[felix]

[quote=sdgrrl][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

What is a radical to you Felix?

JFK was probably seen as a radical for his view and support of Civil Rights.

Martin L. King was seen as a radical.

Roosevelt was a radical for his social programs.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were radicals for fighting the “tradition” of women having no voice in government.

Lincoln was a radical for supporting the end of slavery.

Each of these people were radical in reshaping America from a different light than what existed in 1776. Is that a bad thing?

I guess I am a liberal because of what I see as radical righties.

People that want prayer in school.

Those who viciously hate homosexuals.

People that want no birth control at all or sex education.

Those that want creationsim to replace evolution.

Left has “radicals” but please don’t tell me the right has none when they have Michelle Bachmann, had Rick Santorum and many others.

No disrespect to you Felix, but a radical can be seen in many different ways depending on who is asked.[/quote]

I see your point. Radicalism may very well depend on who is asked. However, with reference to the changes liberals seem to want for this country, imo, there is no question whose ideas are more in step with the founding ideals of this country.

The civil rights movement was supported by many Republicans in the conservative bible belt. In fact, I believe it was many southern Dems that didn’t support JFK on this including Al Gore’s Dad.

Imo the current Republican ideas of today are closer to the ideas of JFK than are the ideas of current Dems.

MLK wanted folks judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character. I fully support this view and thus want the end to affirmative action. His views were moral and religious and found much support again from conservative church goers.

FDR was indeed radical. He changed this country with his vast social programs. While some programs like the TVA appear to have been helpful, others, like, the Ponzi scheme, social security, have done damage, or worse, become an albatross that no politician can touch.

The point I’m making is that some folks are trying to change the country to what they believe is better. Other folks are just trying to live within a country that they believed to have a constitution and bill of rights allowing them, historically, to pray in schools, outlaw homosexuality and even teach what they believed in schools.

I may have differing opinions on all three of the above but the folks who want to continue living in a country that has existed for over two hundreds with these as basic beliefs are not advocating radical change. They are advocating the status quo.

These folks have and will continue to live with changes that occur. They will continue to do so without violence or rioting. They just ask, I ask fairly imo, that changes happen do so within the appropriate process. They don’t want a government of either judicial or administrative fiat. They are not advocates of the “Rules for Radicals” as are many in the current administration.

[felix]

[quote=sdgrrl][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

What is a radical to you Felix?

JFK was probably seen as a radical for his view and support of Civil Rights.

Martin L. King was seen as a radical.

Roosevelt was a radical for his social programs.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were radicals for fighting the “tradition” of women having no voice in government.

Lincoln was a radical for supporting the end of slavery.

Each of these people were radical in reshaping America from a different light than what existed in 1776. Is that a bad thing?

I guess I am a liberal because of what I see as radical righties.

People that want prayer in school.

Those who viciously hate homosexuals.

People that want no birth control at all or sex education.

Those that want creationsim to replace evolution.

Left has “radicals” but please don’t tell me the right has none when they have Michelle Bachmann, had Rick Santorum and many others.

No disrespect to you Felix, but a radical can be seen in many different ways depending on who is asked.[/quote]

I see your point. Radicalism may very well depend on who is asked. However, with reference to the changes liberals seem to want for this country, imo, there is no question whose ideas are more in step with the founding ideals of this country.

The civil rights movement was supported by many Republicans in the conservative bible belt. In fact, I believe it was many southern Dems that didn’t support JFK on this including Al Gore’s Dad.

Imo the current Republican ideas of today are closer to the ideas of JFK than are the ideas of current Dems.

MLK wanted folks judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character. I fully support this view and thus want the end to affirmative action. His views were moral and religious and found much support again from conservative church goers.

FDR was indeed radical. He changed this country with his vast social programs. While some programs like the TVA appear to have been helpful, others, like, the Ponzi scheme, social security, have done damage, or worse, become an albatross that no politician can touch.

The point I’m making is that some folks are trying to change the country to what they believe is better. Other folks are just trying to live within a country that they believed to have a constitution and bill of rights allowing them, historically, to pray in schools, outlaw homosexuality and even teach what they believed in schools.

I may have differing opinions on all three of the above but the folks who want to continue living in a country that has existed for over two hundreds with these as basic beliefs are not advocating radical change. They are advocating the status quo.

These folks have and will continue to live with changes that occur. They will continue to do so without violence or rioting. They just ask, I ask fairly imo, that changes happen do so within the appropriate process. They don’t want a government of either judicial or administrative fiat. They are not advocates of the “Rules for Radicals” as are many in the current administration.

[felix]

[quote=sdgrrl][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

What is a radical to you Felix?

JFK was probably seen as a radical for his view and support of Civil Rights.

Martin L. King was seen as a radical.

Roosevelt was a radical for his social programs.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were radicals for fighting the “tradition” of women having no voice in government.

Lincoln was a radical for supporting the end of slavery.

Each of these people were radical in reshaping America from a different light than what existed in 1776. Is that a bad thing?

I guess I am a liberal because of what I see as radical righties.

People that want prayer in school.

Those who viciously hate homosexuals.

People that want no birth control at all or sex education.

Those that want creationsim to replace evolution.

Left has “radicals” but please don’t tell me the right has none when they have Michelle Bachmann, had Rick Santorum and many others.

No disrespect to you Felix, but a radical can be seen in many different ways depending on who is asked.[/quote]

I see your point. Radicalism may very well depend on who is asked. However, with reference to the changes liberals seem to want for this country, imo, there is no question whose ideas are more in step with the founding ideals of this country.

The civil rights movement was supported by many Republicans in the conservative bible belt. In fact, I believe it was many southern Dems that didn’t support JFK on this including Al Gore’s Dad.

Imo the current Republican ideas of today are closer to the ideas of JFK than are the ideas of current Dems.

MLK wanted folks judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character. I fully support this view and thus want the end to affirmative action. His views were moral and religious and found much support again from conservative church goers.

FDR was indeed radical. He changed this country with his vast social programs. While some programs like the TVA appear to have been helpful, others, like, the Ponzi scheme, social security, have done damage, or worse, become an albatross that no politician can touch.

The point I’m making is that some folks are trying to change the country to what they believe is better. Other folks are just trying to live within a country that they believed to have a constitution and bill of rights allowing them, historically, to pray in schools, outlaw homosexuality and even teach what they believed in schools.

I may have differing opinions on all three of the above but the folks who want to continue living in a country that has existed for over two hundreds with these as basic beliefs are not advocating radical change. They are advocating the status quo.

These folks have and will continue to live with changes that occur. They will continue to do so without violence or rioting. They just ask, I ask fairly imo, that changes happen do so within the appropriate process. They don’t want a government of either judicial or administrative fiat. They are not advocates of the “Rules for Radicals” as are many in the current administration.

[felix]

[quote=sdgrrl][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

What is a radical to you Felix?

JFK was probably seen as a radical for his view and support of Civil Rights.

Martin L. King was seen as a radical.

Roosevelt was a radical for his social programs.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were radicals for fighting the “tradition” of women having no voice in government.

Lincoln was a radical for supporting the end of slavery.

Each of these people were radical in reshaping America from a different light than what existed in 1776. Is that a bad thing?

I guess I am a liberal because of what I see as radical righties.

People that want prayer in school.

Those who viciously hate homosexuals.

People that want no birth control at all or sex education.

Those that want creationsim to replace evolution.

Left has “radicals” but please don’t tell me the right has none when they have Michelle Bachmann, had Rick Santorum and many others.

No disrespect to you Felix, but a radical can be seen in many different ways depending on who is asked.[/quote]

I see your point. Radicalism may very well depend on who is asked. However, with reference to the changes liberals seem to want for this country, imo, there is no question whose ideas are more in step with the founding ideals of this country.

The civil rights movement was supported by many Republicans in the conservative bible belt. In fact, I believe it was many southern Dems that didn’t support JFK on this including Al Gore’s Dad.

Imo the current Republican ideas of today are closer to the ideas of JFK than are the ideas of current Dems.

MLK wanted folks judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character. I fully support this view and thus want the end to affirmative action. His views were moral and religious and found much support again from conservative church goers.

FDR was indeed radical. He changed this country with his vast social programs. While some programs like the TVA appear to have been helpful, others, like, the Ponzi scheme, social security, have done damage, or worse, become an albatross that no politician can touch.

The point I’m making is that some folks are trying to change the country to what they believe is better. Other folks are just trying to live within a country that they believed to have a constitution and bill of rights allowing them, historically, to pray in schools, outlaw homosexuality and even teach what they believed in schools.

I may have differing opinions on all three of the above but the folks who want to continue living in a country that has existed for over two hundreds with these as basic beliefs are not advocating radical change. They are advocating the status quo.

These folks have and will continue to live with changes that occur. They will continue to do so without violence or rioting. They just ask, I ask fairly imo, that changes happen do so within the appropriate process. They don’t want a government of either judicial or administrative fiat. They are not advocates of the “Rules for Radicals” as are many in the current administration.

[felix]

[quote=sdgrrl][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

What is a radical to you Felix?

JFK was probably seen as a radical for his view and support of Civil Rights.

Martin L. King was seen as a radical.

Roosevelt was a radical for his social programs.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were radicals for fighting the “tradition” of women having no voice in government.

Lincoln was a radical for supporting the end of slavery.

Each of these people were radical in reshaping America from a different light than what existed in 1776. Is that a bad thing?

I guess I am a liberal because of what I see as radical righties.

People that want prayer in school.

Those who viciously hate homosexuals.

People that want no birth control at all or sex education.

Those that want creationsim to replace evolution.

Left has “radicals” but please don’t tell me the right has none when they have Michelle Bachmann, had Rick Santorum and many others.

No disrespect to you Felix, but a radical can be seen in many different ways depending on who is asked.[/quote]

I see your point. Radicalism may very well depend on who is asked. However, with reference to the changes liberals seem to want for this country, imo, there is no question whose ideas are more in step with the founding ideals of this country.

The civil rights movement was supported by many Republicans in the conservative bible belt. In fact, I believe it was many southern Dems that didn’t support JFK on this including Al Gore’s Dad.

Imo the current Republican ideas of today are closer to the ideas of JFK than are the ideas of current Dems.

MLK wanted folks judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character. I fully support this view and thus want the end to affirmative action. His views were moral and religious and found much support again from conservative church goers.

FDR was indeed radical. He changed this country with his vast social programs. While some programs like the TVA appear to have been helpful, others, like, the Ponzi scheme, social security, have done damage, or worse, become an albatross that no politician can touch.

The point I’m making is that some folks are trying to change the country to what they believe is better. Other folks are just trying to live within a country that they believed to have a constitution and bill of rights allowing them, historically, to pray in schools, outlaw homosexuality and even teach what they believed in schools.

I may have differing opinions on all three of the above but the folks who want to continue living in a country that has existed for over two hundreds with these as basic beliefs are not advocating radical change. They are advocating the status quo.

These folks have and will continue to live with changes that occur. They will continue to do so without violence or rioting. They just ask, I ask fairly imo, that changes happen do so within the appropriate process. They don’t want a government of either judicial or administrative fiat. They are not advocates of the “Rules for Radicals” as are many in the current administration.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.

[felix]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
By and large, nearly every one of the folks that I saw interviewed were average, middle class Americans. They were justifiably concerned about the direction of this country, the policies of this Administration (and the Bush Administration, as well) and the general sense of things going into the ditch.

While I’m certain that there were elements of the lunatic fringe in attendance (with gatherings this large, its going to happen), these protests were civil, and behaved. It seems like either elitist arrogance or desperation to somehow accuse these average citizens, who are exercising their First Amendment rights, of racism and extremism (“Nazism” has been thrown out more than once).[/quote]

I would love to see polling organizations do “exit interviews” at those events to see the percentage of protesters that have health insurance.

Based on the number of missing teeth, I’m sure quite a few don’t have dental coverage. Of course, medical coverage is not the same as dental coverage. That’s why I’m curious.[/quote]

You obviously have not ever really seen any of these events, except for what may have been being misportrayed in the various parts of the media, if you are making a comments like, “Based on the number of missing teeth…”

[felix]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
By and large, nearly every one of the folks that I saw interviewed were average, middle class Americans. They were justifiably concerned about the direction of this country, the policies of this Administration (and the Bush Administration, as well) and the general sense of things going into the ditch.

While I’m certain that there were elements of the lunatic fringe in attendance (with gatherings this large, its going to happen), these protests were civil, and behaved. It seems like either elitist arrogance or desperation to somehow accuse these average citizens, who are exercising their First Amendment rights, of racism and extremism (“Nazism” has been thrown out more than once).[/quote]

I would love to see polling organizations do “exit interviews” at those events to see the percentage of protesters that have health insurance.

Based on the number of missing teeth, I’m sure quite a few don’t have dental coverage. Of course, medical coverage is not the same as dental coverage. That’s why I’m curious.[/quote]

You obviously have not ever really seen any of these events, except for what may have been being misportrayed in the various parts of the media, if you are making a comments like, “Based on the number of missing teeth…”

[felix]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
By and large, nearly every one of the folks that I saw interviewed were average, middle class Americans. They were justifiably concerned about the direction of this country, the policies of this Administration (and the Bush Administration, as well) and the general sense of things going into the ditch.

While I’m certain that there were elements of the lunatic fringe in attendance (with gatherings this large, its going to happen), these protests were civil, and behaved. It seems like either elitist arrogance or desperation to somehow accuse these average citizens, who are exercising their First Amendment rights, of racism and extremism (“Nazism” has been thrown out more than once).[/quote]

I would love to see polling organizations do “exit interviews” at those events to see the percentage of protesters that have health insurance.

Based on the number of missing teeth, I’m sure quite a few don’t have dental coverage. Of course, medical coverage is not the same as dental coverage. That’s why I’m curious.[/quote]

You obviously have not ever really seen any of these events, except for what may have been being misportrayed in the various parts of the media, if you are making a comments like, “Based on the number of missing teeth…”

[felix]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
By and large, nearly every one of the folks that I saw interviewed were average, middle class Americans. They were justifiably concerned about the direction of this country, the policies of this Administration (and the Bush Administration, as well) and the general sense of things going into the ditch.

While I’m certain that there were elements of the lunatic fringe in attendance (with gatherings this large, its going to happen), these protests were civil, and behaved. It seems like either elitist arrogance or desperation to somehow accuse these average citizens, who are exercising their First Amendment rights, of racism and extremism (“Nazism” has been thrown out more than once).[/quote]

I would love to see polling organizations do “exit interviews” at those events to see the percentage of protesters that have health insurance.

Based on the number of missing teeth, I’m sure quite a few don’t have dental coverage. Of course, medical coverage is not the same as dental coverage. That’s why I’m curious.[/quote]

You obviously have not ever really seen any of these events, except for what may have been being misportrayed in the various parts of the media, if you are making a comments like, “Based on the number of missing teeth…”

[felix]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
By and large, nearly every one of the folks that I saw interviewed were average, middle class Americans. They were justifiably concerned about the direction of this country, the policies of this Administration (and the Bush Administration, as well) and the general sense of things going into the ditch.

While I’m certain that there were elements of the lunatic fringe in attendance (with gatherings this large, its going to happen), these protests were civil, and behaved. It seems like either elitist arrogance or desperation to somehow accuse these average citizens, who are exercising their First Amendment rights, of racism and extremism (“Nazism” has been thrown out more than once).[/quote]

I would love to see polling organizations do “exit interviews” at those events to see the percentage of protesters that have health insurance.

Based on the number of missing teeth, I’m sure quite a few don’t have dental coverage. Of course, medical coverage is not the same as dental coverage. That’s why I’m curious.[/quote]

You obviously have not ever really seen any of these events, except for what may have been being misportrayed in the various parts of the media, if you are making a comments like, “Based on the number of missing teeth…”

[Author]

Posts