Republicans Host "Coming Out" Picnic in Charlottesville - NBC29 WVIR Charlottesville, VA News, Sp...

Dozens of Republican party supporters attended what they call a "coming out party" Saturday to prove Republicans exist in community where Democrats eye an easy win.

[countrygirl37]

My idea to go back and reassess what our politicians were doing when we were trying to achieve the American Dream! We let the Rats in to eat what we tried so hard to grow! Thank Goodness that these hard working Americans are working to make this better!

[Rush Maddow]

"out and proud Republicans."

HAHA oh wow. Fabulous.

[about time]

they have been in the closet for too long!

[reality bites]

fat white people, need I say more.

[Rush Maddow]

reality bites wrote:

fat white people, need I say more.

I hope you're a skinny minority -otherwise you're just as guilty as the rest of us white people for slavery and the native Americans and 9/11 and Bushes war for oil nvr4get

[FirstHandKnowled ge]

reality bites wrote:

fat white people, need I say more.

....better than skinny dumb people

[zZz]

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it:“I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.

[Frank Poke]

Thanks, zZz, but this isn't place for facts.

[Bringmedinner]

People need to wake to the strange reality that Democrats have somehow usurped (in the minds of their supporters) as their accomplishments the progress made in core human values over the last century, when in fact it has been conservative Republicans initiating the great strides forward. Once again Republicans have the challenge to moderate the extremes Democrats have embraced in their errant applications of Republican progress. Our nation is a Republic. The vibrant intellectual debates with promise for this nation are occurring in the Republican Party. Blue Dog Democrats and Independents are realizing this.

[heh]

http://www.c-ville.com/Article/The_Odd_Domini...

It's like attending a picnic in the 50's.

[god fearer]

Humhh ...

Perhaps the out and proud Republicans would explain this quote from Mr Jackson who attended their event:

" Homosexuals want to destroy the very faith which established this nation, its very foundation, because it is an affront to them and they want a sexually amoral society remade in their image." (Christian Newswire February 2011).

This quote sounds exactly what bigots wants to hear. Throughout history we find that segregation, inquisition, apartheid, pogroms, ethnic cleansing, etc start with stereotyping a whole diverse community as a 'single evil thing', that 'is an existenti...al immediate threat', that 'must be purged to save the good'. Mr Jackson's quote has all of that in it. We know the history of this sort of hate-politics - that despoiled much of the 20th century - don't we?

Perhaps local Republicans would explain how they can honor WW2 veterans (I have three in my family, that we admire and respect)- who fought (and many thousands died in our families and communities) to END the horrible results of hate-politics (pogroms, mass murder, genocide, war, human rights abuses of all kinds, etc )- an stand/sit/eat idly without challenging hate-politics by their leaders?

Even Mr Hurt - in a meeting that I attended - had to twist and contort his words trying to be a fiscal conservative (which he probably is) AND to use words that sounded like a hate-conservative (hate gays, hate immigrants, hate, hate, hate - which he is likely not).

Please explain. Why are Republicans so eager to be hate-Republicans and to support hate-candidates? If you can explain that - of STOP that - you might triple your numbers - with fiscal conservative Independents (and Democrats) and Libertarians (and perhaps even some Socialists) who cannot join you because of your support for hate-politics.

How about it?

[CvilleGordo]

Figured it out wrote:

<quoted text>
When talking about Bush did you typically call him Walker Bush, or are you just using Obama's middle name in the hope you can stir up some racist resentment?

Fair question. First of all; who's talking about Bush? Certainly not me - our present predicament (clueless POTUS) is not about Bush. My over-the-top comments are not about stirring up RACIST resentment; they are about stirring up resentment, period.

My comment about the black men and unmarried mamas may sound racist, and it is intended to in fact; however, it is merely an in-your-face response (and one based on truth as well - a very large percentage of black women (as do plenty of non-black women and men of course) DO get large and most (over 75%) DO raise the kids without a Dad) to the posters who somehow manage to convince themselves (and only themselves) that any gathering of Republicans is (a) all white,(b) fat, old, and generally not cool,(c) racist and bigoted by default. The Republican Party (like any Party) does of course have elements of all of the above, but as a body is none of the above. Nor is the Democrat Party entirely comprised of "clueless libtards" - but it does appear to have an unusual amount of them.

So bring on the tofu-spittle; and don't forget to tip your local New Black Panther poll minder next November.

[Get Real]

CvilleGordo wrote:

<quoted text>
Nor is the Democrat Party entirely comprised of "clueless libtards"

Yes it is!!! If you are a handout taking, lazy, not-my-fault it's evil hard working American's fault, whitey hating pile of bio-waste - YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT...the only folks in the D party that aren't any of the above are D's only to have money and power for themselves.

[CvilleGordo]

Get Real wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes it is!!! If you are a handout taking, lazy, not-my-fault it's evil hard working American's fault, whitey hating pile of bio-waste - YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT...the only folks in the D party that aren't any of the above are D's only to have money and power for themselves.

I think you are a little off-base; the folks you describe are those elements of their base which are fired up and subsequently used by the Democrats in office to get elected! They themselves, the elected officials, with some notable exceptions, are nothing like that. They might talk the "I-hate-whitey" talk but in practice are quite ordinary; all Democrats need lots of whitey votes to get elected and stay in office. And they especially need the votes, financial support, and private jets of the evil 1% whiteys.

[Im Ya Huckleberry]

zZz wrote:

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.
As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it:“I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.
Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:
• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.
Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.
What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.
The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.
Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.

"President Obama has shelled out more in federal spending than the five presidents that came before him.

A new chart by the Comeback America Initiative (CAI), a non-partisan group dedicated to promoting fiscal responsibility by policymakers, shows federal spending by president as a percentage of GDP, and it doesn't reflect well on Obama.

"There has been a dramatic increase in spending under the Obama administration," David Walker, Founder and CEO of CAI, told Whispers. "Most of it is attributable to year one of his presidency and the stimulus... but President Obama has continued to take spending to a new level."

Federal spending was close to 20 percent under the Carter administration, dropped to 18 percent under Clinton, and is currently at an incredible 24 percent of GDP. According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal spending may hover around 22 percent for the next decade."

Read more at:http://www.usnews.com/news/ blogs/washington-whispers/2012 /06/01/president-obama-has-out spent-last-five-presidents
"

[CvilleGordo]

zZz wrote:

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.
As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it:“I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.
Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:
• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.
Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.
What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.
The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.
Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.

Why don't you provide us the link to the WSJ Market Watch article you cut and pasted there?

[Rush Maddow]

Link related: It's everyone in this thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[PlacitasRoy]

The article didn't make it clear....did they come out with their hoods on or off?
Or was removing the hoods the symbolic 'coming out?'

[CvilleGordo]

PlacitasRoy wrote:

The article didn't make it clear....did they come out with their hoods on or off?
Or was removing the hoods the symbolic 'coming out?'

We are honored to have you, the world-famous internet forum poster, PlacitasRoy his/her/LGBT-something-or-othe r esteemed self, posting on the lowly Charlottesville, VA forums. You certainly get around. I'm curious, does your boss know that all you do at work is search forums for something to rant about? But of course I know the answer to that already; you have no boss. You are a professional libtard/occutard/protestard/to futard etc. That probably covers most of it, doesn't it?

Google him/her/LGBT-something-or-othe r folks; you will be entertained.

[Sick of the Childishness]

CvilleGordo wrote:

<quoted text>
We are honored to have you, the world-famous internet forum poster, PlacitasRoy his/her/LGBT-something-or-othe r esteemed self, posting on the lowly Charlottesville, VA forums. You certainly get around. I'm curious, does your boss know that all you do at work is search forums for something to rant about? But of course I know the answer to that already; you have no boss. You are a professional libtard/occutard/protestard/to futard etc. That probably covers most of it, doesn't it?
Google him/her/LGBT-something-or-othe r folks; you will be entertained.

Are all of you people so stuck in the mentality of the 2nd grade playground that you cannot discuss the most simple of topics without resorting to childish name-calling?

Is it too much to ask for a mature, reasoned discussion of important issues, free of sound bytes and talking points?

We will be selecting a government, not rival sports teams. This election is too important to be hijacked by boorish fans and fanatics for whom winning is more important that governing well.