Bill from NYC Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Notice the frequent use of the term "Zionism." A familiar term on PPP, no? Below are a few pictures of some others who love to throw this word around to attack Jews. Have a barf bag ready. Check Out The Other Jew Hating "Boobs." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I wish the non-biased media would show more of this... I just dont understand this mentality. These people are off their rocker. Luckilly for them we have something called freedom of speech and expression in America giving them the right to say what they say and do what they do. Luckilly for them we had many brave americans throught our history who willingly gave their lives so that they could act in this manner. Its not my bag, but as long as they do it "peacefully" and dont create any problems its their right, just as much as its my right to speak up against them. That said, when you commit a crime, you get punished. Public nudity is a crime. Burning the president in effigy gets you a meeting with the secret service. And to the extent they are providing aid and comfort to the enemy, they should be brought up on treason charges. For Info: The Sedition act of 1918: SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.... The law has since been repealed...Perhaps its time to bring it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I wish the non-biased media would show more of this... I just dont understand this mentality. These people are off their rocker. Luckilly for them we have something called freedom of speech and expression in America giving them the right to say what they say and do what they do. 635599[/snapback] And those in those pictures are representative of everyone who attends a rally. I was at the peace rally in Buffalo on Saturday - I didn't see people screaming "down with the jewish state" while walking with their flappy boobs hanging-out complete with nazi symbolism painted on them. I guess I wasn't paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 It was too cold. Those loonies were out again in SF. At least they tend to stay in SF and Bezerkeley. Kind of hard to travel around when you can't afford a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 And those in those pictures are representative of everyone who attends a rally. I was at the peace rally in Buffalo on Saturday - I didn't see people screaming "down with the jewish state" while walking with their flappy boobs hanging-out complete with nazi symbolism painted on them. I guess I wasn't paying attention. 635660[/snapback] It's just easier to lump people into a group and say that "obviously all leftist loonies want the death of Israel" than to try to have reasonable conversations with reasonable people from each side. "Social conservatives have a crazy fetish/obsession with the intimate details of male homosexuality and gruesome embryo pictures. I have pictures." See how easy that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 It's just easier to lump people into a group and say that "obviously all leftist loonies want the death of Israel" than to try to have reasonable conversations with reasonable people from each side. "Social conservatives have a crazy fetish/obsession with the intimate details of male homosexuality and gruesome embryo pictures. I have pictures." See how easy that is? 635739[/snapback] OK, let me make it clear that I don't think that all people who lean to the left are calling for the death of Israel. Although I stand to the right on foreign policy, I am more of a social libertarian than a social conservative (other than crime issues). Much more. What I DO assert is that this is a core of the Democratic Party, just as the religious right is a strong Republican constituency. I stand with neither, but I will readily admit that the religious right is easier on the stomach than these wackos. I also think that until the dems distance themselves from these nuts, they will continue to lose elections. Jmo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 An old link to pictures compiled from several, in some cases, years-old "protests" and you're calling this the core of the Democratic party? There are crazy people on both sides of the political spectrum, and just as Reverend Phelps and his crowd screaming "God hates fags" aren't the core of the Republican party, a couple of people who walk around naked with inflamed nuts aren't the core of the Dems. Calling this anything other than a small collection of weird-os is giving them a lot of credit they don't deserve. Calling it "sedition" is down-right ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 An old link to pictures compiled from several, in some cases, years-old "protests" and you're calling this the core of the Democratic party? There are crazy people on both sides of the political spectrum, and just as Reverend Phelps and his crowd screaming "God hates fags" aren't the core of the Republican party, a couple of people who walk around naked with inflamed nuts aren't the core of the Dems. Calling this anything other than a small collection of weird-os is giving them a lot of credit they don't deserve. Calling it "sedition" is down-right ignorant. 635820[/snapback] Actually I said "a core" which was probably a bad choice of words, but I think that we both agree that not too many of these nuts would vote for Bush. Radical leftists DO tend to vote democrat, and have an effect on primaries, wouldn't you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Radical leftists DO tend to vote democrat, and have an effect on primaries, wouldn't you say? 635828[/snapback] Not really. The "radical" progressive wing of the Dem party was summarily shunned in the 2004 presidential primaries. Kerry was not our choice for the nominee. The Deaniacs were considered fringe, and to this day there are those in the mainstream party who hate Chairman Dean's "50 State" grassroots/netroots plan for reviving the party. The Dem Elite would prefer sinking huge sums of money into key battleground states, whereas the "fringe" believe that an across-the-board campaign that doesn't ignore local elections in red states is the better plan. If anything, I'd say the radicals in the right drive the Republican party, as evidenced by the gay-baiting and pro-life blitz that the Reps do right before every major election to fire up the fundamentalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I live out in the SF area. Some of these wackos were out again last week. They claimed a couple thousand. it looked like a couple hundred on the TV. Here is an op-ed piece on the lefty wackos: The real reason behind the peace movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 Not really. The "radical" progressive wing of the Dem party was summarily shunned in the 2004 presidential primaries. Kerry was not our choice for the nominee. The Deaniacs were considered fringe, and to this day there are those in the mainstream party who hate Chairman Dean's "50 State" grassroots/netroots plan for reviving the party. The Dem Elite would prefer sinking huge sums of money into key battleground states, whereas the "fringe" believe that an across-the-board campaign that doesn't ignore local elections in red states is the better plan. If anything, I'd say the radicals in the right drive the Republican party, as evidenced by the gay-baiting and pro-life blitz that the Reps do right before every major election to fire up the fundamentalists. 635841[/snapback] If you think that radical leftists are not more likely to vote for a dem rather than a repub, there is little else I can say, other than "have a nice day." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 If you think that radical leftists are not more likely to vote for a dem rather than a repub, there is little else I can say, other than "have a nice day." 635866[/snapback] I don't think that he is saying that at all. I think that he is saying that the loonies on the right have more sway than the loonies on the left. I don't agree with that assessment, but I think that is what he is saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 For Info: The Sedition act of 1918: SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.... The law has since been repealed...Perhaps its time to bring it back. 635599[/snapback] Bring back the sedition acts? Lovely. This is just speculation, but I imagine that the arrests of Eugene Debs and Emma Goldman under these acts radicalized many more people than it protected and conviced thousands that their rights were not safe or the government benign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 If you think that radical leftists are not more likely to vote for a dem rather than a repub, there is little else I can say, other than "have a nice day." 635866[/snapback] Also not true. Many will vote Green, Libertarian, or not at all if they can't reconcile voting for the Dem nominee. Regardless, why would anyone on the far left ever vote for a Republican, anyway? Spite? It doesn't work that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I don't think that he is saying that at all. I think that he is saying that the loonies on the right have more sway than the loonies on the left. I don't agree with that assessment, but I think that is what he is saying. 635870[/snapback] The right leaning Christian voter has far more sway in the Republican party than the Feingold-Dems do in the Dem party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I live out in the SF area. Some of these wackos were out again last week. They claimed a couple thousand. it looked like a couple hundred on the TV. Here is an op-ed piece on the lefty wackos: The real reason behind the peace movement. 635858[/snapback] So which is it? These 'couple hundred' are a fringe and nobody listens to them? Or are they a swarming, all-controlling arm of the Democratic Party? You guys kill me, every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Maybe a more pertinent question here is how many brother and sister posters would march with them? (either philosophy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 So which is it? These 'couple hundred' are a fringe and nobody listens to them? Or are they a swarming, all-controlling arm of the Democratic Party? You guys kill me, every day. 635935[/snapback] I think that just as some of the right wing wackos scare away some voters from repubs, these nuts scare away some voters from dems. When moderate voters from accross the nation watched the leftist douchebags demonstrate at the last repub convention, I am thinking that some were disgusted enough by this to vote for Bush. Do you disagree? Btw, there were more than a "couple hundred" at that particular demo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 An old link to pictures compiled from several, in some cases, years-old "protests" and you're calling this the core of the Democratic party? There are crazy people on both sides of the political spectrum, and just as Reverend Phelps and his crowd screaming "God hates fags" aren't the core of the Republican party, a couple of people who walk around naked with inflamed nuts aren't the core of the Dems. I think it's fair to call them the core of the Berkley Democratic party...but Berkley's a special place. Still, just as you assume Pat Robertson and Phelps "represent" the republicans, people are going to assume these nut-cases represent the democrats. Like it or not, the perception is that that's who you are. Calling this anything other than a small collection of weird-os is giving them a lot of credit they don't deserve. Calling it "sedition" is down-right ignorant. 635820[/snapback] Anyone who even jokingly refers to bringing back the Sedition act as a good idea is preternaturally stupid anyway. But anyone who advocates bringing it back to apply it to a guy who walks around naked with an inflated scrotum probably...words fail me in describing the comical nature of that idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I think that just as some of the right wing wackos scare away some voters from repubs, these nuts scare away some voters from dems. When moderate voters from accross the nation watched the leftist douchebags demonstrate at the last repub convention, I am thinking that some were disgusted enough by this to vote for Bush. Do you disagree? Btw, there were more than a "couple hundred" at that particular demo. 635952[/snapback] I just don't buy for a minute that the myriad manias that these people are suffering from fit into the democrat/republican schema. You're talking binary, these people are in some alternate universe. The more appropriate comparison might be to the so-called militias floating around out there. The thing is, people don't identify them with the right wing immediately because they don't have an extrovert media presence and they likely look even worse naked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts