The W
Views: 97817353
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.7.14 1431
The W - Current Events & Politics - Damn protesters - A Parody
This thread has 12 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(2254 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (29 total)
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 461 days
Last activity: 327 days
AIM:  
#1 Posted on
Disclaimer-The rally was actually quite good. This is a parody.

http://www.digmo.org/news/story.php?ID=805


Ah yes, nothing like a collection of right-wing truck drivers all in one place. I actually went to this and was appalled by what I saw. They were more interested in insulting Democrats and peace proponents (who seem to be the only people willing to propose valid arguments in support of their position) than anything pro-troop related.

The Eagle website (the station that put on the show) shows they carry Savage Nation. Michael Savage supports arresting peace activists, which is obviously fascism. Since everyone at the rally must think the exact same as the organizers, everyone at the rally must be fascist. These are people who just want to shout slogans and hold signs, without any clear grasp of the facts.

I have proof from the article. One Whole Sign said “I wanna be a cowboy, not a (expletive deleted). Support Bush. Nuke’m.” And you just know since that sign said it, every other sign was basically the same. I just knew that all pro-war radicals were interested in was nuking other countries, and that one sign clinched it.

Of course, the article mentions kids and families being there, and something about people at the rally loving your country. But the Missourian is part of that right-wing media conspiracy, so their reporting is obviously biased. If it was fair reporting, they'd have reported everyone at the rally was a gun toting, truck driving, racist right-winger. No biased newspaper is going to change my mind. Who cares about what these people think anyway. All they are are some random citizens. The media should only report what Daschle says, then everything would be fair.

I'm just glad us intelligent, level headed peace and freedom loving, true patriots were there. Protests are generally worthless and don't accomplish anything, but with such pro-war, biased reporting going on, we felt we needed to do something. Of course, we got insulted because we were bringing the true, glorious message of freedom to them.

Without us making sure the US remains a democracy open to all ideas, they wouldn't have the freedom to hold those signs and change the name of French fries to freedom fries. Freedom fries? What's next, laying naked and making the words "France and Peace Sucks"?

What needs to happen is true partisinship. And by that I mean, of course, all these right-wingers need to start supporting peace, supporting Daschle and the Democrats, and either love this country or leave it.

(edited by messenoir on 5.3.03 0113)
Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1184 days
Last activity: 981 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
What's best about this paraody is that it is a response to arguements supposedly made by pro-war conservatives that nobody is making. Example:

    Originally posted by messenoir
    And by that I mean, of course, all these right-wingers need to start supporting peace, supporting Daschle and the Democrats, and either love this country or leave it.

Nobody I know is saying support war, support Bush and love it or leave it. What I and several other folks are saying is:

1. Don't be an ass
2. If you oppose the war, have a real reason to do so other than it's hip, it's cool and it's anti-Bush.
3. If you want to be taken seriously as peace activisits, don't go into it marhcing in lock-step with Communist radicals.



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 114 days
Last activity: 114 days
#3 Posted on
Because Communist Radicals can't support peace?

-Jag



If they studied their paper money for clues as to what their country was all about, they found, among a lot of other baroque trash, a picture of a truncated pyramid with a radiant eye on top of it, like this:



Not even the President of the United States knew what that was all about. It was as though the country were saying to its citizens, "In nonsense is strength."

-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. Breakfast of Champions
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1184 days
Last activity: 981 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Because Communist Radicals can't support peace?

    -Jag


Doesn't "Radical" tend to mean the polar opposite of "peace"?



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2745 days
Last activity: 2588 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Because Communist Radicals can't support peace?

    -Jag



Because Communism killed over 20 million. It's like Nazis marching in favor of Israel. There's no credibility.



"... I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass..."

Pedro Martinez
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 114 days
Last activity: 114 days
#6 Posted on
If Communisim killed that many people, how many millions are you prepared to blame on Capitalism?

-Jag



If they studied their paper money for clues as to what their country was all about, they found, among a lot of other baroque trash, a picture of a truncated pyramid with a radiant eye on top of it, like this:



Not even the President of the United States knew what that was all about. It was as though the country were saying to its citizens, "In nonsense is strength."

-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. Breakfast of Champions
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1231 days
Last activity: 30 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    If Communisim killed that many people, how many millions are you prepared to blame on Capitalism?

    -Jag


I never heard of a Capitalist nation deliberatly starving millions just because it did not want to pay to feed them.




Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 114 days
Last activity: 114 days
#8 Posted on
Ah. Point.

But how many Communist nations have detonated nuclear weapons on civillian populations?

I'd be hesitatnt to blame either events on national economic policies. I'd be more willing to blame the people running the country at the time.

-Jag

And hell, I might even take into account the fact that there was a war going on, and the use of WOMD seemed like the best option.



If they studied their paper money for clues as to what their country was all about, they found, among a lot of other baroque trash, a picture of a truncated pyramid with a radiant eye on top of it, like this:



Not even the President of the United States knew what that was all about. It was as though the country were saying to its citizens, "In nonsense is strength."

-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. Breakfast of Champions
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2903 days
Last activity: 2899 days
#9 Posted on
Um . . . well, the US does have an alarming amount of people that go hungry.

This brings up another point: Communism and the Soviet Union are not the same thing. I said it once before, Marx said a successful communist revolution would rely upon an urban industrial proletariat. Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, North Vietnam and wherever else did not have an urban, industrial proletariat. Just because they called themselves communist doesn't make it so. Hell, they have elections in China, but is it a democracy?

On top of that, what is wrong with someone being a communist? I would say that nobody on this board feels that they are personally responsible for slavery, yet, according to the logic I see here, anyone that is pro-U.S. is pro-slavery.

I guess that covers point 3.


"2. If you oppose the war, have a real reason to do so other than it's hip, it's cool and it's anti-Bush."

The war in Iraq will most likely increase terrorist attacks on the U.S., there is no plan with what to do with Iraq after we attack, the rest of the damn world doesn't want us to attack, but all these reasons are bunk if you didn't vote for the right guy.

"1. Don't be an ass"

If only it were that easy.



Weekly Visitor - EXXXXTREME MARCH!

Jersey Is Dead - Feel my Grief
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1184 days
Last activity: 981 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by Jaguar
    But how many Communist nations have detonated nuclear weapons on civillian populations?

Oh good god. People still feel guilty about toasting Hirsohima? Remember this minor point when complaining about the US use of nukes in Japan: we probably saved five years off of the war and at minimum 1 million American lives and 5 million Japanese lives by having to avoid an invasion.


    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    The war in Iraq will most likely increase terrorist attacks on the U.S., there is no plan with what to do with Iraq after we attack, the rest of the damn world doesn't want us to attack, but all these reasons are bunk if you didn't vote for the right guy.

I agree about the terrorism aspect; but frankly that's coming attack or not. Look at it from this perspective: those who support the war believe the risk of not going to war is greater than the risk of going to war.


(edited by Grimis on 6.3.03 0723)


There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1231 days
Last activity: 30 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on
Jesus- some of these so called "counter-arguments" just baffle me.

For one, the United States never INTENTIONALLY accelerated a famine to DELIBERATELY kill millions of its citizens. There may be some hungry people in this country, but no one is starving to death. Hell, we feed the damned world for crying out loud. We also don't hold mock trails and murder in judgement dozens of people who oppose Bush, or any other president.

Sure we nuked Japan. Yes, we are the only country to have ever used these weapons. You people who like to damn the US for doing this, seem to forget these things- first off, whoever built the first bomb was going to use it- period. Second- we had no idea exactly how much devastation it would indeed cause, long term, and we have been making it up to Japan ever since. If we were to drop a bomb TODAY you might have a point, but back then, it was all new and we as a people have learned a lot since then. And if you want to get really technical, We were at war. WE were attacked. They would not surrender, and dropping those bombs saved lives. And that being true, the USSR was not at war with the people in the Ukraine who had their food taken from them. The dropping of the bomb was CELEBRATED world-wide at the time.

Lets see- we don't fight the bad guys because the bad guys will fight back. What kind of damned logic is that? They are ALREADY attacking us!!! Did you forget 9-11 already? Did you forget all of the embassy bombings, the Cole attack? Yes, if we attack Iraq there might be a short flurry of minor attempts, but seeing as how Iraq is a major finacer of terrorism, I think it is safe to say that long term, we will experience FEWER attacks once we eliminate Iraq. Damn, if you get jumped in an alley, and the dude is pummeling you, how many people actually sit there and hand-wring about fighting back because "They might get REALLY mad and attack us more!" THEY ARE ALREADY ATTACKING YOU!!! I understand pro-peace sentiments, but this war was brought to us, not the other way around.

The US is pro-slavery? I am not even going to waste the time responding to THAT ridiculous argument.

Things like this are the reason the "anti-war crowd" gets accused of being Anti-American. To honestly suggest that we as a nation are just as evil as the USSR is frightening, especially considering the atrocities that occurred there.

If you want to argue that there is a difference between Marxist communism and the communism Stalin practices, that is fine. But in all practicality, there has never been a national manifestation of Marxist Communism. It has all been the Lenin/Stalin variety. Marxism was words on paper. Stalinism was evil, and resulted in untold deaths and atrocities. And I did not even start talking about China. To even COMPARE the US with that, claiming we are as bad or worse, disgusts me.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 6.3.03 0828)



dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 3 days
#12 Posted on
To paraphrase an argument from another oft discussed topic on this forum,

"Political systems don't kill people, people kill people."

Having studied the work of Marx in some detail (though by no means would I declare myself an expert, I ditched studying that stuff 9 months ago) at no point did he advocate the intentional starving of millions. It bould though be argued that in practice, the implementation of such policies became inevitable

Equally, it was not one of the fundamentals of capitalism to have hundreds of thousands of homeless, malnutritioned and starving. But again one could argue that capitalism (in its purest form at least) is pretty uncaring toward the poor, again making such an outcome unavoidable.

The point being neither system is perfect, and neither is inherently evil.

EDIT: Almost forgot. Pool-boy, if we're going to start calling countries that fund terrorism 'evil' i have three letters for you. I.R.A.

(edited by dMr on 6.3.03 1731)


"You dont appreciate a lot of stuff in school until you get older. Little things like being spanked every day by a middle aged woman: stuff you'd pay good money for these days."


One time undisputed Wiener of the day 2.11.02
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst








Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2460 days
Last activity: 562 days
#13 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy

    Lets see- we don't fight the bad guys because the bad guys will fight back. What kind of damned logic is that? They are ALREADY attacking us!!! Did you forget 9-11 already? Did you forget all of the embassy bombings, the Cole attack? Yes, if we attack Iraq there might be a short flurry of minor attempts, but seeing as how Iraq is a major finacer of terrorism, I think it is safe to say that long term, we will experience FEWER attacks once we eliminate Iraq. Damn, if you get jumped in an alley, and the dude is pummeling you, how many people actually sit there and hand-wring about fighting back because "They might get REALLY mad and attack us more!" THEY ARE ALREADY ATTACKING YOU!!! I understand pro-peace sentiments, but this war was brought to us, not the other way around.

    (edited by Pool-Boy on 6.3.03 0828)



Am I the only one that has a problem with lumping together everyone the US isn't pleased with as "the Bad Guys"? Iraq and Al-Qaida are not the same group of people - not even remotely. They likely aren't in league. They don't have the same goals. Al-Qaida has attacked the US. Iraq has not. I think this is a meaningful distinction. I am willing to listen to your argument, but I don't see how destabilizing an authoritarian regime, killing thousands of civilians (3000 civ. Iraqis dead in Desert Storm, without allied forces entering Bahgdad) will reduce the recruiting pool for terror groups. Removing Saddam is almost guaranteed to increase the influence of reglious fundamentalists in Iraq. That's fine, if it's what the Iraqi people choose, but we should be aware that's what will happen. And as far as the argument that we are already under attack, so who cares if we get attacked more, I will respond that I do. I care alot about the difference between 3,000 dead in the WTC and 12,000 dead in attacks on 4 or 5 cities. In this sense, it is extremely valuable to limit the number of people willing to die in order to inflict harm on America.

Attacking Iraq and removing Saddam could be ultimately worthwhile, but an honest and full cost-benefit reckoning needs to be done. I haven't seen anything from the US government doing that, and so remain unconvinced that the impending war is a good idea, overall.

So if the war we are talking about is invading Iraq, who brought it to America? Al-Qaida? I don't follow.



-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 114 days
Last activity: 114 days
#14 Posted on
Pool-Boy, Grimis, there's more to my post than what you guys apparently read. But dMr said it better, and much more to the point.

So in essence, "Do you really believe that the Soviets let their people starve because the were Communists. Or could it perhaps be because they were bad leaders?"

And to link it to my earlier statement:

I don't believe that America dropped nukes on Japan because we're Capitalist. I believe that we used them because it seemed like the best way to end the war at the time.

-Jag

/edited because there's only one 'm' in Grimis

(edited by Jaguar on 6.3.03 1423)


If they studied their paper money for clues as to what their country was all about, they found, among a lot of other baroque trash, a picture of a truncated pyramid with a radiant eye on top of it, like this:



Not even the President of the United States knew what that was all about. It was as though the country were saying to its citizens, "In nonsense is strength."

-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. Breakfast of Champions
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1184 days
Last activity: 981 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
OK, I buy the A-bomb theory.....but


    Originally posted by Jaguar
    "Do you really believe that the Soviets let their people starve because the were Communists. Or could it perhaps be because they were bad leaders?"


Simple explanation:

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."- Lord Acton

The Soviet system failed because it was a dictatorship. Stalin had absolute power. Being a paranoid sum-bitch, all hell broke loose. Kruschev, Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko did little to change this.



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2903 days
Last activity: 2899 days
#16 Posted on
right, so it wasn't because they were communists.

"For one, the United States never INTENTIONALLY accelerated a famine to DELIBERATELY kill millions of its citizens"

neither did the Soviet Union. They had horribly misguided policies and the guy in charge of agirculture had no idea what he was doing, but it was not intentional.

"The US is pro-slavery? I am not even going to waste the time responding to THAT ridiculous argument"

Good, because if you actually read what I wrote, you'd see that it is a ridiculous argument. That was my point.

Honestly, did Pool-Boy even read my post? It seems like he just scanned it for key words, then typed the same nonsense that he always does, not even caring what I was arguing. I can't see where I said anything about the U.S. being evil, and the reason I brought up China is to make an example of your twisted logic.

Also: At that Middle East Summet the other day, the one where the Iraqi called the Kuwaiti a monkey, or vice versa, Iran said that all the mulsim nations should join together to prevent the U.S. from attacking Iraq. IRAN! No, I guess this doesn't matter if you buy into them being part of an Axis of Evil, but Iran has been taking steps to improve relations with the U.S. lately, and, on top of that, has been a bitter enemy of Iraq since the Shah gained power. That shows how messed up this situation is.

About Pool-boy's response to (only one of) the reasons I listed for opposing the war: Iraq is not attacking us. What is attackign Iraq going to solve in the "War on Terrorism," besides making terrorists who are attacking us angrier?



Weekly Visitor - EXXXXTREME MARCH!

Jersey Is Dead - Feel my Grief
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 475 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81

    Also: At that Middle East Summet the other day, the one where the Iraqi called the Kuwaiti a monkey, or vice versa, Iran said that all the mulsim nations should join together to prevent the U.S. from attacking Iraq. IRAN! No, I guess this doesn't matter if you buy into them being part of an Axis of Evil, but Iran has been taking steps to improve relations with the U.S. lately, and, on top of that, has been a bitter enemy of Iraq since the Shah gained power. That shows how messed up this situation is.



The one and only reason that Iran wants to stop the U.S from attacking is because they know if Iraq falls they will fall too. The People in Iran want a change in government. They protest in the streets almost everyday. They know that if Iraq becomes any sort of government represented by the people it will be the spark the sends their own people over the edge. The Iranian people are very pro-American so any change in leadership over there will be nothing but good for us.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2903 days
Last activity: 2899 days
#18 Posted on
The Iranian government wont fall. Reformers are making huge gains in the elections there.



Weekly Visitor - EXXXXTREME MARCH!

Jersey Is Dead - Feel my Grief
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1184 days
Last activity: 981 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    right, so it wasn't because they were communists

Well, yes and no. No because absolute power does corrupt. But "Communism"(in the Soviet form)always lends itself to absolute power. Therefore, there is a connection between the fact that Stalin was a Communist and the fact that the Stalinist government killed over 50 million Soviet citizens.



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#20 Posted on

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81


    "For one, the United States never INTENTIONALLY accelerated a famine to DELIBERATELY kill millions of its citizens"

    neither did the Soviet Union. They had horribly misguided policies and the guy in charge of agirculture had no idea what he was doing, but it was not intentional.




I would argue that putting someone in charge of agriculture who has no idea what he is doing is basically setting the stage for famine. It's not INTENTIONAL with capital letters, but I would argue that is intentional (in lower case letters) when it continues to happen time after time and famine after famine after famine is the result.

As far as intentional starvation, North Korea (which, btw, is far richer in natural resources than South Korea) has severe famine. This is compounded by the fact that the Communist/Totalitarian government gives the food to the army and not the people. I would argue this is intentionally starving the citizens. Also, witness the 'Great Leap Forward' in China. Again, I would argue this is another example of intentionally starving the people.

I just don't understand the love of communism. And then saying, well, these weren't true communists because the revolution did not come from the urban, industrial proletariat. By this measure, capitalism does not exist because there is not a single country (nor has there ever been) where all the capital and industry is in the hands of the private sector. Actually, let me rephrase, I can understand loving the philosophy and ideas of communism, but it is self delusion to believe that communism will work on a macroeconomic level in any country of substantial size and diversity. It is an interesting case study as a philosophic discipline, but it absolutely is not an economic discipline that can be applied in its pure form. And, fwiw, that last sentence applies to a pure market economy as well.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Apologies from Canadia
Next thread: I sure hope we get done fast in Iraq...
Previous thread: Bush, Chevron, Halliburton, oh my!
(2254 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Apparently, new research(and a Bob Novak column)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Damn protesters - A ParodyRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.143 seconds.