DC Protests Draw 2 Million

[Vast LWC]

To pay off all those who supported him to get elected. He's giving away our money like it's his own.

A ridiculous, completely unsupported claim.

I just posted the actual numbers for the budget. Which of those major categories are "those who got him elected"?

The Millitary? Medicare Recipients? Social Security Recipients? or the people that hold the national debt?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

what lie?

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

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

Except there's really no evidence to support this claim.

 

[Vast LWC]

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

Since they don't, except in the lala land of FoxNews, this point is useless.

 

[Ame®icano]

To pay off all those who supported him to get elected. He's giving away our money like it's his own.

A ridiculous, completely unsupported claim.

I just posted the actual numbers for the budget. Which of those major categories are "those who got him elected"?

The Millitary? Medicare Recipients? Social Security Recipients? or the people that hold the national debt?

Let me explain:

Stimulus bill.
Omnibus bill.
Acorn funding.
Closing car dealerships.
GE / MSNBC
Cap and trade bill.

Enough?

 

[jreeves]

To pay off all those who supported him to get elected. He's giving away our money like it's his own.

A ridiculous, completely unsupported claim.

I just posted the actual numbers for the budget. Which of those major categories are "those who got him elected"?

The Millitary? Medicare Recipients? Social Security Recipients? or the people that hold the national debt?

Have you noticed there isn't Tort Reform in Health Care Reform? That would seem to be a payoff to those trial lawyers who helped him get elected, no?

 

[jreeves]

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

Since they don't, except in the lala land of FoxNews, this point is useless.

See the above posted poll, about deficit spending....

 

[Vast LWC]

Tu quoque arguments don't interest me, as fallacies rarely do (except to point them out).

ROFL. a laughable attempt to deflect.
Since 1/4 of the debt is interest on the existing debt caused by Republicans, I am not just saying "Republicans did it too", I am saying that part of Obama's current deficit is not even his, but was caused by other people.

I didn't post the cartoon and don't really care about it because I can't see it.

Which is why that post wasn't directed to you.

I don't live in Arlington. I don't recall the dates, but I do recall that the last one I attended contained a lot of similar rhetoric about numbers afterwards - over exagerations and under exagerations. That bored me.

While I will not call you a liar, I will say that your evidence that the same people that attended the Tea Party protest also attended anti-war demonstrations is very, very thin.

And since you were the one who made this point to begin with, we can all consider it a non-point, as it is, up to this point, an unproven one.

 

[Vast LWC]

i was at two anti-war protests. I was at the 9/12 protest.

Yup...no one was against the war because of spending.

were you now? Which ones?

You live in arlington, you were probably at the ones i was at, possibly even one of the ones i helped organize.

i can tell you that if there were people at those events that were protesting based on the cost of the war, they weren't advertising it.

bs

Nice big red letters, but hey, why don't you try to prove your point instead of "yelling"?

 

[Vast LWC]

To pay off all those who supported him to get elected. He's giving away our money like it's his own.

A ridiculous, completely unsupported claim.

I just posted the actual numbers for the budget. Which of those major categories are "those who got him elected"?

The Millitary? Medicare Recipients? Social Security Recipients? or the people that hold the national debt?

Let me explain:

Stimulus bill.
Omnibus bill.
Acorn funding.
Closing car dealerships.
GE / MSNBC
Cap and trade bill.

Enough?

Not really sure how ANY of those apply to your accusation.

Are you saying that the entire stimulus bill is just a massive payoff to Obama's "cronies"?

And even for the money that does go to interests that have historically supported Democrats, it seems to me that when any adminsitration needs to get something done, they use people they trust to do it.

I'm sure you can add up all the money that went to "ACORN" or "GE" and it wouldn't even come close to the amount that the Bush administration gave Halliburton and it's subsidiaries. And Halliburton "lost" a large portion of that money into thin air with nothing to show for it.

And it certainly doesn't come close to the entire amount of the Stimulus Bill, not by a longshot.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

not that vast needs a 3rd person arguing with him but i think that list was the stuff about the last and current admin that is pissing a lot of us off.

I'll get back out of the way and let y'all fight it out....until i see something that irks me

 

[Vast LWC]

Let me explain:

Stimulus bill.
Omnibus bill.
Acorn funding.
Closing car dealerships.
GE / MSNBC
Cap and trade bill.

Enough?

And none of what you posted will come anywhere close to the total amount of interest obama's administration will have to pay on the pre-existing debt from prior administrations.

 

[Si modo]

Tu quoque arguments don't interest me, as fallacies rarely do (except to point them out).

ROFL. a laughable attempt to deflect.
Since 1/4 of the debt is interest on the existing debt caused by Republicans, I am not just saying "Republicans did it too", I am saying that part of Obama's current deficit is not even his, but was caused by other people. ...

So, your point is that the other side spent as well. Tu quoque.

I don't live in Arlington. I don't recall the dates, but I do recall that the last one I attended contained a lot of similar rhetoric about numbers afterwards - over exagerations and under exagerations. That bored me.

While I will not call you a liar, I will say that your evidence that the same people that attended the Tea Party protest also attended anti-war demonstrations is very, very thin. ....

Which is not quite the claim I made. It was asserted by CF that no anti-spending type ('teabaggers') were protesting during the last administration. Many were.

.... And since you were the one who made this point to begin with, we can all consider it a non-point, as it is, up to this point, an unproven one.

Damn straight it's irrelevant, yet CF still brings it up over and over and over again, even after I have told him several times and so have others.

 

[Vast LWC]

Have you noticed there isn't Tort Reform in Health Care Reform? That would seem to be a payoff to those trial lawyers who helped him get elected, no?

While I personally agree with your point that we shouild be including Tort reform...

it seems to me that EVERYONE in government is a lawyer. Aren't they just protecting their own personal interests rather than some mysterious third party?

 

[Si modo]

To pay off all those who supported him to get elected. He's giving away our money like it's his own.

A ridiculous, completely unsupported claim.

I just posted the actual numbers for the budget. Which of those major categories are "those who got him elected"?

The Millitary? Medicare Recipients? Social Security Recipients? or the people that hold the national debt?

Have you noticed there isn't Tort Reform in Health Care Reform? That would seem to be a payoff to those trial lawyers who helped him get elected, no?

Absolutely: Lawyers/law firms overwhelminly donate to the Democratic Party. Dems will not step on a cash cow like that, unless there is great public outcry about favoring lawyers' special interests over the people.

 

[Vast LWC]

So, your point is that the other side spent as well. Tu quoque.

No, my point was that the other side is STILL SPENDING, and it makes up a large portion of what Obama is supposedly spending. Not "tu quoque".

Which is not quite the claim I made. It was asserted by CF that no anti-spending type ('teabaggers') were protesting during the last administration. Many were.

And again, you make the same claim "many were", which you have not proved.

Damn straight it's irrelevant, yet CF still brings it up over and over and over again, even after I have told him several times and so have others.

Perhaps it is a bit on the irrelevant side, Though if CS could in fact prove HIS point it would point to a bit of hypocrisy.

 

[Vast LWC]

Absolutely: Lawyers/law firms overwhelminly donate to the Democratic Party. Dems will not step on a cash cow like that, unless there is great public outcry about favoring lawyers' special interests over the people.

Whereas health insurance firms overwhelmingly donate to Republicans, or the few "Blue Dog" Democrats they are trying to sway.

At least Democrats are open to considering Tort Reform, whereas Republicans are completely against the "public option" as it hurts their buddies in private health care.

And again, all politicians are lawyers.

 

[Si modo]

Have you noticed there isn't Tort Reform in Health Care Reform? That would seem to be a payoff to those trial lawyers who helped him get elected, no?

Absolutely: Lawyers/law firms overwhelminly donate to the Democratic Party. Dems will not step on a cash cow like that, unless there is great public outcry about favoring lawyers' special interests over the people.

Whereas health insurance firms overwhelmingly donate to Republicans, or the few "Blue Dog" Democrats they are trying to sway.

At least Democrats are open to considering Tort Reform, whereas Republicans are completely against the "public option" as it hurts their buddies in private health care.

And again, all politicians are lawyers.

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

 

[jreeves]

were you now? Which ones?

You live in arlington, you were probably at the ones i was at, possibly even one of the ones i helped organize.

i can tell you that if there were people at those events that were protesting based on the cost of the war, they weren't advertising it.

bs

Nice big red letters, but hey, why don't you try to prove your point instead of "yelling"?

This guy never protested against Bush spending or war spending....
David Walker on CBS 60 Minutes

 

[Si modo]

So, your point is that the other side spent as well. Tu quoque.

No, my point was that the other side is STILL SPENDING, and it makes up a large portion of what Obama is supposedly spending. Not "tu quoque". ....

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

[

Which is not quite the claim I made. It was asserted by CF that no anti-spending type ('teabaggers') were protesting during the last administration. Many were.

And again, you make the same claim "many were", which you have not proved. ...

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

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

Damn straight it's irrelevant, yet CF still brings it up over and over and over again, even after I have told him several times and so have others.

Perhaps it is a bit on the irrelevant side, Though if CS could in fact prove HIS point it would point to a bit of hypocrisy.

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

 

[Vast LWC]

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

Found Here at Followthemoney.org