2 Million Patriots March on D.C.! »
Posted By Inactive 3 months, 3 weeks ago in Political News
A crowd of protesters who gathered in Washington, D.C. and around the country today to demand control of reckless runaway government spending...…
Read Full Story at examiner.com »
1114 Views Share Story 236 Comments Report
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 236 (view all)
-
50%
Inactive3 months, 3 weeks ago
-
64%
jovial3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://wjz.com/local/tea.party.protest.2.1179632.h...
Reply
I believe it was only a little over 30,000. Sorry, didn't want to urinate on your parade. -
69%
mesodude3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL...Um, not even close. I live here and I'm pretty sure we'd know if there were an extra two million people in the city. DC is only 68 square miles and our population is just shy of 600,000. I biked down to the mall area this afternoon to check out the traffic and parking situation. Other than the Mall area, street traffic seemed to be flowing quite smoothly.
Reply -
DuckBiscuitComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
86%
Beau78903 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's an aerial view of the March on Washington on August 28, 1963. It is estimated that 250,000 attended that rally:
Reply
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d...
If anyone can show me a picture of the DC protest yesterday that looks like there's anything even remotely close to this number of people, I'll believe there were 250,000 there.
Two million is just absurd. -
-
-
45%
Tasine3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I just read somewhere that MSM was not in abundant attendance. Busy covering Obama's speech no doubt. I'm sure that's why Obama decided to give a speech, to deflect coverage from the Tea party activities. Good for Tea Party and its determination. We don't need the MSM anyway. Thanks for the post!
Reply -
-
63%
icono13 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is what happens to all Governments that believe they are too big to fail. They ignore the noise from the grass roots, especially when the common folk are very angry, about the insolent behaviour of their Govt and their representatives.
Reply -
57%
k9kssr3 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
-
50%
Inactive3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They are just plain stupid. So one in the WH is playing. Ron White has a saying; "You can't Fix Stupid". But, you can throw them out of office by impeaching them for violating their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That's my take.
Reply -
-
46%
sctransplant3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama is out of town because he is afraid to face the Majority in this country, the people of this country. And they knew the March was coming to town. Leaving town tells you what kind of Character he has, he can't face the people who count.
Reply
Democrats have become gutless and do not represent the American People. If they did represent us and cared about the Majority, then they would not vote for Health Care of any kind. Stop Spending Our Money, we pay you to do what we want, not what you want. -
68%
mesodude3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"According to his press secretary, Obama and the WH was unaware anything was planned by the protesters today. Do you think they are that out of touch with the public sentiment or just playing stupid?"
Reply
--Hmmm...Well, let's see...Not including the town halls, cons have staged some form of protest against Obama at least three times this week alone. So perhaps a better question is, how could anyone keep track of when and where your next protest will be when you people have been protesting the guy non-stop since BEFORE he was elected? ;-P
-
-
-
-
DuckBiscuitComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned
-
59%
HateKoolAid3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Two million huh?? If you say so. The people who now control the health care industry are not about to give up their cash cow without a fight, that's now obvious. They've bought a lot of air time and spent an enormous amount of time convincing their contacts in the media to repeat day in and day out the same talking points....death panels....illegals will be covered...abortions payed for on demand and the piece de resistance...your kids will be in debt for years paying for it. All either outright lies or at best half truths, but hey, it worked. Obama is trying to get the working poor in this country affordable access to decent health care and they are ticked off about it. Go figure. If I was Obama I'd call a news conference and tell the protesters if they can't afford health care for their families go whine to the republican conservatives about it. I'm sure they will be more than glad to help you out.
Reply-
67%
ChefEOD3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, actually it's ABC News saying 2 million. You can dismiss that as nothing if you wish but its more than anything the liberals have ever put together, other than Obama's coronation of course. Interesting that you mention the heath care industry and odd that in that context that they are on board with Obama on this thing. As for the rest of your jabbering, you just keep taking Obama's blue pill.
Reply
-
-
60%
happydaze3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Is it ok to post a link for an article I posted with pics from the march? I don't know how to get anyone to read my posts, so here goes.
Reply
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/09/12/think-pr...-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned6 Replies
-
-
-
100%
canadianrancher573 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So now people are outraged, I'm not even an American and I've been outraged at government spending being out of control for awhile, not meaning to be ignorant to anyone but where was the outrage during the last term when borrowing limits had to be continually raised to keep the government afloat. JUst my opinion but this crap has been going on longer than just the last nine months, although it is getting into the extreme of late. This is a topic that the partasism crap should be left out of by both sides and everybody should raise hell about government spending. You people down there are headed for the poor house under a liberal and we are headed for the poor house under a conservative, just don't seem right does it.
Reply-
82%
k9kssr3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
canadian,
Reply
I don't think a lot of people were paying attention to what was going on in government, but with the financial meltdown in September 08 and the claims we were (are) on the brink of another depression, people started paying attention and didn't like what they saw. Obama is bearing the brunt of it, some of it his fault and some not, but I don't think any other president to come will ever get a "free pass" like they have in the past. -
56%
rbiii3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What you'll find is if you talk to the people who are protesting, they've been writing and calling and asking their representatives to curb government spending for years.
Reply
They're fed up and protesting because Obama and the Leftists have taken it to new levels. -
100%
canadianrancher573 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
rbiii-I agree with k9kssr's comment that in the last year people seem to have taken their heads out of the sand and started to pay a bit of attention. There may actually be change under this administration by the time it has ended , but the change that I think that many people are looking for is a more responsible government when it comes to programs and spending, to me it's not really a conservative or liberal issue, it's a common sense issue. I imagine there are as many libs that are upset with increasing government spending as conservatives but as long as the economy continued somewhat stable no one said anything.
Reply -
57%
HateKoolAid3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It seems when republicans are in office any spending is done in the name of national security, motherhood and apple pie so the sky is the limit. If you object your un-American. When the democrats are in any spending is irresponsible and outrages. How dare the democrats spend money on social programs that benefit the common man. Every true patriot knows tax dollars should go for aircraft carriers and anything else the defense contractors and the pentagon want to build. Republicans are also partial to billion dollar subsidies to people who make billion dollar profits without them, like big oil and big agribusiness.
Reply -
58%
mesodude3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"So now people are outraged, I'm not even an American and I've been outraged at government spending being out of control for awhile, not meaning to be ignorant to anyone but where was the outrage during the last term when borrowing limits had to be continually raised to keep the government afloat."
Reply
--Oh no you, did-uhnt, canadianrancher! .Asking them to justify their hypocrisy? Are you crazy, man? You want them to explain why Bush got a promotion for destroying a budget surplus he had at this point in his administration and plunging American into debt as far and wide as the eye could see? You're brave. ;-P -
91%
canadianrancher573 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
meso- This is just my thought on this but the American economy has been in trouble for quite a long time, when Bush came to power there were decisions made that had over the past worked to bolster the economy, to me one of those decisions was the war with Iraq, the only problem was, or is, that government has grown to such a size that even the stimulus caused by increased military spending did nothing because government continued to grow, the same can be said about tax cuts, they are supposed to work but not if government spending uses up all of the benefits. I can also pick on Clinton, if you increase taxes it will eventually have an effect on the economy and government may actually show a suplus but if the government continues to grow eventually the surplus would dissapear.
Reply
To me it really made no difference who won the last election since the writing was already on the wall in regards to how the deficits were going to play out, to me it is an acceleration curve and spending and debt will increase until it collapses, and God help the party that is in power when it collapses. This may sound like a dumb statement but the luckiest thing that could have happened to the republicans in the last election did happen, they lost and that handed the hot potatoe to the democrats. -
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user7 Replies
-
-
cherevComment removed: Hard Banned26 Replies
-
44%
fjgalt3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Silliness - Part 2
Reply
69,457,000 voted for Obama. That means four times as many, 238 million, didn't vote for him.
1.5 million attended his inauguration. That means 306 million didn't. The pro-Obama supporters "are a very, very small minority." -
100%
moxxxxxxxxxx3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The population number for the United States is 307,431,798. Subtract 2 million, I'll even give you 3 million and that still means 304,431,798 Americans did NOT attend the event.
Reply
It's all about perception. The numbers prove the anti-Obama, anti-government folks are a very, very small minority.-
-
DuckBiscuitComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
89%
berkeley3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
since propeller moved my earlier comment, let me try again:
Reply
abc news did not report a crowd size of 2 million.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protest-crowd-size-... -
67%
Natureboy3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, hey, teabaggers.
Reply
Good on ya for mobilizing the 30,000 to 75,000 credibly estimated to have attended. Seriously. That's an accomplishment. And you have as much right to engage in direct democracy as anti-war protesters do.
As for the bloviation of the fat phallus who wrote this piece, it's worthless and weak.
Really, you think the Vietnam war was solely opposed by a handful of hippies who could protest 24/7 because they had no jobs or were in the pay of the Vast Liberal Conspiracy?
Think it was the same story for those who protested US aggression against Iraq?
Wake the FSCK UP! I have attended a considerable number of anti-war protests. I have helped organize a few as well. Like virtually everybody else who did so, I did it while holding down a job, feeding a family, taking care of business. Just like you, in that respect.
Really, would it be productive if I speculated on how many trailer park meth labs were left unattended due to your march on DC? Would that be an accurate representation of who you are, or just a mean-spirited attempt to marginalize you? -
-
46%
lovemylibs3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tens of thousands? Laughable.
Reply
2 Million? Equally laughable.
The problem is that the MSM first reported the "tens of thousands" estimate. Ask yourself why.
Here's a C-Span video that should clearly show you that the "tens of thousands" should be amended to at least "hundreds of thousands".
http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/09/12/HP/A/23055...
Good ole C-Span. Video proof that the MSM tried to under report the crowd estimates from the beginning.-
71%
tadair9193 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
wow! and i thought this picture was good. hate to link to malkin's site, but check this out for an ariel here:
Reply
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.... -
-
-
67%
pokydoke3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think the tea baggers need to read this article. They won't like it but it does have a measure of truth to it.
Reply
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/09/13/why-capi... -
-
33%
najjr33 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You guys (& dolls) still on 'Kool Aid' ? Obama is pulling your leg beyond displeasure and yet you're not awakened ? It's time to realize you made a big boo-boo when you elected this guy. Do you have to wait when this country is already destroyed, which by ghen it's too late ! This president is using the words "JERKING AROUND" in his recent speech, like he's used to doing it like he was when he worked with "ACORN"... Seen and heard the news about "ACORN"? WHAT A DISGUSTING BUNCH... A SHAMEFUL WASTE OF OUR TAXPAYERS MONEY... and you need more of these - WASTE & DIRT.....?
Reply
SEE YOU AT THE DUMPS THEN......-
75%
most_reasonable3 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do your organizer provide you with the aluminum for your "tin-foil" hat, or did you have to shell it out on your own?
Reply
From FDR's speach:
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want--which, translated into universal terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants--everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world.
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
”
— Franklin D. Roosevelt, excerpted from the State of the Union Address to the Congress, January 6, 1941
-
-
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
57%
IRONBLUEEYES3 months, 3 weeks ago
-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned14 Replies
-
-
More News
Fox News Politics
Obama Wraps Up Hawaiian Vacation to Return to Washington
GOP Financial Struggles Jeopardize 2010 House Election Bids
Some Dems Join GOP Opposition to Gitmo Transfers to Yemen
Fed Chief Calls for Stronger Regulation Against Future Bubbles
Despite Al Qaeda Threat, U.S. Not Planning to Expand Terror Fight in Yemen
The Huffington Post
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.