for example. Why not pro-life for the other side? Because the pro-choice is just as pro-life, but they are supporting the lives of the women involved. The other side does similar things. I've yet to see someone opposing abortion rights refer to my side as pro-choice, for example.
And I'm not the only one using the term tea bagger, as you can see from a google search, though the discussions on urban dictionary I just saw are getting a little out of hand. Besides, you understood exactly what I meant. Mission accomplished.
And I note both opponents and proponents of this movement using the term: twitter.com/#search?q=#teabaggers
Kinda like birthers, who call themselves that too. For them it's a good thing. For me quite the opposite. twitter.com/search?q=%23birthers -
Thank you NewBlogger!! I had completely forgotten about that.
@mark...to call pro-choice a pro life stance is incredibly stupid. How can it be pro life when a life has to be taken? That is absurdity at its highest.
There is no mutual lack of understanding the names of the Tea Party protesters. You just denigrate them because they are taking the opposite stance to what you want. You want cheaper health care and will go with that even at the expense of your fellow Americans.
Funny how you didn't respond to my post about the size of the protests on 9/12, or about my post on the violence of the leftist protesters.
But if you get a chance to call people on the right names, you haul out your keyboard post haste. I perfectly understood what you meant when you called them that derogatory term. It was asinine and immature when Olbermann and the rest of the jerks at MSLSD did it earlier this year, and it is immature now. -
I use the term Tea Protesting Americans. All politically correctified terms have to have "Americans" in there. Unless the term refers to people from abroad. Do all these Tea Protesters have a verifiable birth certificate handy?
-
Do you require the vault copy or the online version?
-
@antics, If you want me to engage you in an actual discussion, you'll have to offer some real arguments, not more Ad Hominem attacks.
-
So pointing out that calling the stance that one is in favor of abortion "Pro-Life" is inaccurate because to have an abortion, a life has to be taken is a personal attack?
"ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person" or "argument against the person")"
Wrong.
It is deductive reasoning. If you must take a life to have an abortion, then it cannot be called "Pro-Life" as you assert, because of the life that was taken away, or subtracted. -
No, antics, here is the offending phrase: "to call pro-choice a pro life stance is incredibly stupid."
You could offer arguments, or you can say that my action was stupid. You chose the latter path. You're really not clear on that? -
I am very clear on what I said and my intent. Others seem to be muddled in confusion...
-
-
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the *right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*" -- First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
no, instead, the police legislate with their batons... and dogs... and firehoses -
That's overstating the case, as you know, but our laws for arresting people on disorderly charges are so vague that police must sometimes in effect make the law. Is there any comparable kind of law in the U.S.?
-
well, I was talking about the last several decades, as above.
but then, perhaps they were under orders of rogue governors and mayors. -
Peacefully assemble...
see where the police steps in is when they aren't peacefully assembling anymore. -
The example of the cyclists I gave above had the opposite timeline. The police stepped in so that the people could not peaceably assemble.
I am seeing a strange paradox here. Those "conservatives" here who see the state as their enemy and themselves as the defenders of "freedom" are defending the state's large police presence and its arbitrary infringement on personal liberties. Go figure. -
See this is where you get it wrong.
I don't support abuse of power, whether that is the government directly, or through police, military, FEMA or anything else.
I do support the police when they use force in response to force. Or when they give lawful commands that aren't followed.
Take this for example.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwUjVy2DKsQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwUjVy2DK...
Now the conehead dumb@sses may be without question abhorrent. They did however have a right to be where they were, and had applied and gotten the right permits to have their little yelling fest.
The Counter protesters were obviously there for less peaceful assembly, and ended up being the ones starting the violence. And getting their heads thumped.
When someone uses violence, destruction etc. they should be met with force. Those that follow the law, regardless of how repugnant should be left alone to make @sses out of themselves. That is the main principle behind free speech. -
I don't think anyone questioned the 9/12ers right to make asses of themselves
-
Right that.
-
my bad, i meant 9-Twelvers
-
Huh? I didn't mean "right that" as in "correct that." I meant you were right. Or are you teasing me for my bad grammar, that is, agit8ing, so to speak?
Edited to add: Or were you making some reference to this link you left on another page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_the_Religion#Tawh.C4.ABd_.28Oneness.29 ? -
see "Taliban-ish" thread
edit. Yes. I was comparing them to fundementalist "Twelvers" in islam.
The fact that that it is the 9-TWELVE Coalition is a happy coincidence... or is it...? o_0 -
Just noticed it, and added the above edit at the same time you made your comment.
-
gotcha, right
-
I didn't think it was an outrageous comparison. They are about Unity... charity... "God is the center" of their lives... do the crime you do the time... a struggle...
...they made a pilgrimage...
basically the spirit of fundementalist... um... revanchism? -
Plus it is easy to make fun of and look down upon a group you do not agree with, nor evidently understand.
-
perhaps you are right.
no offense, fundy muslims
-
-
I enjoyed John Stewart's Monday show, which included a piece about the angry people participating in and covering this event: www.hulu.com/watch/95615/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-mon-sep-14-2009#s-...
-
Fine weather for a nice day out. Difficult to take any significance from this event because it would be fair to say that the vast majority of that crowd probably did not vote for Obama in the first place.-
So only the people who voted for him should be allowed to protest? And besides, if one takes the time to view any of the many, many interviews of the attendees it is easy to see that all stripes of the voting spectrum were in attendance; Republicans, Democrats and Independents, those who voted for him as well as those who voted against him.
-
That's certainly not what the images or showing or what the reporting I saw said. Your sources?
Edited to add: or let me rephrase: I know that there were a lot of "independents," but not the kind that choose between the two major parties, rather, the kind who sit further to the right, the kind the GOP has to decide if it wants to court or not, and if so how.
Democrats? I'm sure it's possible. Significant numbers? A great cross section of America, as you describe. No way. Not according to the reporting I saw the day after. (I've already provided links up top.) -
Polybore- You can't imply from a protest on how the people there voted. People's opinions can change very quickly. More importantly though, Obama seems to be losing the all important independent voters quite quickly.
-
Any evidence of that, NewBlogger? Any polling data that actually captures significant numbers of independents who voted for Obama?
-
Opinion piece which cites Gallup - NOT RASMUSSEN:
" In May, 66 percent of independents approved of Obama's job performance, according to the Gallup Poll.
By August, Gallup showed the president was supported by 49 percent of independents, a collapse during the health care debate that reflects independents' dislike of deficit spending, the growth of big government and one-party control of Washington.
It's a particular problem for Obama because post-honeymoon perceptions are hardening in ways that are counter to his core campaign promise to bridge partisan divides.
Obama introduced himself to the American people by saying, "There are no red states; there are no blue states; there is only the United States of America." "
www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/27/avlon.obama.independents/
And this CNN poll -
"A majority of independent voters disapprove of how President Obama is handling his job as president, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research poll.
Fifty-three percent of independents now say they disapprove of how Obama's handling his duties in the White House, with 43% in approval. That result marks the first time in a CNN poll that a majority of independents give the president's performance a thumbs-down."
politicalwire.com/archives/2009/09/01/obama_losing_independents.html
thepage.time.com/2009/09/01/poll-obama-losing-independents/
It is really out there in the main stream news, all one has to do is stay away from MSNBC... -
Mark- Really? You really had to call me out on that? If you already did not know that Obama was losing the independents as Antics pointed out, you are probably watching a little too much NBC (National Barack Channel) or ABC (All Barack Channel).
-
@antics:
Who are these "independents"? The kind who have to choose between a Democratic and a Republican candidate? Or the kind who choose between a Republican and something else? Example: you call yourself a conservative, not a Republican. I interpret that to mean you're an independent. I think you've mentioned voting for Democrats in state offices, though maybe I have that wrong. But I also know that you agree with most of what Limbaugh says (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/how-much-political-influence-doe...), which suggests you're not the kind of independent that will matter to Obama. You never could be won over and you never will be. I'm just using that as an example, though. It's quite possible that many independents who voted for Obama have gone off him already. But does that mean they were the people out there on the Mall with their angry signs? No. -
It does seem that the number of Independents Formerly Known As Republicans is growing. Is the number of IFKAR large enough to skew a poll significantly? I doubt it, but who knows.
-
So even when presented with undeniable, iron-clad FACTS from liberally slanted CNN and from Gallup, you STILL refuse to accept it?
*sigh*
Besides, if you had bothered to read the articles I cited -
" Independents are nonideological problem-solvers. They are sick of Washington's harsh and cynical hyper-partisanship, but they do not have a split-the-difference approach to politics.
Independent voters are decidedly closer to Republicans when it comes to economic issues and closer to Democrats when it comes to social issues.
To put it another way, they are fiscally conservative but socially progressive with a strong libertarian streak. And it's on fiscal issues that independents are putting Obama on notice. "
If you bothered to check with Gallup - they clearly show and identify independents. And El Presidente's approval ratings are plummeting.
www.gallup.com/poll/121199/Obama-Weekly-Job-Approval-Demographic-Groups.asp...
You really, really, REALLY, REALLY hate to be wrong, don't you?
LOL -
Mark- Since you seem to be having trouble understanding the importance of the independent vote and who they are, you need to read Stanley Greenberg's The Two Americas. (And since it matters to you, he is a democratic pollster).
-
Let's go back to the statement that started this subthread. I don't see how any of the claims made about independents undoes the validity of what Polybore wrote. Those were not former Obama supporters waving signs of Obama/Hitler faces, for example. That is what this thread is about, right? I see a couple of you trying to tie that demonstration into broader polling trends, but I don't see any plausible connections yet.
-
@clioanme: Denotation vs. Connotation. While the denotation of what he says does hold, the connotation (nothing has changed) does not. You also have to read what people imply - otherwise you're just playing games.
-
Evidently phrases like -
"I was or may have been wrong about that."
or
"You have a point."
or
"What you say has merit."
are just too foreign for "someone" to utter. Why is it so hard for someone to just admit that other people have points as well? Other people on the right, I mean.
*shrug*
What polybore said was refuted by the polling that was shown on this thread. Obama IS losing independents whether anyone on the left, or in this case the FAR left will admit it. -
@antics: Your personal attack doesn't strengthen your case. Again, what do all of these observations about the "independents" have to do with the demonstrators? Has anyone offered any clear evidence of a connection? The polling is of Americans in general. It says nothing about the protesters who visited my city last weekend.
@jeremy: I don't follow you. I am not sure what you're saying or how it might relate to the question of who these demonstrators were. -
To elaborate, the "arguments" here offered against the point Polybore made are all a red herring (www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html), insofar as they deal with a separate issue.
Or maybe you think you haven't changed the subject and believe you really can draw generalizations about all independents based on the behavior of the demonstrators. It seems you think those demonstrators represent all independents. If so, you are making the "biased sample" fallacy (www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html). Or is it the "composition" fallacy? (www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html)
If any of you reply, maybe you could do so without an Ad Hominem? (www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) -
@clioandme: I'm saying that, yes, it may be true that those protesters were Anti-Obama people from the get-go, but he's using it to imply that nothings changed when in point of fact polling has shown an above-average presidential approval rating deteoriate to a slightly below-average one.
-
Only polybore can answer for what polybore meant. As I understood polybore's comment, it means that this march, which is largely made up of people who were against Obama from the primaries isn't really showing anything new. Now there is a series of mutually exclusive polls from of people who may have been for Obama now switching to either indifferent or against. Those polls are meaningful but unrelated to the march.
Polybore where are you!?!?!?!?!?!? -
xmarks, that is exactly how I read polybore's statement as well as the evidence about shifting loyalties among independents offered by the others.
-
What attack? You evidently cannot say you were wrong. Or that someone on the right has a point.
Describe your political views:
Lean Left Moderate Lean Right Number of
Respondents
Democrat 16% (2) 33% (4) 50% (6) 12
Republican 1% (4) 17% (35) 80% (166) 204
Independent 5% (5) 23% (23) 71% (71) 97
Libertarian 3% (2) 29% (18) 67% (41) 61
Other 0% (0) 15% (3) 84% (16) 19
Number of Respondents 351
Number or respondents who skipped this question 0
www.teapartydemographics.com/Results
So as you can see, the majority of protesters are Republicans, but nearly 1/3 of the respondents are Independents. This is a tiny, tiny poll and it is online, so until Rasmussen or Gallup, etc... look into it, this is all we have right now. All I could find anyway with a quick superficial search. However it does show that the Tea Party Protesters are not only those who voted against Obama.
Also, if one takes the time to look at the videos of interviews of those attending then it is easy to see that the demographics are varied. Unless you want to keep blinders on and refuse to admit that there is a strong undercurrent in this country that is getting fed up with El Presidente's policies. There is a lot of Obama "buyer's remorse" out there.
www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109552
www.counterpunch.org/walsh08142008.html
www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/...
You see, when Obama ran center left in his campaign and then began governing in the far left, he has committed the cardinal sin of politics - he has abandoned his base. That is why his numbers are plummeting. Do you really think that his approval rating is dropping because MORE Republicans and Conservatives have discovered they don't like him? LOL It is because he is losing the middle of the road, average American with his socialist, far left policies. -
(1)
The poll is interesting, but based on a small sampling, as you point out. It's also not a professional job. But it seems honest. I think the demographics speak volumes, as you are clearly not dealing with a representative sample of Americans, and I would be surprised if you could say the same thing about independents more generally.
The hypothetical candidates these people would support is also interesting. It's paints a picture of political malcontents, not the independents who choose either Democrat or Republican, which is what matters in our two party system on a national level.
(2)
Regarding "buyer's remorse," you are sliding back into your argument about independents in general, not what was happening at that protest. Those are two separate issues. Also, you are using mainly anecdotal evidence to support your point, although there is the one tendentious article on WorldNet that mentions Obama's well-known slip in the polls since the end of the honeymoon.
What that slip means, of course, is another matter. Does disapproval mean they want a right-wing candidate instead? Do we have polls to correlate those two things?
Your statements about Obama governing "far left" only make sense if I recall that you think you probably agree with 98% of what Limbaugh says. Obama is governing pretty far to the right of the most progressive segment of his party. I see him as center or center-left, depending on the issues involved.
(3)
I note a new tactic being used by you, antics, for the second time. You assume that you are right and I am wrong and I should be admitting as much. Since when? I have been giving you clear reasons for my stances. Seems we're dealing with a mixture of the following logical fallacies when you criticize me for not caving to flawed arguments:
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-spite.html
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html
The links and evidence, supported by the conclusions you draw from them, were far more helpful than your insistence that people who disagree with you give up. -
Changing the subject, making another personal attack, baiting. But no actual arguments or observations about the subject at hand, which in the broadest sense is about the meaning and significance of the protest in DC and its relationship to political attitudes in the country more generally.
-
Since that's just what you said before the comment was deleted, I can only direct whoever is reading this to my previous comment.
-
Interesting. And who was making it personal here instead of dealing with ideas?
-
Classic. LOL
By pointing out that there are those who seem to spend an inordinate amount of time following me around to point out the error of my ways is a personal attack? How exactly?
If that is the case, then when mark says, "I note a new tactic being used by you, antics, for the second time. You assume that you are right and I am wrong and I should be admitting as much. Since when? I have been giving you clear reasons for my stances. Seems we're dealing with a mixture of the following logical fallacies when you criticize me for not caving to flawed arguments..." that is a personal attack as well and should be removed. However, I don't hit the report button at the drop of a hat. -
Regarding my pointing out your demanding that I admit I'm wrong, well, you said it in a few of those deleted comments, and you said it in this one that still exists: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/march-on-washington#comment_1129...
No attack on my part there.
As for the rest, pointing to the flaws in an argument is pretty fundamental to any political debate. I am criticizing arguments here, not those people who put them forth. -
So let me understand, when you do it, you are "criticizing arguments here, not those people who put them forth." And when I do the same thing, I am making a personal attack.
Is there a reason why you are held to different standards then I am? I just made the argument that if my pointing out that you are spending a lot of time criticizing me is an attack, then your pointing out that I present false arguements, i.e. lie, is an attack as well.
Yet I notice only my comments were removed. In my comments I made no direct personal attacks, called no names, was not mean spirited. I only pointed out a recent line of behavior. You were able to get my comments removed. So after the second time, I reported you as well. Gee, we can all still see your comments up there. Double standard? If not, then explain. -
No antics. If you address arguments, not the motives or character of the person making them, then you're not making it personal. It's when you get into motives and character that it gets personal. But maybe you should take this up with admin, since they make these decisions, not me.
-
-
Huh. i found out about this because somebody dugg it. Don't know if it is 100% relevant to what has been discussed here:
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/sep/14/tea-party-photo-shows-...-
There was some discussion of this in the comments section of the Washington Examiner piece I cited above. In that case it was just locals disagreeing based on what they were seeing in the picture. One example, is the Museum of the American Indian complete? Doesn't look like it from where I'm sitting, and that's what they say in this piece too. KInd of hard to wiggle out of that, no? Good call on those cranes too. I'm glad to see this complete write-up.
If you're not sure where those places are they are referring to, you can access a huge PDF map here: www.nps.gov/nama/planyourvisit/upload/NACCmap1.pdf
Once you have it, rotate it left to see the map from the same angle as the photo.
Anyway, this piece is totally relevant. It puts the lie to the gargantuan claims that the right was making, bringing us back to the reality of what the media had originally been reporting. Good stuff: reality giving the lie to phony use of old images for propaganda purposes.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
