Democratic Convention 2012

Charlotte Protests Already Bigger Than in Tampa

|

CHARLOTTE – I've been in Charlotte for six hours and already I've seen more protesters than I did during the entire Republican National Convention in Tampa.

Early in the afternoon outside the EpiCentre complex near the Time Warner Cable Arena, a catch-all march of 500-1,000 protesters representing more than 70 different mostly left-of-center groups proceeded down College Street. Police peacefully escorted demonstratrators unhappy with the treatment of illegal immigrants, with U.S. support for Israel, the proposed construction of the Keystone Pipeline, war, drones, attacks on abortion rights, and big business writ large.

"It's more of a collective message towards change, however we all do have our own individual ambitions," said 21-year-old Sarona Bedwan of Ohio. "But that should not mean that we can't all come together as a people to protest for change." 

The March On Wall Street South, as it was called, was flush with the anti-corporate rhetoric that dominated Occupy Wall Street protests of last fall. Even though the majority of protesters were expressing grievances with the policies of the Obama White House, some said they still planned to vote for him instead of Republican Mitt Romney or third party candidates like the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson or Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

"Right now I think we're at too critical of a moment where Mitt Romney, as bad as [Obama] is, would be much worse than Barack Obama," said one protester who came over to a police barricade to talk with the press.

"Barack Obama has my vote but at the same time he does not have my voice, he does not have my bumper, and he definitely doesn't have my money. But he has my vote because he is the lesser of two evils," the protester said.

Organizers of the march have events planned for later this week, and have already shown more get-out-the-protest heft than their counterparts in Florida.

NEXT: Rev. Sun Moon, Founder of Unification Church, Dead at 92

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Barack Obama has my vote but at the same time he does not have my voice, he does not have my bumper, and he definitely doesn’t have my money. But he has my vote because he is the lesser of two evils,” the protester said.

    And he’s totally fine with that.

    1. Kinda sounds like some people around here justifying their vote for Romney

      1. Yup, that’s fucking funny as shit. Or it would be, if we weren’t all screwed.

        “Right now I think we’re at too critical of a moment where Mitt Romney, as bad as [Obama] is, would be much worse than Barack Obama,” said one protester who came over to a police barricade to talk with the press.

        sounds just like some folks around here.

        1. Except those people are right..

          1. Oh Tulpa …

          2. The path with Obama is clear – the empire falls. Might fall with Romney, too, but it would take longer to get there. Let Obama win; let him own the intended consequence of his ideology.

            1. “Let Obama win; let him own the intended consequence of his ideology.”

              No matter how long Obama is in office, and no matter how bad the economy gets under his watch, he will never, ever, have to own up to it. Remember, if not for FDR, the depression only would have been worse.

              This will forever be known as a Bush recession, but thankfully not the Bush Depression, because Obama saved us from one!

              My grandkid’s textbooks will hail Obama, crediting him for stopping a depression, and will assail everyone else from preventing him from making things even better.

              1. THIS. There are lots of reasons to not vote Romney but ‘let Obama own it’ isn’t one of them.

              2. My grandkid’s textbooks will hail Obama, crediting him for stopping a depression, and will assail everyone else from preventing him from making things even better.

                You’re optimistic. Thanks to Obama, your grandkids will probably spend their childhood running across a post-apocalyptic wasteland, hiding from the roaming cannibal rape gangs.

                1. Speak for yourself. My grandkids are going to make something of themselves, even if they have to be the rapist cannibals.

                  1. Speak for yourself. My grandkids are going to make something of themselves, even if they have to be the rapist cannibals.

                    That’s the can do spirit that makes this country great!

                2. But they’ll get free abortions after they are raped! Republicans would deny them that!

                3. you meant roaming cattle rape gangs.

                4. Bush’s roaming cannibal rape gangs

              3. There is an article in this weeks fucking Economist talking about how well Obama handled the economy with a chart from the OMB showing how unemployment would have been 12% if he hadn’t done all the stimulus. It even says he did a good job the auto company bailout and that his problems were not putting enough money into lowering mortgages and not raising taxes on everyone. I know it’s from socialist England, but it’s the fucking Economist. I think some people have too much invested in the narrative to blame Obama or anything between socialism and keynesianism.

                1. The Economist mainly pulls stuff out of their ass to promote what they see as a healthy european-style welfare state. The have all the answers to everything, but never seem to bother to justify their reasoning.

                2. The Economist has yet to meet a proposed tax hike or regulation they don’t like. How they get the regulation as being for the free market is beyond me.

                  When plugging for a bloated mess of a bill (such as ObamaCare), a tax hike or regulation, they always start with “while we normally support limited government, this is an exception because ___.”

                  I can’t believe that they are considered free-market, even in relatively socialist Europe.

                  1. *get the reputation, not regulation. Regulation somehow still seems fitting, though.

                    1. The Economist is almost rigidly mediocre. Lots of analysis that is either so water-thin they’re basically retelling basic facts I could get online or ass-pulling or both. Was The Economist ever that good? They have a very callow writing style, which is made weirder by the seeming omnipotence of the never-named writer(s).

                    2. The Economist started a downhill slide some number of years ago. Staff and management changes always went for the worse. But why should they be any different than any other dinosaur in the media?

    2. A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson.

    3. What he’s really saying: “Obama treats me like the lowest whore in creation–and I’m just fine with that.”

    4. The policemen should tie them together by running kite string through all their body piercings. Then they won’t have any more trouble from them.

  2. So how will the media spin the fact that there are more protesters here than in Tampa?

    1. They will probably report that there are more protesters in Charlotte than there were in Tampa…

      1. The “March on Wall Street South” scheduled for Sunday is expected to draw thousands of protesters.
        CBS News

        1. I bet this will solidify all the votes of the people in the buildings of the Wall Street South.

    2. Just shows that democrats are more inclusive. They welcome the protesters with open arms.

      That or what protesters?

      1. Daily Kos has an article “Celebrating with the community for the Democratic Convention in Charlotte,” but apparently it’s not about the protesters.

  3. Ignorant, unwashed protestors are Obamarama Lamma Lamma Dingdong’s “base.” He has to pretend to love them.

    1. Obamarama Lamma Lamma Dingdong

      ????

    2. Not really, they’ve already said he’s got their vote.

  4. however we all do have our own individual ambitions

    Socialists can be individualists?!?!?

    Someone call Sheldon!!!

    1. They don’t mean individual individuals.

      “It’s more of a collective message towards change, however we all do have our own individual ambitions”.

      See?

      They each have their own individual ambitions to get out their “collective message”.

        1. Saw this in the related videos, highly recommend checking it out:

          Toyota Supra Drifting Unbuttons a Girl’s shirt

            1. Formula D-cup?

  5. Protesting is an end in itself for this bunch. They live to make a spectacle of themselves. It wouldnt matter who was pres, what policies we have etc….they are going to be in the street decrying something they were for yesterday or shouting “Excelsior!”.

  6. Is there anything funnier than mob of whining wieners stomping angrily around a maypole, protest signs in hand? With luck this could be a replay of Chicago ’68.

    Of course there are more of them at the Democrat convention. What’s unusual about the whiners showing up to a convention for the party of whiners? These people are so stupid they’re protesting themselves.

    1. The Chicago ’68 protesters didn’t turn around and vote for Humphrey.

      1. IIRC they voted for Pigasus.

    2. With luck this could be a replay of Chicago ’68.

      You really want another Nixon?

  7. “It’s more of a collective message towards change, however we all do have our own individual ambitions,” said 21-year-old Sarona Bedwan of Ohio. “But that should not mean that we can’t all come together as a people to protest for change.”

    When they say they’re protesting for change, they don’t mean a change of leadership, do they.

    1. More a change of clothing or possibly a change of a badly considered tattoo.

      1. Yeah, I don’t think they want the Democratic Party to change.

        When you see them protesting? they’re not protesting against authority figures.

        They’re protesting against their fellow Americans.

        They’re protesting against me!

        I always get the feeling from them that somehow they think I’m the problem.

        1. They’re lining up to get on camera and tell the voters what they really think of them. …all those damn voters with their greed and fossil fuel use and meat eating and…

          I doubt that’s the collective message Obama really wants to sell at this point during the election: The problem with America? Is all you damn American voters!

          All you selfish people aren’t willing to give up your standard of living to save the polar bears–you’re what’s wrong with this country, and we’re here to get in your face about it!

          P.S. I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message.

          1. You forgot the Jews.

            1. Are they anti-Semitic, too?

              1. Pay attention to some of the usual rhetoric about “banksters”.

              2. Some of them. Unlike tea-partiers, they aren’t kicked out for some odd reason.

              3. If they are anything like the OWS reptiles and the other Occupy losers they most certainly have anti-Semites among their ranks and in their “spokespersons” (i.e., whatever d-bag agrees to be interviewed). You hear a lot about “the Jews” at these sorts of gatherings.

                As for the rest, who knows? At the very least they are people who seem okay with having Jew-hating bigots as part of their “revolution”.

                1. Well, whatever…

                  There’s no need to call the Simon Wiesenthal Center to root out secret antisemites among the protestors when the protestors are out there effectively protesting against the American people!

                  Just put a camera on them and let them speak! They dig themselves into a deeper hole every time they open their angry-at-the-average-American-voter mouths.

                  1. There’s no need to call the Simon Wiesenthal Center to root out secret antisemites…

                    How about calling out the open ones?

                    1. It’s weird that the American political left includes anti-Semites and most Jews, while the right is full of Israelophiles.

                    2. It is indeed a weird shift. Antisemitism used to be the domain of the right, and Israel was celebrated by the left.

                    3. IIRC, that changed when Israel beat up a bunch of Russian arms customers in the 1960’s.

                    4. No, I think it shifted in the ’70s or even ’80s.

                    5. It’s as simple as TEAM BLUE deciding that they have to be against Israel once the evangelicals on TEAM RED started backing Israel in the late 70s, early 80s. Nothing changed in Israel’s foreign policy or domestic policy.

                    6. I think it had a lot to do with the Palestinian PR campaign to change their brand from “Jew-hating Arab terrorists” to “oppressed minority.”

    2. When they say they’re protesting for change, they don’t mean a change of leadership, do they.

      There’s been a change in the level of enthusiasm with which they will run to the voting booth and yank the lever for Obama.

  8. It’s funny how there are all those famous novels about a totalitarian dystopian future, and yet when we reach that point, people protest that it’s not totalitarian and dystopian enough. “More Government Now! Crush every aspect of individuality and liberty!”

    1. Not sure if that is true. They want the government to give them more stuff so they don’t have to sacrifice anything to do silly things like performance art and go to college to get a degree in (fill in the blank) studies. That is what they consider individuality and liberty.

    2. “More Government Now! Crush every aspect of individuality and liberty!”

      Individuality and liberty are mean, and most likely crypto racists tool!

      1. This. Was talking to this girl, and her reason for voting for Obama is she thinks Mitt will end the National Endowment for the Arts, which funds her bullshit job. I laughed and pointed out that makes her vote bought and paid for. This somehow greatly offended her.

        Seriously, when parasites are proud of being parasites, and are indignant when you point out they’re parasites, then the Republic is lost. I’m seriously considering voting Obama just to watch the world burn faster.

  9. “Barack Obama has my vote but at the same time he does not have my voice, he does not have my bumper, and he definitely doesn’t have my money. But he has my vote because he is the lesser of two evils,” the protester said.

    That statement makes as much sense as this video.

    1. I’m glad you were here to show that to us.

      1. I’m glad that you’re glad.

    2. Whoa, that was enlightening

  10. Sort of on-topic in a tangential way: John Tester-libertarian(ish) Democrat?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded

    1. Tester is very good. If the Senate had 40 or so Testers and 40 Scott Brown (the most libertarian GOPer) it would work well.

      (Rand Paul opposes the Right to Privacy therefore fails my libertarian purity test)

      1. Scott Brown (the most libertarian GOPer)

        You’re retarded.

        1. Rand Paul supports an Aborto-Freak Police State intruding into personal privacy matters.

          1. Yep, still retarded.

          2. I’m aware and unhappy with Rand’s abortion stance. You’re still retarded.

            1. You can’t debate me. You can fuck with Tony but not me.

              Your only argument is Obama = Bush.

              But 2001-09 was the worst POTUS jog in 150 years.

              1. I can debate you in the same way a professor teaches calculus to a retarded spastic horse, the like the one from Family Guy. Anyone can.

                Obama = Bush isn’t an argument. It’s a fact.

              2. Your only argument is Obama = Bush.

                Nope,

                Obama is Lenin to Bush’s Nicholas II.

                Well except that Lenin actually ended Nicholas’s wars, instead of escalating them like Obama has done.

                1. Well, there was that 1919-1921 thing with Poland.

              3. You can’t debate me. You can fuck with Tony but not me.

                Are you kidding? I make you show your ass all the time, and I don’t even break a sweat.

      2. shirekmeister, Stalin was more libertarian than you

      3. (Rand Paul opposes the Right to Privacy therefore fails my libertarian purity test)

        Shriek supports Obama’s commandeering of the healthcare sector, imposition of carbon taxes and collectivizing the student loan market.

        Calibrate your assessment of his “libertarian purity test” accordingly.

        1. supports Obama’s commandeering of the healthcare sector, imposition of carbon taxes and collectivizing the student loan market

          You’re a liar.

          Link to this ridiculous claim.

          1. Anyone have a link to reality?

          2. You have enthused countless times about national healthcare (the time I’m thinking of was Australia’s system) and also gushed over the Aussies’ recent imposition of carbon taxes.

            You know it’s true, and you’re not worth a search.

            1. No, I commented that Australia is at the top of the Heritage Freedom Index while they passed carbon taxes and NHC.

              It solely was to belittle Heritage and their anti-Americanism.

              1. I stand by my comment.

      4. (Rand Paul opposes the Right to Privacy therefore fails my libertarian purity test)

        Go ahead and say “abortion” when that’s what you mean.

        Paul is pretty much the only guy out there defending the 4th amendment. Opposes the right to privacy, my ass.

        Brown supports waterboarding therefore fails my libertarian purity test.

        1. Its not just abortion.

          Contraception and ‘Lawrence vs. Texas’ for two examples.

          In Lawrence, the Pauls say the police may arrest a citizen for sodomy without a warrant (with one is bad enough).

          1. I didn’t know you could be in Congress and be a Supreme Court Justice at the same time.

            1. Fuck them. A state may outlaw the Pill according to them.

              This fucking ‘Orginalism’ is a fucking sickness of the head.

              And fuck that goddamn Scalia too. He supports boy butt-fuckers in the Diocese.

              1. It’s so hard not being a totalitarian when you’re a leftie, ain’t it?

          2. The Pauls support federalism, that’s why.

            1. Not everyone’s view of federalism allows state-level tyranny it should be noted.

              1. Agreed. Anti-contracption laws are idiotic, but that doesn’t make them unconstitutional.

              2. But what’s the difference between “tyranny” and “laws I don’t like”? The black-letter law of the Constitution and the BoR provide a reference point everyone can recognize. The silly 9th amendment emanations of penumbras, not so much.

                1. Which 9th Amendment rights do you oppose?

                  We have rights not expressly written, you know?

                  1. I do know. The Ninth allows the definition of additional rights subsequent to the passage of the BoR. Even states can get in on the act, and most did. Several states had a right to an abortion prior to Roe v Wade, in fact.

                    Nothing in the Constitution permits the federal courts to impose them by fiat.

                  2. If it’s not written there it’s not enforceable. The 9th was to prevent the federal govt from claiming the BoR was an exhaustive list of things it couldn’t do. Which, thanks to your side’s commerce clause expansion, has turned out futile.

          3. When have the Pauls supported criminalizing contraception? And their opinions on Lawrence (and has Rand actually said he agrees with his father on it?) is about the constitutionality of the decision, not whether they actually support criminalizing sodomy. I disagree with their take, but that doesn’t mean they support such laws. Between you and tony, I don’t know who is more intellectually dishonest

            1. They would allow the states to criminalize contraception and sodomy.

              Have they said how they would vote in a state legislature? Not to my knowledge and I suspect they have never opined on the subject.

              The point is that they do not believe in a Constitutional Right to Privacy.

              Ron Paul on Lawrence is a disgrace.

              You are not arguing with Tony. I am no doubt more libertarian than many here as evidenced that I do not hide behind a bogus concept like ‘Origianlism’ to deprive others of liberty.

              1. Either there is Rule of Law or there isn’t, Shriek. You gut the very document that protects liberty in the name of liberty. Don’t be surprised when the Frankenstein’s monster you’ve created turns on you.

              2. I am no doubt more libertarian than many here

                libertarian

                You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

              3. Actually, Ron Paul called the laws “ridiculous.” And when has Rand Paul ever commented on Lawrence? This is what I’m talking about when I say your dishonest. You can think anti-contraception or anti-sodomy laws are idiotic and at the same time believe that there is nothing in the Constitution preventing them from being passed by states. Do you support forcibly stopping every country around the world from having anti-sodomy laws? If not, does that mean you support the laws in those countries? And how does Scott Brown, who voted for the Patriot Act and NDAA, support the right to privacy?

                1. This clause prevents the states from infringing on a citizens right to privacy —

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I….._of_Rights

                  Rand Paul should read it someday.

                  1. That’s not a clause, it’s an invented doctrine.

                    1. Ratified by the passage of the 14th Amendment.

                      Learn it.

                    2. The text doesn’t say anything about incorporation. Subsequent ivory tower legal scholar philosophizing wasn’t ratified.

                  2. When has Rand Paul ever commented on this? He and his father are different people

          4. So on two issues on which Paul’s viewpoint has roughly zero chance of being enacted trump all the 4th amendment issues which are very much in play?

            1. I support Ron Paul on the 4th. I only note that he fails the libertarian purity test on personal privacy matters.

              1. He would only fail the libertarian purity test if he supported anti-sodomy or anti-contraception laws. He doesn’t.

        2. Nothing unlibertarian about waterboarding as long as there are correct procedures in place.

      5. Rand Paul fails the test because he opposes abortion, but Brown supports the Patriot Act and NDAA, and it’s ok?

        1. It would be a good debate between the two. I would tune in.

          1. What is this even supposed to mean? You can’t write off Paul for not supporting the right to privacy by opposing abortion, which is a contentious moral issue with libertarians on both sides of it, and then ignore Brown’s support of blatant violations of civil liberties, and deem him the “most libertarian” senator

            1. It depends on how you weigh the issues.

              I weight privacy higher than unconstitutional interrogation – but not by that much.

              1. And the Patriot Act and NDAA have nothing to do with privacy?

                1. No. “Privacy” to the left means only abortion and whatever sex women are okay with.

                  1. If you make a private choice not to purchase health insurance, that’s certainly not one they will let you make.

    2. Holy shit he took charge of Montana’s wolves! Fuck!

    3. While Tester is no Chuck Schumer, he sure as shit isn’t anywhere near a libertarian.

      Issues

      Populist-Leaning Liberal

      1. Compared to 97 others in the Senate Tester is.

        1. No.

          He’s not. He is a liberal who must kowtow to some conservative principles to get elected in MT.

          1. Tester voted for the $2 trillion boondoggle called “Obamacare,” and also with the $800 billion boondoggle known as the “stimulus” and the $411 billion budget-sodomizer a month after that.

            Behold a Shriekian “libertarian.”

            1. Well if any good came of my mistake in being too generous to Tester, it’s that Shriek is even easier to mock and deride. Though that almost seems superfluous at this point.

            2. Tester voted against TARP and the GM bailout.

              http://www.tester.senate.gov/N…..reform.cfm

              He is LP all the way vs a Bushpig like Paul Ryan.

              1. I’ll agree those were good votes. Will you agree the votes I called out were bad ones, votes that dwarf those you point to?

                1. From an LP perspective Obamacare and the stimulus were poor votes by Tester no doubt.

              2. Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
                Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (May 2009)
                Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Feb 2009)
                Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, energy. (Sep 2008)
                Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness. (Mar 2007)

                1. Still easily better than Paul Ryan.

                  1. Shriek just said something sensible and pointed. Chills.

      2. Well that sucks.

    4. A lot of emphasis on the -ish.

      Voted for PPaCA.
      Voted to increase funding for Medicare and SCHIP.
      Voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan.
      Opposed Citizen’s United.

      Anti-PATRIOT, guns, and DA/DT are the only vaguely libertarian things about him at least from a cursory glance.

  11. Convention theme will be Romney = Bush.

    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo……hp?ref=fpa

    This is a winner. Bush is still loathed by the country and his own party has ostracized him from its last two conventions. Letting Bubba speak will enforce this notion.

    1. Are they going to stick with “Mess we’re in equals BUSH’S FAULT EVEN STILL!”?

      I just can’t wait for Joke Biden to take the stage. Let’s see what the funniest veep evar does this time!

      1. “Mess we’re in equals BUSH’S FAULT EVEN STILL!”?

        Will it be proclaimed just like that?

        1. Any way the sheep will nod along to.

      2. You sport your Team Red jersey when belittling Biden instead of Dickless Cheney.

        ‘Deficits don’t matter’ and ‘Iraq will greet us with flowers’ are the two most stomach sickening things a VP ever said.

        1. THE PROJECTION IT BURNS

          1. THE IRONY IT BURNS

            1. THE BURN IT IRONS

        2. So Cheney and Biden are co-VPs?

        3. I forgot that there are only two teams and I can be on one or the other, but not both nor neither. Thank you for reminding me.

          REASON FIX YOUR PREVIEW

          1. You were being stupid. Biden is Voltaire compared to Dickless Cheney.

            1. “Tallest Midget”

            2. Dickless Cheney is evil and cold as his near-synthetic heart; more machine now than man…

              Biden’s just stupid.

              Big difference.

            3. Biden is a Delta-Minus who can barely spell “Candide,” much less understand it.

        4. You sport your Team Red jersey when belittling Biden instead of Dickless Cheney (‘Deficits don’t matter’ )

          Yes, deficits don’t matter-Cheney (400b) is so much worse than deficits don’t matter-Biden(1,400b).

      3. I wonder how many times they’re going to run against Bush when he isn’t even running? We’re at two. If Obama wins, I bet we get a threepeat in 2016.

        1. Bush left a stench on the GOP that will last to 2020 – maybe beyond.

          He is that goddamn bad.

          1. Nope nobody gives a shit anymore Shriek because W ISN’T THE FUCKING PREZ ANYMORE.

            1. Well, there’s Bush. That’s not good.

              Then there’s the whole Palin/Bachmann/Santorum/Cain/Gingrich thing. I’m not fond of Bush, but for Christ’s take, I’d pick him again against most of the Republican field in 2012. The fact that those jokers were even temporarily considered to be serious is a pretty damning commentary on the state of the party. They needed a sex scandal to get rid of Herman Fucking Cain? Then they end up picking Richie “Refalca” Rich, the Mormon who acts like he is auditioning to be the dad in Leave it to Beaver. And the sad thing is he was the best they had.

              Basically the Republicans have made sure that anyone who doesn’t agree with their social agenda is deeply unenthusiastic about voting for them. The fact that this election is close speaks more to the weakness of the Republican party than it does anything else. If they could reanimate Reagan and get him on the ballot, Obama would be out on his ass in a heartbeat.

              1. True, but what was so bad about Cain? Yeah he was lightweight. So?

          2. It didn’t even last until 2010. Which party won more elections that year, shrike?

        2. I wonder how many times they’re going to run against Bush when he isn’t even running? We’re at two. If Obama wins, I bet we get a threepeat in 2016.

          The Democrats have been running against Hoover for the last 80 years. I have no doubt they’ll be running against Bush for about that long–if the country survives, of course.

    2. You’re the best political retard every Shriek. Better than Toney.

      Bush = Romney is much of what Obama has been pulling for the last several months and his numbers are not as good as he would like them. It doesn’t work that well because Obama = Bush.

      1. You’re an idiot if you don’t see that I only argue for less government. (a few regulations excepted).

        The best scenario is a Dem Pres/Senate and GOP House. Think now, the 90s, and the late 70s where no new social programs were passed.

        It took full GOP power (2001-06) to pass the worst legislation in my lifetime.

        1. Think now, the 90s, and the late 70s where no new social programs were passed.

          I’ll take “what is Obamacare” for a dillion dollars please.

          1. Obamacare is an unjust intrusion on a citizen to force them to purchase private insurance.

            There is no new social program. Medicaid is increased to the poverty level but that does not make it “new”. Its still a 60s relic.

            Piss off while you are only slightly demoralized.

            1. There is no new social program.

              Troll-o-meter 0.01

              1. Name the program, dumbass.

                Obamacare is a patchwork of laws and onerous requirements with some nice private insurance exchanges mixed in.

                But no one will have an “Obamacare” card.

                1. Because Card!=Proof of social program

                  How much yellow snow did you eat as a kid?

                2. But no one will have an “Obamacare” card.

                  It’s called a 1040, you twit.

                  1. Not to mention the massive regulatory and tax State that is being erected around the law as we speak.

                3. Name the program?

                  This org chart isn’t a bad place to start: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_g-XV…..t+jpeg.jpg

                  I looked for an org chart for how PPCA works as a whole as prepared by a Team Jackass but can’t find one. Either because they’re too stupid to understand it, or too smart to brag or otherwise display the disaster.

                  1. Tough for Obama’s ego to have the death panels getting a circle as large as his.

            2. Pay no attention to the premium support, insurance “exchanges”, restrictions on denial for preexisting conditions, restrictions on not offering employees health insurance…

        2. Obamacare was passed in 2010 dipshit.

        3. Shriek is such a fucking libertarian (except when he’s a liberal douche).

          Sort of like “I always wear a condom (except when I don’t).”

        4. Yes, the best libertarian hope of gridlock is awesome. When the government is hapless to inflict stupidity, everyone wins.

          And it was Donkey-clowns that enabled things like No Shrub Left Behind. It was Donkey clowns that demanded (and got) a new Department to sign up for the Patriot Act. It was Donkey clowns that forgot what a fillibuster or anything like that was when they put Shrub over the top for his Iraq war, they all voting for it (including spoon-bender Biden, Genius Clinton, and trailer-retard humping Shark Edwards).

          And it was Republicans that needed convincing and a re-vote to ram Shrub’s TARP disaster down our throats. In every instance of Republican excess, Democrats did not fight it but bought in (conversely, ‘sold out’)for a piece of the resulting pie.

          1. My only problem with gridlock in the coming cycle is Obamacare.

          2. Gridlock just isn’t gonna cut it. Never did really. We need to undo the damage. Scrotus is only so reliable in that regard.

          3. Because spineless Democrats cower in front of GOP lying bullies.

            Russ Feingold should get a goddamn Medal of Freedom for being the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act and the War on Iraqis.

            1. And then co-sponsoring a bill that gagged Americans’ political speech? That kind of freedom?

            2. You mean the Patriot Act that BO went balls to the wall to get renewed in 2011, and the War in Iraq that he tried to extend past Bush’s withdrawal date?

            3. If Russ gets a medal for that, then so does Red State Idaho’s tax-cutting union-busting governor, ‘Butch’ Otter. He was the only Congressman to vote against the Patriot Act if memory serves.

              1. Ron Paul definitely voted against it, along with a bunch of Democrats in the House.

                1. Yeah, you’re right. I looked it up. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll386.xml

                  My bad. Seventy-nine Medals of Freedom in the House it is.

              2. Also, it often gets forgotten around here, but Bob Barr’s insistence on sneaking the sunset provision into the Patriot Act was more helpful to liberty than yet another Ron Paul symbolic nay.

                1. Credit due where credit is due.

                  We need both loud and proud Paul types and sneak ‘black ops’ double-crossers like Barr.

          4. Is it gridlock when congress is divided (like now), or is it understood that one team must have full control of congress while the other has the White House?

            1. I’d think President + House under control of one party, Senate under the other would be gridlock. House vs. President + Senate not so much, as there are several things the House is not involved in like treaty ratification and nominee confirmations.

              But everybody has different definitions. Filibuster power should factor in somehow, too.

      2. “Bush = Romney” won’t work because Obama has been blaming Bush for everything for four solid years now. We have heard it all before. Here is a *brilliant* GOP ad on that very theme. A whole series of Romney ads could simply use Obama’s own words to similar devastating effect.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..5VMX2JahrU

        1. Crap, it won’t embed that way. Try: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po…..8-vs-2012/

          1. That was absolutely devastating. Not only the substance, but the style that grabs of hold of your attention and keeps it.

            It’s almost surreal that this asshole is president. With Bush, it was like ‘haha yeah he was just dumb enough to bumble through like Forrest Gump”. It’s not the same with this guy. He’s a psychopath.

            1. I don’t think he’s a psycho so much as a narcissistic, social-climbing, empty suit.

    3. This is a winner.

      I seriously doubt it is, but it’s got to be better than running on his own record. How do you explain that $5 trillion tab and real unemployment about 5% higher than you promised that $5 trillion would bring?

      1. “It was Bush.”

        1. I’m just waiting for the “IT WAS ALL DEREGULATION’S FAULT” from his filthy piehole.

          1. He might not say it but his zombies will.

            As an aside, one of the reasons against voting Romney I used to believe was the ‘we’ll be blamed when it all goes to shit’. Thing is that will happen anyway. Libertarians are the Jews of the political spectrum we will always get blamed (KOCHS!1). Many good reasons not to vote Romney but that isn’t one of them.

            1. I don’t think someone should decide their vote based on such reasoning, but I think your reasoning overlooks a couple things. Sure, crazy leftists might try to blame libertarians regardless, but in the minds of the general public, they’re much more likely to believe that free markets and capitalism are to blame if Republicans are in power

              1. That’s a pretty thin reed on which to hang giving the most corrupt administration in history four more years.

            2. What do you mean by “when” it all goes to shit?

              We’re already there. It’s going to get worse, yes, but keeping Obama in office so we can blame him is counterproductive. Will we make the same argument in 2016? Vote Biden so we can blame the socialists when it gets even worse…

              Where does that line of reasoning end? With a socialist in office it will ALWAYS get worse.

              1. Er I think you should re-read my post. We’re in agreement.

                1. I was responding to Calidissent up there. Reason skimped on the nesting levels and we’re all paying the price.

                  1. In response to both of you guys, where did I say to support Obama? In fact, I explicitly said that people shouldn’t base their vote on such reasoning

                    1. Good then…we are all in agreement.

                    2. Good then…we are all in agreement.

                      I disagree with that.

                2. More aimed at Calidissident (although I used your phrase). It’s more a matter of blaming capitalism or socialism for our ills than dem/rep/libertarian.

            3. Thing is that will happen anyway. Libertarians are the Jews of the political spectrum we will always get blamed

              Yep.

    4. Convention theme will be Romney = Bush. This is a winner.

      GWB is certainly unpopular, but BO still running against him plays into a bad existing narrative for BO: that he’s a whiny little ne-er-do-well who can’t do anything but blame other people.

      Also, I don’t see how Clinton would really have anything to do with this since he never ran against GWB and policy-wise his admin was about as far from BO as two Democrats can get.

      1. It’s not just “playing into a bad existing narrative for BO,” it’s that we’ve all heard this before. They’ve been blaming Bush for four years now. Everyone but the most deluded (admittedly, a huge chunk of the populace) is sick of endless excuses. The magic feeling is gone, and it turns out that Obama was little more than that magic feeling.

        The momentum seems to be with Romney. I just don’t believe all the happy-talk coming from Democrats and their media lackeys about the election being “all but in the bag.” Democrats got their head handed to them in 2010, and what’s gotten better since?

  12. ~Bless the occupiers hearts~
    Nancy Pelosi

    I wonder if they start a riot is she will still be blessing them? On election day she will but will she go out and meet any of them?

  13. Not that All of Gary Johnson’s Policies are what I agree with, I will NOT VOTE for Obama. I will vote for Johnson…which means I’m voting for Romney (the worst of two evils). But to me, it is worth punishing obama for such a shitty job.

    1. I will NOT VOTE for Obama. I will vote for Johnson…which means I’m voting for Romney

      Meh. Actually it means you are doing the right thing. So just go for that and don’t worry about which of the lesser evils that win.

    2. You are doing the right thing not many people do that. I applaud you.

      You are not voting for Romney. Only voting for Romney is voting for Romney.

      1. If you strip the ball carrier of the ball before he gets into the end zone, and then return the fumble for a touchdown, you’ve effectively scored 14 points.

        1. You say that like Obamney was about to seal the deal with any of us.

        2. It’s somehow appropriate that you’re metaphor means nothing to mean because I don’t watch sports.

          1. I don’t watch sports.

            I support your right to marry. Hopefully more states will soon follow. Stay strong my homosexual brother.

            1. Fuck you-NO HOMO.

            2. I have to admit this was the funniest thing I’ve read in a week.

          2. It’s somehow appropriate that you’re metaphor means nothing to mean because I don’t watch sports.

            This is a splendid, florid script of Engrish right here.

            1. 2nd mean should be ‘me’

              1. ‘You’re’ should be ‘your’ and combined with ‘mean’ instead of ‘me’ was cool Engrish.

          3. Maybe if you watched some football you could get all that aggression out of your system in a harmless way. Rather than cheering on the incinerating of innocent people 10,000 miles away.

            1. Snide dishonesty: not just for Toney!

              1. So someone stole your password when you made your sickening “YAY DRONES” post last week?

                1. Nope. I was giving a proper and righteous send out to our emissaries of death.

  14. “Barack Obama has my vote but at the same time he does not have my voice, he does not have my bumper, and he definitely doesn’t have my money. But he has my vote because he is the lesser of two evils,”

    This country deserves the assfucking it gets: Good and Hard!

    1. The assfucking is not that bad if you breath right and don’t fight it.

      1. Warty is at least gentle and brings his own lube.

      2. Been out hiking in STEVE SMITH terrority have we Alice?

        1. STEVE SMITH HIDE IN NFL LOCKER ROOMS DURING FANTASY FOOTBALL SEASON. STEVE SMITH ENJOY UP CLOSE PERSONAL ASSESSMENT OF PLAYERS.

          1. STEVE SMITH FANTASY FOOTBALL PLAYERS ALWAYS DO BAD WEEK AFTER STEVE SMITH VISIT THEM. MAYBE THERE STEVE SMITH CURSE.

  15. One in ten Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. Yet eight in ten Congresscreatures will be reelected.

    So, yes: Good and Hard!

    1. I always found it odd that those polls rarely ask for approval/disapproval of your own Reps and Senators, it’s always Congress in general. Nobody votes for Congress in general.

      1. Yeah, well, if you had Pelosi and Feinstein, you’d disapprove in the particular also.

        1. Altmire, Casey, and Specter was bad enough. At least we have Toomey in place of Specter now, though the jury’s still out on him. We’re likely to get John Murtha’s pupil Critz after this election, barf.

      2. A real measure of Congressional approval (beyond measuring repulsion of the word itself) would be an index of individual Critter-approvals in their districts summed up and divided by 435.

        That number is probably the ‘real’ Congressional approval number. It undoubtedly is much, much higher. The dissonance between the two values would be telling of the dissonance among the people.

  16. uhm:

    In the end, though, maybe none of this pageantry matters. And speaking of pageantry, did you catch the fourth episode of Here Comes Honey BooBoo? There’s a good chance you did, as it got better ratings than the RNC ? maybe it’s easier to relate to a bunch of overweight, hardscrabble Georgians making tough decisions about which grocery coupons to use than to a bunch of millionaires in Florida bragging about giving themselves tax break

    Serious Journalism!

    1. Worst. Writing. Ever.

      But the Globe and Mail is a serious newspaper! SMRT people all read it!

    1. Ummmm… Living poor just about anywhere else?

  17. NICE job by SWAT. perfect example of the kind of call that SWAT was invented for.

    An alleged gunman is dead after a SWAT team and other police officers came under fire Sunday from one or more shooters during a tense armed standoff in a rural area outside of Arlington.

    The drama began at about 1:30 p.m. when a 26-year-old man who lives in the area thought he heard gunshots or fireworks. He hustled his kids inside the house then went to investigate with his father.

    The father and son heard another bullet whistle through the branches of a nearby tree, then the son realized he had been shot in the calf. They ran home and called 911.

    Deputies responded to the scene, and then they also came under fire. One patrol car was reportedly hit, but no officers were injured.

    A SWAT team soon arrived at the scene, and SWAT team officers reported multiple gunshot hits on their armored vehicle.

    Police units reportedly then came under fire from different types of weapons, including a high-powered rifle, leading them to believe that there could be more than one shooter.

    As the gun battle stretched through most of the afternoon, more armored vehicles were requested from other jurisdictions

    At the height of the standoff, scanner reports from the scene sounded like a war zone, with multiple police and sheriff units coordinating and positioning themselves strategically.

    http://www.komonews.com/news/l…..29756.html

    1. more details and videos of icky SWAT team armoured vehicles too…
      http://seattletimes.com/html/l…..er03m.html

    2. He was just another drifter who broke the law!

      Why didn’t they just call Trautman?

  18. Barack Obama has my vote but at the same time he does not have my voice

    Wait, what?

    1. Barack Obama has my vote, but he doesn’t have my heart! Not anymore!

      1. Barack Obama has my vote, but he doesn’t have my heart!

        He reached up through my asshole and yanked it out!

        But he still has my vote!

    2. Sorry, they count votes, they don’t “listen” to them. As far as Obama cares, you agree with him lock-step.

      1. Sorry, they count votes, they don’t “listen” to them. As far as Obama cares, you agree with him lock-step.

        This.

        Yet I’ll wager that this person fancies himself to be part of the “reality based community” (the one where politicians apparently differentiate votes from support), and that he is part of the intelligentsia who fancies himself as someone who uses pure logic and reason gained only through a fancy education in their decision-making process.

  19. ………”my abusive husband has my support,but he doesnt have my voice….”
    hey!!!,look…its alassic example of ‘battered voter syndrome’…..is there a cure??????

  20. Where’s the LAPD when you need them? Oh yeah, beating on more people who don’t deserve it: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/…..fist-bump/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.