2/02/2006

Bush Protest in Nashville


Yesterday, I attended a protest against Bush here in Nashville. I was making a guess that there were well over 100 people there because we had to spread out over two intersections. The kick ass blogger site Tennessee Guerilla Women confirmed that more like 200 were there! Of course, our local paper The Tennessean has been doing a little written masturbation of El Dictator for the last day or two saying he was warmly welcomed to Nashville. I guess he was asleep in the back of his stretch limo (you know, because he's so concerned about being "addicted to oil") that he missed this sign greeting him. I wonder if all of the other "dignitaries" arriving in their stretch SUV limos (there must have been 20 of them come through!) could see through all of that tinted glass.

Personally, I've never seen such nasty behavior from a bunch of political supporters. I got more "one-finger salutes" yesterday than I think I got through all of middle school. Is that the maturity level and mentality of Bush supporters? Is your best comeback a middle finger? Well, a lot WERE little boys in oversized business suits trying to act grown up. It was worse if they had a lot of them in one big ass SUV or just had some female they were trying to act alpha dog for. The saddest one was the middle-aged man with his teenage daughter. He reached over in front of her to throw his finger at us out the window and shout "F*** YOU!" She was laughing so the old saying "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree" is true. Hate is taught, not inate.

Some great organizations had put together lots of signs for us to use. I had a sign that said, "War is Un-Christian" so I think I got more obscene gestures than most people. Ironic, since flipping the bird is such a Christian thing to do.

Unfortunately, I had to leave before El Dictator got there, because contrary to popular fascist opinion, liberals do work. That's probably why there weren't more people there! They're working! So, I had to get back to it.

Tennessee Guerilla Women have done a fabulous job of covering the protest, and surprisingly, The Tennessean, did a decent job of mentioning the details of the protest, even the obscene gestures and getting a variety of comments.

I highly recommend reading some of the articles The Tennessean wrote yesterday and today. Some of the "pro-Bush" comments are kind of comical. Like, "Public speaking maybe isn't his gift, but I feel like when he feels comfortable, when he's with people who agree with him and understand him, he comes across as more articulate and more confident."

That just speaks for itself!

31 Comments:

At 06:51, Blogger lovin' it said...

You don't find it the least bit hypocritical to celebrate someone who considers the term "asshole" political speech and simultaneously whine and cry about hate speech?

Ah, the irony of the liberal mind . . .

 
At 07:29, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Ah, the hypocrisy of the conservative mind:

"Americans are addicted to oil!"

Hence, we're going to roll up to hear El Dictator speak ad nauseum about the same crapola in our big ass honking gas guzzlin' SUVs and stretch limo SUVs.

Yep, that 1st Amendment thing is a bitch. At least the young lady didn't put it on a T-shirt. She probably would have been arrested! LOL

 
At 09:29, Blogger jenny said...

yo, wise guy, calling someone an asshole is not hate speech. saying death to fags is.

 
At 09:31, Blogger lovin' it said...

Here's my idea of compassionate conservatism.

http://iseveryonedreaming.blogspot.com/

Check it out.

 
At 13:13, Blogger Elvis Drinkmo said...

The major beef with the emperor goes beyond a mere disgreement in policy or ideology.

He has lied, stolen, handed out tax dollars to his rich buddies and broken national law by spying on American citizens without a warrent and broken international law by condoning torture.

The guy is an asshole. It makes two shits as to whether he is a Democrat or Republican; he is a criminal.

Keep up the good work, Callie.

 
At 23:49, Blogger dorsano said...

Here's my idea of compassionate conservatism.

No that is some spin!!! Awesome!!

If you really wanted to use trade policy to improve the standard of living in the third world,

you'd make sure that any trade agreement that we signed insured that international labor standards like

* the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively.

* a minimum wage

* health and safety standards

* environmental standards

* pension protection mechanisms

were all enforced

Labor in the third world IS being exploited but not by subsidies to U.S. farms - it's being exploited by shareholders in U.S. corporations.

Ah - life is grand in the mind of a libertarian

simply turn over all personal responsibility and morality to the invisible hand that guides the market

and you're doing God's work.

 
At 07:15, Blogger lovin' it said...

dorsano - It is misguided policies like that which force third world workers completely out of the global economy. You simply cannot enforce american and european work standards on nations that can't afford them.

That's the problem with liberalism. It's not that you guys lack compassion. It's just that your good intentions so often have such bad results.

Liberalism kills.

 
At 11:57, Blogger gonezo said...

Callie I wish you wouldn't leave the DNC blog!

I'm sorry you and Amanda and Burnsey feel you have to go. My fear is if you three leave........... who the hell is going to present and defend you case???

I can't make as much of an impact as you three due to the fact I've not walked in your individual shoes.

I wish I could convince you three of that and im so sorry to see you go. HUGS

Dawn :-(

 
At 14:04, Blogger TVonthefritz said...

Great blog, Callie. I'm adding you to my blog roll.

 
At 18:21, Blogger dorsano said...

You simply cannot enforce american and european work standards on nations that can't afford them.

No one said that - those workers can negotiate whatever standards they like - as long as they're allowed to do so.

 
At 18:35, Blogger dorsano said...

Business has direct incentives to reward share holders. It has no such incentives to compensate employees fairly.

If left to it's own devices, business (by and large) will treat workers just like it treats the ingredients for molding compound

it will purchase the least acceptable product for the lowest possible price it can negotiate.

If management can't explain its balance sheet and PnL statement to its workforce, it's not doing its job.

If the trend continues unchecked, it will destroy the middle class in this country.

It's happening as I type

in large part because only 12% of the U.S. workforce is organized and the rise of multi-nationals and global capital has outpaced the growth of international labor unions.

 
At 18:43, Blogger dorsano said...

I'm not a cheerleader for corporate welfare - whether it comes in the form of "tax-free zones", the subsidies given to banks to provide student loans or the subsidies given to HMOs so they administer Medicare participants or subsidies given to coporporate farms.

But the conclusions drawn by the author of that article don't align with the facts.

Japan, Canada, the EU all have organized labor forces and all manage to compete here successfully against our subsidized corporate agriculture.

 
At 19:06, Blogger dorsano said...

Liberalism kills.

Yea - Social Security killed millions of people - and Medicare even more.

And rual electrification made mince-meat of small townships all across America.

And guarenteed bank deposits were DEADLY

I won't bore you with all the rest, lovin-it - just think of any advance this country has made and chances are that libaralism is behind it.

Libertarian economics eventually elects people like Evo Morales, friend - think on that.

 
At 05:28, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Thanks, Fritz! I like yours too muy mucho!

Dorsano, I'm so glad you said it. All I could think is, um, liberals didn't order the invasion of a nation and the killing of women and children.

 
At 05:42, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Dawn-
Don't worry, I'll be around on other folks blogs and trying to make a difference with the people I know that care and that matter. Sometimes those brick walls start to hurt when you keep hitting them for too long. It gets old and quite painful.

Besides you can always find me here! ;)

 
At 05:46, Blogger RedStateExile said...

It makes two shits as to whether he is a Democrat or Republican; he is a criminal.

Absolutely, Elvis! I would be just as disgusted and upset if this was all happening under a Dem president. Then again, it probably wouldn't be allowed to get that far because a Dem prez would have gotten impeached by now.

Someone screw this guy so we can impeach him already! (well, if someone can control the lurching in their stomach long enough ;)

 
At 06:45, Blogger lovin' it said...

dorsano said...
You simply cannot enforce american and european work standards on nations that can't afford them.

No one said that - those workers can negotiate whatever standards they like - as long as they're allowed to do so.

Answer: Actually, you did. Just above you said ". . .any trade agreement that we signed insured that international labor standards like

* the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively.

* a minimum wage

* health and safety standards

* environmental standards

* pension protection mechanisms

were all enforced

Labor in the third world IS being exploited but not by subsidies to U.S. farms - it's being exploited by shareholders in U.S. corporations."

The real world result of these policies is that third world workers don't get jobs. Uneducated peasant farmers simply cannot produce enough to afford these things. Your proposals only end up protecting first world companies and unions from international trade and keep the poor from being able to work their ways out of poverty.

You are right that Japan, Canada, and the EU can compete. Because they are educated, rich, and can afford their own subsidies. That is exactly the point. The people these policies hurt are the very poor, not the wealthy.



[dorsano said...
Liberalism kills.

Yea - Social Security killed millions of people - and Medicare even more.]

Social Security forcibly takes money from the poor and working class and tranfers it to the wealthiest segment of our society. Medicare has exploded the cost of health care without appreciably improving anyone's health. Yeah, our country would be better off if neither of these programs had been initiated.



[And rual electrification made mince-meat of small townships all across America.]

You mean like the TVA? That nice little well meaning project that flooded 100,000 people out of their homes in the name of improving the lives of the rural poor? LOL!

[And guarenteed bank deposits were DEADLY]

Federally guarranteed bank deposits inevitably lead to things like the S & L scandals of the late 1980's. Whenever businesses know the gov't will bail them out when they get in trouble, they inevitably take risks they wouldn't otherwise make. It's just human nature.

What else ya got?

 
At 14:11, Blogger CM Edwards said...

Good point, Callie. I can't see why the Bush-line Republicans don't see the hypocracy in the impeaching Clinton and at the time feeling Bush is above the law. I agreed with the Republican Party's opposition to invading Kosovo (by working around the UN, I might add), but these same Republicans support the continued occupation of Iraq. (I don't mean you, dorsano. I know most, if not all, of the Libertarians are opposed to thw war in Iraq along with us Greens.)

I like your blog too, Callie and have added it to our blogroll also.

Chad Edwards (aka Elvis Drinkmo- sometimes I forget to log out and back in under my real name.)

 
At 23:27, Blogger dorsano said...

This administration tried to dismantle social security - and the VAST majority of the country decided that they wanted to keep it.

I'm sure they are all naive liberals, lovin-it. Why don't you get on national TV and tell everyone that social security and medicare suck and should be dismantled because the KILL.

Just don't tell em you're a liberal - make it plain that you're a "conservative" and a Republican

godspeed ot you friend.

 
At 23:31, Blogger dorsano said...

Answer: Actually, you did.

"a" minimum wage

None of my statements specify a threshold - other than something greater than 0.

 
At 23:34, Blogger dorsano said...

What else ya got?

I don't need anything else - if those people can't feed themselves - they won't be able to feed us.

That's not to say that I approve of corporate welfare

that's pretty much a Republican legacy.

I hope you're successful in ending it.

 
At 23:58, Blogger dorsano said...

Here, lovin-it - You've lost touch with reality - perhaps because it has a liberal bias Rural Electrification

The Rural Electrification Administration (REA) was a department of the United States federal government created on 11 May 1935 through efforts of the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The REA's task was to promote electrification in rural areas, which in the 1930s rarely were provided with electricity due to the cost of stringing electric lines to farmsteads. Many were critical of the decision, in particular private electricity utilities, who argued that the government had no right to compete with private enterprise. By 1939 the REA served 288,000 households with electricity, prompting private business to extend their services into the countryside as well. By the end of the decade, a quarter of rural homes had power, up from around 10% in 1930.

As the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) it is still a federal government agency of the U.S. government, charged with providing public utilities (electricity, telephone, water, sewer) to rural areas through public-private partnerships. It is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.


Libertarian economics would have left rural America without electricity probably through the 2nd world war - there was not enough money to be made there at the time.

 
At 00:01, Blogger dorsano said...

I'm thinking of trying to get a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified, lovin-it.

Will you sign it?

Any one who thinks government can't do much, can't run for public office.

What do you think? It makes sense to me.

 
At 15:29, Blogger lovin' it said...

Do you know who has benefited the most from government subsidies of rural electrification? Give up? The rich.

It's that nasty law of unintended consequences again. The government absorbs the cost of running power to the countryside. So the rich, who can afford big estates and new houses, flee the cities and build their mansions and golf courses in what used to be wilderness and farmland. And its the taxpayers, including the working poor who can't afford to leave the city, who get stuck with the bill.

And I'd run on SS privitization and health savings accounts any day. They're just plain a better deal. The fact that liberals have scared people about change doesn't change the facts. SS as it is today is nothing but legalized robbery, returning less then the rate of inflation for anyone making over $45,000 a year.

Oh, and I think your proposed amendment sucks. I don't want the communists and the socialists being the only ones allowed to compete for public office. Someone's got to stand up for freedom.

 
At 21:51, Blogger dorsano said...

Go for it, lovin'it - I wish you the best.

I will say one thing about Social Security though.

Social Security is a distinctly American social contract. If we lived in one of those "socialist" countries like Canada or Great Britain, our "pension" would be based more on NEED than on what we contributed.

With Social Security, we draw benefits based largely on what we contribute - regardless of what we "need".

With Social Security, we all decide to share a common risk - namely, the risk of outliving our retirement assets - but we all draw down from a common kitty, only in proportion to what we contributed.

Sort of like rual neighbors - working together to bring in the harvest or raise a barn.

It's the sort of spirit that keeps this country strong - United We Stand.

You're welcome to join us anytime, lovin'it - E pluribus Unum

 
At 05:00, Blogger lovin' it said...

SS is like a communal barn-raising? LOL!

I've been to my share of barn and house raisings. I can guarrantee you that no one has ever threatened to seize my bank account and throw me in jail if I say I can't make it.

To the actual merits of the system, the fact is that SS is a horribly bad deal. You could get 4 times the rate of return out of the stock market. If you don't trust stocks, you could still double your rate of return investing the same amount of money in government insured municipal bonds. I fail to understand why liberals insist on defending a program that's such a ripoff. It's just an awful program that keeps people living in poverty.

 
At 06:14, Blogger RedStateExile said...

I don't see why you can't understand that not everyone has money to spare to invest in the stock market, much less the money to pay financial advisors to handle it for them! Your method is only good for the rich and the richer. Plus, when folks work two and three jobs and STILL barely have enough to cover expenses, it's not like they have time nor the inclination to give a damn. But if a certain amount of your earnings will go toward SS, retirement, etc., and they don't have to think about it or take the time to pay someone to do it, that's one less worry for them when they have a HELLUVA lot to worry about!

 
At 06:43, Blogger lovin' it said...

Callie - Except the government is already taking the money!

That is my whole point. The government forcibly takes your money and then gives you a laughable rate of return on it. Even a minimum wage employee would be able to retire a multi-millionare if he could just invest his SS contributions. It is the relatively well off (like me) who can afford to make investments above and beyond social security. My retirement will be just fine. It is the lower middle class and poor who get hurt the worst by SS.

 
At 10:01, Blogger RedStateExile said...

For some of these folks, something is better than nothing. And all you offer is nothing. So SS is gone, what then? They fend for themselves? They just have to figure it out somehow? They have to miraculously make extra money and time come their way so they can invest like you do?

You baffle me, you really do.

 
At 22:49, Blogger dorsano said...

To the actual merits of the system, the fact is that SS is a horribly bad deal. You could get 4 times the rate of return out of the stock market.

There's NO product on the market that provides a guarenteed, lifetime income benefit at a price better than social security - that's because the longevity risk is shared across a larger pool than any individual insurer can hope to marshal.

It allows investors to agressively invest as much of their disposal income as they would - and lose it all

and still have enough money to feed themselves and pay utilities if they live to be 110.

You'll lean on social security, lovin-it - and you'll love it - just like the VAST majority of the country does.

It IS like raising a barn, friend - I'm sorry you've forgotten what the words neighbor and community mean.

 
At 21:38, Blogger dorsano said...

Hey lovinit, if you're still on this thread, check out page 321 of the President's budget

It looks like a GOP controlled House and Senate and a GOP president are going to get a chance to debate just how much money they want to spend to begin to dismantle THE most efficient, effective and fair retirement plan on the planet.

In one corner we have an ideology that proudly proclaims that government can do no good.

In the other corner we have $24.182 billion in fiscal 2010, $57.429 billion in fiscal 2011 and another $630.533 billion for the five years after that, for a seven-year total of $712.144 billion - along with unknowns - to privatize 4% of the program.

I wonder what Congress will decide?

My bet is on a distinctly American social contract - one so strong - it can stand undefended by the opposition party.

Care to place a wager?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home