I though new hampshire is a blue state

in other news...funny how the guy is sorta at the back of the crowd where no one can see him

They are probably loaded.

Yay New Hampshire!

We have been for a little while. In most electoins we're red. It's sad

EDIT:

Here's the 2000 election map

The expression on his face is awesome.

Isn't that lady with the yellow sign guilty of Protesting While Distracted?

PS - Photoshop is cool.  (I think it's real)

wat a champion.

It's obvious that most of the people there are so clueless they probably don't know what his shirt is, or why they should be annoyed.

I would respect him more if he tried that stuff against union thugs counter-protesting or at a New Black Panther rally.

Also, in response to all of the confused posters here: New Hampshire is somewhat of a "Don't Tread On Me" state. Its citizens generally distrust government, especially if it interferes with individual liberty. The reason for its shift from a "Red" state to a "Blue" state over the past decade is primarily due to wealthy, self-important Bostonites encroaching into its borders.

He *is* funny, but more because the protest is fragmented and they have a bunch of generic right-wing rhetoric than anything, it would be just as funny on the other side of the street if the left wing had four disconnected left wing signs that had no particular connection to the issue.

As someone that *has* read a good portion of HR 3200 - it's a pretty good bill, hope the GOP doesn't manage to kill this.

Jonnan

Interrupting his fantasy with facts, that's just wrong!

Likely to better understand it than the clueless Congressmen & Senators.

Right - we'll have *Congress* write out the actual regulations, because we have in fact 538 insurance spoecialists here . . . no, wait, instead of having the worlds most powerful committee micromanage the entire thing, lets instead have them set up a framework, and then have the 'executive' branch (So named because it actually 'executes' the laws) set up some form of regulatory implementation of that framework.

You know, like we do for every *other* department of the government. We even have this third branch of government called the 'judicial' branch that can, if people feel the law is being 'executed' incorrectly, look at the original laws and see if they believe the executive is interpreting it in a reasonable manner. 'adjudicate' if you will.

Yeah - I'm thinking that would be a better method. I know it's not popular among a certain set of people, and has had some genuine failures, but it *is* the same method we used from the period where we were a third rate power that could  have our capital burned to the ground in a backwater action of the Napoleonic wars, all the way through to our arising as the most powerful economic and miltary superpower the world has ever known. It has a fairly good track record.

Jonnan

edit: With apologies - but that kind of phrasing is not at all unusual - look at any of the laws that set-up departments in the executive, from the old 'department of war' to the IRS to the State Department. They *all* give leeway for the actual regulatory setup to be determined by the people doing the actual work.