This Little Piggy Went To DC
by Big Dog on Oct 4, 2010 at 04:24 Political
The One Nation Socialist Rally was held in DC on Saturday 2 October 2010. It was a rally that was attended by union after union and the other supporters of the Democrats and the Socialist Party. They had a small turnout of people (crowd comparison photos), most of whom were paid or required to be there. And they left a mess. Look at this video of the mess left by the Socialists:
The participants at the Restoring Honor Rally hosted by Glenn Beck left NO mess in DC. In fact, the place was cleaner when the 8/28 crowd left than when they arrived. All trash was collected and stacked around the garbage cans.
The pigs on the Socialist left threw their trash all over the place because they are disgusting pigs. They are use to having someone take care of them so they just throw their trash all over. They have no respect for this country and it is evident by the way they treat it.
These goons want to take over America. Can you imagine what it would be like with these pigs in control?
Animated picture of the rallies to show difference in attendance.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: 10/2, filth, pigs, socialist rally, trash
I think it’s a funny generalization that liberals are somehow trashy and conservatives clean up and take care of themselves. The truth is though that a lot more goes into how much trash is left after an event than simply who’s attended.
I’ve been at plenty of liberal rallies that left no trash behind. The garbage level is for the most part related directly to the size and organization of the rally and has little to do with the type of people attending.
The Glenn Beck rally and the earlier Tea Party rally were very large but well organized. It’s notable that trash pickup wasn’t as good at the Tea Party rally but still pretty good. Restoring Honor organizers and attendees made this a higher priority.
The 2009 Inauguration was well organized but very massive and nothing could counter that many people and that much trash. On the flip side, the One Nation rally was small and not very well organized. They allowed political signs which is a big difference in the cleanup of the Restoring Honor rally and probably the main reason the Tea Party rally wasn’t quite as good at garbage removal as with Restoring Honor.
If you want to see a larger and liberal march just take the 2004 March For Women’s Lives. No reports of great amounts of trash or cleanup come from there and plenty of reports list that rally as near the 1 million mark.
It’s nice to imagine you are part of this self-sufficient, clean group but that’s all just political spin by your side and you know it.
It is nor a generalization if visual proof can be rendered, and has been. Deal with it.
I have never seen a rally where liberals did NOT leave a mess.
You are rationalizing and YOU KNOW IT.
Political spin. No, one does not have to spin what the eyes can plainly see though liberals like to do that a lot.
It is about entitlement and being cared for all your lives. Folks don’t know how to take care of things because gubmint will do it for them.
A million women, unlikely. Too many chances that they would run into someone wearing the same clothes…
“I have never seen a rally where liberals did NOT leave a mess.”
I have never been to a rally where anyone left a mess so I’m not sure who wins.
“It is about entitlement and being cared for all your lives. Folks don’t know how to take care of things because gubmint will do it for them. ”
What world do you live in where that makes sense to you as a statement? Yes, every liberal rally is a mixture of violent people, lazy, government dependents that trash everything. Conservative rallies are a mixture of good, honest, hard working, self-sufficient folks who take care of themselves and each other and aren’t violent at all. That doesn’t stink of generalization and spin at all, does it?
“Yes, every liberal rally is a mixture of violent people, lazy, government dependents that trash everything. Conservative rallies are a mixture of good, honest, hard working, self-sufficient folks who take care of themselves and each other and aren’t violent at all.”
Well, by definition, that’s true. To be a liberal, one must, by definition, be a government dependent or one who supports government dependents. That’s what a liberal is, even if they won’t admit it.
In general, to be a conservative, you believe in being self-sufficient and that government shouldn’t make people dependent on it. That’s (in general) what those words mean.
Funny Ogre, the assessment and indignation comes from people who think that TEA Party rallies are full of racists with a few non racists sprinkled in.
Funny. I for one believe their rallies are full of regular folks but that the whole movement is propped up by con artists, racists, big corporations, and astroturf groups.
Of course you do, no surprise here.
But that is what i think of the Obama regime so we are even.
One thing is certain, if this is astroturf your side is going to find out that astroturf hurts more than grass when you get thrown on it.
It’s hard not to pack a rally when it’s sponsored by Fox News, right?
“That’s what a liberal is, even if they won’t admit it.”
Sorry to say but I do not support government dependency nor do I know any liberal that does. Government dependency is an outlier in social programs while a majority of families or individuals use the programs in limited and short term ways but do not become dependents.
Short term? You must have a different definition of short.
How many generations of people live on welfare?
Define “live on welfare.”
Then you oppose the entire Democrat Party and everything Democrats stand for.
I’m sorry, but that’s what Democrats/Liberals do. If you support “social programs,” but oppose government dependency, then you’re living in a fantasy world. Democrats/liberals measure their success by the number of people who repeatedly use government programs. If less people use the program, it’s considered a failure by Democrats and they spend more money to get more people on the “program.”
If you support social safety nets as temporary programs and support denying dependency on those programs, you are more inline with the Republican Party than the Democrat Party.
“Then you oppose the entire Democrat Party and everything Democrats stand for. … If you support social safety nets as temporary programs and support denying dependency on those programs, you are more inline with the Republican Party than the Democrat Party.”
Don’t make me laugh. The only welfare the Republic Party believes in is corporate welfare.
“Democrats/liberals measure their success by the number of people who repeatedly use government programs.”
And you base that idea on what? Anything verifiable?
Can you provide some reference for the sponsored by FOX News comment? Beck promoted it on his show but FOX did not, as far as I know, sponsor it.
FOX hardly reported on it.
Sure. The most watched shows on evening and morning Fox News (O’reilly, Beck, Fox & Friends) programming promoted the event on Fox News air time, but other than that….no, Fox did not sponsor the event…
So because it was on their show they sponsored it? Hmm, so MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN etc sponsored it as well and they promoted the Socialist rally too.
In fact, Beck sponsored the Socialist rally because he mentioned it on his show a number of times. It is, as you said, one of the most watched shows.
I think that sponsoring requires financial support. In that light, the Communists and the Socialists provided financial support for the rally which means they sponsored it.
And Obama supported it so that means, according to you, he sponsored it.
And he said he was not a Socialist.
I tend to agree that “sponsor” implies financial support so I withdraw my claim and suggest simply that “promote” is a better word for me to have used.
Now, how did I know that Adam would be here implying, without ever saying so explicitly, that “that’s not representative of us liberals,” with values of “that” from messing on the National Mall to demanding cradle-to-grave government guarantees of security?
Come on folks, Adam is right. The liberals do not expect government welfare for life.
Except for cradle to grave health care supplied by those who pay taxes and Social Security paid to people who use to work from those who currently work and school lunch programs for families who can afford a cell phone and cable TV but not lunches, and college tuition for everyone and homes for everyone subsidized by those who work, they want limited government hand outs.
When you say health care is a right that someone else must pay for in your stead and for your entire life then you are saying you want lifetime government welfare paid for by those who work to meet their own needs.
Oh please. You believe there’s a government program geared to make us dependent every step of the way and that they are designed only by Democrats looking for voters to help them stay in power. That’s an incredibly cynical and moronic view that has no basis in reality but yet it’s pretty much the view of almost every one of you and your ilk.
If you look at any program and you’ll see the majority of participants use it on a limited basis and in many if not most cases for less than a year. There’s going to be abusers of anything but most people in America (yes, including liberals) take pride in supporting themselves and their families and they work hard but just need a little assistance now and again be it food stamps or unemployment insurance.
Take myself for instance. My parents didn’t always have steady work. I had free lunches some years at school. I didn’t get the test scores I needed to get free college like many folks do so I had to apply for pell grants and loans that covered most of the costs and work to pay the remainder and to eat. After college then what did I do? Did I try and find more ways for the government to continue to support me? Of course not. I entered the workforce, paid back my loans, and started building and support a family. If you think I’m some exception then you’re wrong.
Your view about social programs and government dependence is deeply and offensively flawed. You focus on the outliers and the losers that profit from the system and you ignore the majority that benefit greatly from the programs at various steps in life but still are productive, prosperous members of society.
Now, unlike nutritional assistance, or help going to college, health care is a special case. Do we really want to continue to live in a country where health care is just a commodity that goes to those that can afford it and those that can’t just do with out? I sure don’t and I don’t vote for politicians that feel that way either.
Of course, that fact that people were forced against their will, at gunpoint, to pay for your lunches and tuition doesn’t bother you at all. And that’s one of the really scary things about liberals.
You’re right. It doesn’t bother me in the least. I love it. It’s called investing in the future of our country and I gladly give my own tax dollars and my votes in order to support such programs any way I can.
It’s good to know however that you’re all for starving children when the parents can’t or won’t pay for school lunches and also for keeping the poor out of college when they can’t afford it or don’t win scholarships.
And herein lies the entire substance of Adam’s being. A parent WON’T pay for a child’s lunch so it is the responsibility of government to do it. Since these people will not do what parents are supposed to do, we have to kick in money to parent for them. I am tired of taking care of everyone else’s kids. I took care of mine. As for parents who can’t, tell them to get rid of the cell phone and cable TV. Those two expenses (and often just one of them) would be enough to buy school lunches or, better yet, allow them to buy stuff to make lunches.
I carried a lunch to school every day. Most times it was a peanut butter sandwich and a piece of fruit.
The issue at hand is personal responsibility. Adam thinks if people have none then the rest of us are obligated to have some for them.
This is an interesting concept and I would like to expand upon it. When one of these kids commits a crime because his parents did not or could not take care of him then Adam and other liberals who support this kind of thinking should have to go to jail in their stead.
There are absolutely some kids who need help with a lunch program of some kind, that safety net. But many of the kids on the programs have families who could afford the lunches if they had better money management and different priorities.
It does not bother him because it he is part of the collective.
Here is the chink in your argument, you present two choices, health care that was passed or some folks do without.
There needs to be reform, no doubt, but what they did was take it over. Government does not belong in this or any other business. It is not supposed to ensure we have health care, we are supposed to do that. It is called personal responsibility. The conditions should be in place to allow choices so that people can make choices in what they want and what they can afford. Everyone has access to health care, the issue is, who pays for it? Health care is not a right, it is a commodity.
What next? Food is a right so we have to buy it for those who don’t have enough (likely the same folks who can pay for a cell phone and cable TV).
Our country did well when people paid for their own things. A novel idea is to save for your own retirement, pay for your own goods and save to buy a home that you can afford (as opposed to one you want).
Quick typo correction, Adam: You said “I gladly give my own tax dollars” when you meant to say, “I will gladly force others, or kill them if they refuse, to give THEIR money to support such programs.”
After all, you’re clearly a fan of putting words in MY mouth with your second paragraph. The fact that second paragraph is completely lies doesn’t bother you, I’m sure.
The other big issue, BD, is the horrible assumption that liberals have that assumes that “no one” will help people who need help unless they use government to do it. Of course, that’s incredibly wrong, but I think it comes down to the being of a liberal.
I think at the base, a liberal likes to feel good (like most people). However, one way a liberal feels good is when something is given to someone. Unfortunately, the liberals feel best when they give lots — and they don’t care the source of their giving, so using government works for them.
Sadly, this is actually the worst way to help people because the people doing the actual giving (bureaucrats) are giving something that’s not theirs, and the receivers are getting something they feel they deserve — so the giving is not done to the mutual satisfaction of either.
Instead, true giving (compassion) is when one person gives something they have to help someone who is thankful for receiving that gift. This is typically how giving was done, usually through religion (which liberals don’t like for that reason) before government took over.
If people had the freedom to give (which we do NOT), then there would be a lot more giving, instead of forcibly taking. But again, liberals typically do not care about the taking, but feel good when giving away something that’s not theirs.
Another scary liberal idea from Adam:
“It’s called investing in the future of our country and I gladly give my own tax dollars and my votes in order to support such programs any way I can.”
Note the last four words. He will support taking money from people who earn it to give to people he likes ANY WAY POSSIBLE. Yes, including using violence. That’s just one reason why I consider liberals my enemy — most of them would rather me be dead than free.
“The fact that second paragraph is completely lies doesn’t bother you, I’m sure.”
Oh, I’m sorry. Please remind me again how your libertarian claptrap about responsibility and hard earned tax dollars helps some children eat better or breaks down roadblocks to a better education.
“That’s just one reason why I consider liberals my enemy — most of them would rather me be dead than free.”
Most of us don’t care what you go do with yourself. You and people like you do not stand in our way.
You and people like you do not stand in our way.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
You can bet your ass if Ogre and I stood in your way you would not get by…
Remember this is not a playground and you don’t have to be a bully and talk tough. Your people are going to be in charge of Congress again soon and I was so hoping you’d have matured a little by now.
Excuse me but you were the one who threw down the gauntlet with the get in our way comment. All I am saying is you had better not let your mouth write a check your body can’t cash.
Kids ate well long before school lunch programs and they were educated long before the gubmint took over education. A child from 150 years ago was far better educated than the morons of today who can’t tell you what positions a politician takes and has no idea about who most of them are but can tell you who Justin Bieber is.
The roadblocks to education and good meals is government.
Peanut butter is cheap and nutritious. Throw in a piece of fruit and you have a good lunch. We don’t need to spend a zillion dollars on programs where food is wasted as kids throw lots of it away. All this because parents won’t take care of their kids.
Call in mommy and daddy gubmint to take care of the kids.
Liberals are gubmint teat suckers.
“All this because parents won’t take care of their kids.”
Right. Always one to punish the kids for the actions of their parents. Just like the way Arkansas banned gay adoption. I’m sure someday the kids that aren’t adopted into gay households will thank the voters the same way you imagine the children will someday thank you for starving them in order to teach their parents to be more responsible.
“As for parents who can’t, tell them to get rid of the cell phone and cable TV.”
Once again you focus only on the abusers and you forget about the people helped most by a government program. Fortunately the vast majority of Americans are squarely behind progressive programs such as free lunches and pell grants and they don’t see things your way.
You can say the vast majority support them but only the vast majority of those who suckle at the teat support them
Wow, Big Dog. This is some really and truly dyed in the wool socialist freedom hater you have here. I mean, really. This guy could be to the left of Stalin and Chavez. He honestly despises capitalism and freedom, yet plays the game, claiming that he doesn’t so he can use emotions to crush what he hates. He doesn’t just drink the kool-aid, he pours the water and mixes it with the powder. I’m not sure I’ve ever met someone who despises freedom this much.
Not kool-aid. I’m much more of a Coke Zero kind of guy.
Well, the Zero part anyway…