ANSWERS: 14
  • Possibly, yes. I think it's also time for people to grow up and stop comparing Obama to Hitler. Sure, no US president will EVER be perfect, and some people might find Obama abhorrent, but so far, he hasn't decided to annihilate 6 million + people, simply because they have inferior genes.
  • Alot of you did the same thing to Bush. Taste the Medicine? Tastes nasty doesn't it?
  • I don't think we really need to do anything. Conservatives are really lame when they protest. It's so boring. Half of them are old people, and all of them have a little mini flag and a sign saying "Not in my Americunt." That's not fun. That's just gay. They pwn themselves, no need for us to do it.
  • I turned the TV to our favorite cable channel yesterday morning Jim and when I saw what was being covered I changed the channel immediately and never looked back. These are the same people that stop and clog traffic while they look at horrific bloody carnage. They "get off" on mob mentality/activity. Many of them were probably armed. If the majority were to go out, unarmed,we would be sitting ducks for these loose cannons, some of whom might be drunk as skunks. Things do not appear to be getting better...mob rules..bandwagons rule...truth be dam*ed! :(
  • People need to realize that life and politics is not all black and white. There is a lot of gray in there. All anyone ever seems to hear from are the extreme left wing or extreme right wing -- both are the minorities. The majority of the people in the US fall inbetween these two extremes, some may sway one way or the other a little more. As a moderate myself, I don't let a party platform tell me what my views are going to be. I choose what my views are going to be. Sometimes I agree with the left on some issues, sometimes the right on other issues, sometimes neither.
  • Calling names, letting emotions go crazy, and using absolutely no rational logic, show what the protesters are like in their small minds. I'm disgusted even if I would agree with anything they said. +5
  • According to the article, that protest is organised against public government type of health care plan, which is very different fron the Obama proposal. Obama talks of mandatory buying from private companies. This obsures that issue. I'd also point out that just because cameras focused on some people talking about nazis or something like that, that is just gossip. So what they use a sign with that stuff? If this were real journalism they would be asking exactly what the issues involed deal with. All this article says is 'socialism' and 'government bureacrats between you and your doctor'. Ok, those are sound bites, and do not deal with the major policy issues. Furthere, there are people always trying to cause problems at protests, and who go there for that puropse - often unrelated to the main theme. 1) health care has nothing to do with socialism 2) Obama is not even asking for universal coverage or a truly public option 3) he is asking for people to buy insurance from private companies & govt subsidies to pay for those who can't pay - that's not a public option (unless it changed again...) Having said that, the phrasing of the question is interesting: " Is it time for the majority to show support for the government they elected." Maybe these people are minority POV, ok we'll use that. But that's not the issue. What is the issue is that he is saying - the person who wrote the question not the news article - that people shouldn't protest, and they should support the government. Regardless of your POV on health care, everyone has a right to voice an opinion and disagree w/ govt programms and to protest them, using nazi signs even if they so choose. Yes, even if 1 person does it out of 300 million. Well, these are fundamental rights if you blieve in democracy and human rights. It's only in a tolitarian state where people is told 'do as your told' and 'support the govt'. That is the exact opposite of democracy where the govt support the people and do what they say. Democracy requires daily involvement from people, not just voting every 5 years. Protest is a legitimate right even if one disagrees. If you disagree, then make an argument for why you feel the way you do. Talking about Hitler and nazis and a few crazed protesters is a PR tactic dsigned to obscure the issues. Now - and this is the main point - to say just support the government the majority elected is really an anti democratic argument. Again, if you believe in democracy, then you know the govt exist to support you and implement your policies, not the other way around. You can argue it's right or wrong not to support it, buta asking people to support the government is not a democratic argument. Take Obama's army as an example. This is an example of the same thing. The idea of the govt contacting people to get them to pressure other branches of govt to implement the Executive's policies is not democratic. The opposite would be true. As in the people would tell all branches of the govt what they want, and they would protest, vote, strike and organise for what they want - minority representation or not. Further, saying that the majority of people voted for Obama therefore this is the policy the people want is nonsense. Of the eligible voters in the election, only a certain percent voted for him, but you won't find the majority of the population represented in that or in the policies. You will find the majority of people who veoted in the election. But the total eligible numbers? look at th figures. Not that it matters anyway. In a democracy, they must still listn to you. Just because you voted for him doesn't mean you agree with this policy or how its being carried out. How many people voted for him and agreed with bail outs? Most democrats, republicans and others were against that among the population. The notion that whatever he does is what the people want is not the case. You can see a discussion on this very topic here: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/24/noam_chomsky_what_next_the_elections Now if you read my post, you will see I neither argue for or agaist the proposed plan; I do discuss what it is and how the media treat it. You can decide for yourself what to think about that.
  • Vocal minorities are always those that make the news. The Silent Majority hardly ever do. from http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll "The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 34% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -4. That’s the President’s best Approval Index rating in over a month." and "Overall, 51% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That represents a one point improvement since his Wednesday night speech and is the President’s best rating in three weeks. Forty-eight percent (48%) now disapprove." So, there STILL seems to be a pretty large Silent Majority around. However, you are correct in the "distinct minority" who would call a sitting President any names like that.
  • Where the heck were these Nimrods during the Bu$h Administration's burning money to make Obama look like a piker? Billions on attacking Iraaq unnecessarily, not a peep. Billions on protecting the lives of Americans (including infants) and suddenly they're coming out of the woodwork.
  • I am so angry at the "Silent Marjority". This is like the walking dead as far as Democrats are defined. What does it take for people to get angry? They vote for Obama and just rest on their laurels and wait for the "magic" to happen? Obama is not at fault here, the PEOPLE are. It's sad when a handful of stupid bullies can gan center stage over a bunch of listless puppets. Get off your asses and be SILENT no more. Why did you get off your asses and go to the voting poles in the first place? Carry on!
  • I heard that it was nicknamed the "million moron march". I also heard that 60,000 is a generous estimate. A commenter on Faux News said that there were more people there than at the Inauguration. I believe that there about two million at the inauguration. This protest, such as it is, was bought and paid for by the drug and insurance companies through front organizations. The right wing media advertised this and promoted it. As a result, it was a round up of the lowest and the dumbest. One person suggested that if a bomb blew them up, the collective I.Q. of America would rise 10 points. By the way, I am not advocating such an act. We need clowns at the rodeo. Someone had to divert the bull.
  • For one thing, ABC's estimate as to how many people were there may be a bit low. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213056/Up-million-march-US-Capitol-protest-Obamas-spending-tea-party-demonstration.html You might also want to consider this post. The turnout for this protest was NOT your typical bunch of protesters (young people who like a good party but don't normally show up at the polls). It was made up of a large number of older Americans (people who do show up at the polls in large numbers). http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/10523 As for referring to Obama as Hitler or the Joker, did you get upset by all of the people who kept referring to George W. Bush as Hitler? Did you get upset at all of the portrayals of him as an idiot? I don't seem to recall you doing so. Now the shoe is on the other foot and I think that Obama is showing himself to have more in common with Hitler when it comes to economic policies than you want to admit. ----------------- Addendum: Based on the pictures from the tea party (see above link), I can tell you that the estimate of 70,000 is way low. I attended sold out games in what is now LaVell Edwards Stadium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_Stadium_(Provo)). At the time, the capacity of that stadium was 65,000. Such a crowd would not come close to filling up the mall the way this event did. So, sorry, but that 70,000 people count is just not credible. It is another example of the left-wing media trying to downplay the opposition to Obama's policies. ----------------- Addendum 2: And what makes you think that the majority still support him? His poll numbers are falling, especially over the policies he is proposing. The majority does NOT want his healthcare reform (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform). We don't want the cap and tax program either (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/56_don_t_want_to_pay_more_to_fight_global_warming). Most American don't see a positive affect from the economic stimulus plan (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/august_2009/confidence_in_stimulus_plan_is_up_to_33). His victory in the presidential election was not by that big of a majority of the popular vote. Many of that majority are beginning to have buyers remorse as they see how badly he fooled them about what he really intended to do once in office.
  • Obama is probably the least of anyone's worries. Try looking at the demographics of where the population of the country is heading. Look at the birth rates for the populations in your area. You will be surprised at the prediction of who will be in the majority and thus control the state, in the near future...... all legal, and without firing a shot or setting a bomb.
  • This is just pathetic, Jim. They're really comparing Obama to psychotic killers now? It's insanity. Your link led me to a photo that spurred me to ask this question: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1697620, It's sick. Just really, truly sick.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy