Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Communist Rally in Washington DC 39

Journal by pudge

I'm watching C-SPAN right now. The title of the program is "A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition Anti-War Protest." But really, it's a communist anti-capitalism, anti-America, anti-Israel, rally. And it's awesome.

It's a misnomer to call it an anti-war protest. It's an anti-Iraq-war protest. And an anti-Afganistan-war protest. And an anti-war-on-poor-black-people-in-New-Orleans (??) rally. But as many, if not most of them, support Palestinian aggression, Fidel Castro, and -- many of them -- even the communist regimes of China, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union, it can't be said they are for peace, and against war.

And don't think I am exaggerating about calling them communists. A.N.S.W.E.R.'s leaders are from the Worker's World Party, speakers greeted the crowd as "Comrades," and signs in the crowd featured red stars, upraised fists, and statements about capitalism being a disease (and, of course, revolution being the cure).

Yes, not all of the people there are communists, of course. Some are simply against this war, or all, wars. But the rally is communist, even if not everyone there is a communist, because the rally's organizers and speakers are just as much against capitalism as they are against the war.

You learn a lot from watching stuff like this. You learn that people like Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) and Ramsey Clark associate closely with communists who would overturn the Constitution they swore to uphold (how in the world is McKinney still in office?). You learn that George Galloway thinks Israel is raping Jerusalem (oh wait; we learned that the other day).

You learn that workers should be "free" (because apparently, in the U.S., workers are in prison). You learn that it is a crime that the U.S. government is not giving away new lives to the evacuees of New Orleans, but that it is also a crime if they offer those evacuees the opportunity to join the military as a means to starting a new life.

There's a lot more I could rip on them for. For saying Bush is "pretending" to be President (how the hell did Ramsey Clark ever become Attorney General when he doesn't even understand what the Constitution says about the election of the President?). For saying there are "hundreds of thousands of people" at the event, when there's barely tens of thousands, at best. I could pick apart their silly arguments against the war, like the nonsensical statement that the Iraq war is illegal. I could point out that the Bush administration did not kidnap former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, but removed him at his own request.

But that's boring.

But then again, so is most of it.

But it's educational.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Communist Rally in Washington DC More

Communist Rally in Washington DC

Comments Filter:
  • ...all morning.

    The crowd is getting restless. Did you hear them booing since they couldn't go march and had to listen to more speakers?

    I'm not sure what to say, these people are just nuts. Any idea where I can catch a video or transcript of the entire event? Seriously, i think it would be fun to go through and analyze.
    • CSPAN.org should have the video of it. Dunno about transcript.
    • I went to the website that you have listed in your profile ( www.e4industries.com/bryan [e4industries.com]) to see what other insightful commentaries and analysis you might have.

      It seems that it was taken over by a search camper.

      The title of the first link begins with "Intimate Anonymous" and then a whole bunch of stuff about the Big Brother TV show.

      I just thought you might like to know. Unless of course, that is your web page. Then I do apologize for bringing it up.

  • Judging by the protests during the vietnam war, we know that these types of demonstrations embolden the enemy. It worked for leftists then, and they are trying the same thing today. We have proof (in the fact that Kerry and Fonda are considered war heroes by N. Vietnam, and their pictures are in their war museum) that this helps the enemy and leads to our own defeat.

    Now, this logic can't be explained to lefties, because they see dead soldiers and to them war == bad in every case. But is there any verifia
    • We have proof (in the fact that Kerry and Fonda are considered war heroes by N. Vietnam, and their pictures are in their war museum) that this helps the enemy and leads to our own defeat.

      Actually, it only proves that the Vietnamese communists aren't/weren't completely ignorant when it comes to propaganda. Because not only will such a move further humiliate the defeated enemy ("see, even your own people were fighting against you!") but it will also cause tensions inside that other country. At the same time

      • You don't think that Zarakawi is encouraged by knowing that anti-war activists and negative media reporting has brought US support for the war down below 50%? It seems ridiculous to think he doesn't pay attention to things like that. You can't totally underestimate guys like that. Propaganda has always been a major tool in any war... that it works in his advantage in this case is obvious.
        • that it works in his advantage in this case is obvious

          That supressing freedom of the press and speech as a response would be idiotic and unconstitutional is equally obvious.

          If you want someone to blame for Bush's plummeting approval ratings, blame the Administration. It's not just support for the war that's dropping - it's happening in just about every poll on just about every issue.

          • that it works in his advantage in this case is obvious

            If you want someone to blame for Bush's plummeting approval ratings, blame the Administration. It's not just support for the war that's dropping - it's happening in just about every poll on just about every issue.

            With the nonstop lies the Left has been flinging at W, it's a small miracle that his ratings have remained as high as they are. The modern American Left has taken Goebbels to heart--if you tell a big-enough lie often enough, eventually

            • Could you highlight some of those lies for us?

              Do you mean the lie about him sending us to war over the imminent threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq that didn't exist? Oh wait...

              Or the lie about how members of the Administration weren't involved in any way with the Valerie Plame case? Oh wait...

              Or the one about how the cost of the prescription drug bill would only cost $400 billion despite threatening to fire the Medicare analyst if he revealed that it would be substatailly higher? Oh wait...

              Or
              • Could you highlight some of those lies for us?

                I will!

                Do you mean the lie about him sending us to war over the imminent threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq that didn't exist?

                Yes, that's a good one to start with.

                First, it is not remotely true that this was the only or most compelling reason for invading Iraq. It's simply the one everyone agreed on, so it was used the most.

                There were many other reasons, including Iraq's continued human rights abuses (which were specifically mentioned in the Congress
                • First, it is not remotely true that this was the only or most compelling reason for invading Iraq. It's simply the one everyone agreed on, so it was used the most.

                  We go around and around on this. But, the Administration (Bush and his cronies) pushed this as the primary reason for going to war. Why? Exactly as you state, because everyone could get behind it. When you're building a consensus, you need a common cause and the lie of an imminent WMD threat was used specifically for this. Bush and Co. di

                  • We go around and around on this. But, the Administration (Bush and his cronies) pushed this as the primary reason for going to war. Why? Exactly as you state, because everyone could get behind it. When you're building a consensus, you need a common cause and the lie of an imminent WMD threat was used specifically for this. Bush and Co. did not try to make a case for war based solely on the other issues that you mentioned, precisely because he wouldn't have gotten consensus. Instead they LIED (which you didn
                  • Oh, and as a side note... Good Job on the Slashdot upgrade. Very nice work.

                    Thanks! Glad you like.
                    • It seems like it loads faster and I love the new input boxes. Much cleaner. I can't imagine what it must have been like retrofitting all the old stories and comments and my understanding is that you can take the vast majority of the credit for that herculean task. Your kung fu is best. Good work.
                    • I wrote code to make everything valid HTML 4.01 strict (or optionally XHTML 1.0 strict). This was a lot of work, but most of it happened months ago, and not as much as work as Tim Vroom and Wes Moran did in designing the new HTML/CSS stuff and redoing all the templates.
                    • Well, then. Good job all around.

                      I know you are an ultimate Perl guy, but I was wondering your thoughts on Python/Ruby.

              • Do you mean the lie about him sending us to war over the imminent threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq that didn't exist?

                "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
                --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

                "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
                --Pr

                • Of course, the Democrats say they were simply deceived by the Bush administration. Of course, that does not explain Albright and Clinton and other Clinton administration officials, who had the same information Bush did (though perhaps a little bit of date, but not much).

                  Also, don't forget, the Germans, British, Italians, Polish, and UNMOVIC (along with Hans Blix) itself all thought Hussein had WMD.

                  Also, don't forget, *maybe they actually did.*
                  • And don't forget that the inspectors on the ground said that Hussien did not have any credible weapons of mass destruction and any so called stock piles were inert after years of not being able to be replenished and maintenanced due to the ongoing sanctions and embargoes against Iraq (put in place by the elder Bush and tightened under Clinton. Then don't forget that every inspection AFTER the war has confirmed those statements (the ones that Bush CHOSE to ignore), even by inspectors from this adminstration
                    • And don't forget that the inspectors on the ground said that Hussien did not have any credible weapons of mass destruction

                      No, they didn't. They said they had not yet FOUND any such, not that they did not exist. El Baradei of the IAEA said they likely had no nukes, but Blix and UNMOVIC never made such a statement, that I can recall.

                      and any so called stock piles were inert after years of not being able to be replenished and maintenanced due to the ongoing sanctions and embargoes against Iraq

                      Right, but that
                    • No, they didn't. They said they had not yet FOUND any such, not that they did not exist. El Baradei of the IAEA said they likely had no nukes, but Blix and UNMOVIC never made such a statement, that I can recall.

                      I know you don't like and/or trust him, but Ritter did.

                    • Yes, but we still don't know if he was correct.

                      And the argument is not "no one thought Hussein had no WMD." Again, I was skeptical of it myself. The argument is "lots of people, including many against the war, though Hussein had WMD."
                    • No... I am not saying that. What I am saying is there was credible evidence available to suggest the Hussein did not pose an imminent threat due to WMD and that the intelligence for going into war was also at least partially proven faulty BEFORE we went to war. However, the administration CHOSE to ignore both of these issues and instead press on despite them and also to trump up charges that claims of no WMD were false and its own claims were true.

                      It was the uniting reason for going to war and they knew t
                    • What I am saying is there was credible evidence available to suggest the Hussein did not pose an imminent threat due to WMD and that the intelligence for going into war was also at least partially proven faulty BEFORE we went to war.

                      You don't need to convince me of that, since I didn't belive Iraq had WMD in the two months before we went to war.

                      However, the administration CHOSE to ignore both of these issues and instead press on despite them

                      Eh. That's your interpretation. I didn't believe in WMD and still
                    • But more importantly, we were going to war regardless of this. I think we would have had MORE support for war if we focused on my issues instead of WMD (Iraq's support of terrorism in the region [esp. Palestinian and Syrian]), the human rights abuses, ...

                      That's why we are going to war with Saudi Arabia and the Sudan, right? How about Sierra Leone, or maybe Eritrea, or any number of South American countries.

                    • That's why we are going to war with Saudi Arabia and the Sudan, right? How about Sierra Leone, or maybe Eritrea, or any number of South American countries.

                      What about them? None of them qualify for what I said (which you cut off the end of, but which was not severable).

                      The case for war is simple. First, we have our own interests. That is the part you cut out. Second, we need justification: moral and legal. That is where the WMD and human rights abuses and terrorism come in.

                      Basically:

                      A. U.S. interest: H
    • As embarassing as the environmental, anti-globalization, and now anti-war movements are to me as a lefty, anyone identifying themselves as being on the right should be just as embarassed over what you said in this post.
    • That said, what did the framers have in mind with regards to the ability to "peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?" What would an anti-Iraq-War protest that matched the framers' intent?

      Absolutely, yes, it would. There's no question about it. Because if you exclude them, then later on, someone else will exclude you.
  • In today's world, communism is no longer revolutionary, it is rather reactionary. It is an attempt to turn back the social and political progress of the past two centuries and re-enslave people in a type of autocratic tyranny the likes of which we spent so long getting out from under.

    Even 60 or 70 years ago, when there were plenty of monarchies still to go around, if wasn't quite as reactionary and anti-revolutionary as it is today, but there can be no question in the 21st century as to its status to this
  • Why is it so hard for them to understand that war, or more specifically, peace through strength, is a tried-n-proven concept (look at your history book).

    Sun-Tzu said it best... "project your weakness and keep your strength secret." Teddy Rosevelt said "Speak softly and carry and BIG STICK."

    These war protesters are such a disservice to the nation by trying to hamstring our commander-in-chief. That woman protestor (whose name shall remain unlisted because she is not worthy in my eyes) who lost her son in Ir
  • For saying there are "hundreds of thousands of people" at the event, when there's barely tens of thousands, at best.

    Well, hundreds is an exaggeration, but DC police say they probably hit 100,000 [yahoo.com] and there were protests in other cities at the same time. Not as far off as you portray. :-p
    • Well, hundreds is an exaggeration, but DC police say they probably hit 100,000

      I don't buy it. CSPAN had a bunch of cameras around with lots of views, and unless they were places other than watching the speeches ... there's no way.

      and there were protests in other cities at the same time

      That has nothing at all to do with what I'm talking about.

      Not as far off as you portray. :-p

      One speaker said there were 300,000. 300,000 is WAY off from "probably" hit 100,000, even if they did have that many.
      • I'll take the police chief's estimate over a long distance viewing via CSPAN.
        • But Pudge can count to 10,000 pretty quickly. Don't doubt the Pudgeman's ability to count. Don't do it.
          • *shrug* I've actually been trained to do crowd counts. It's something you learn in journalism school. And I stand by what i said: it is possible there were 100,000 ... but only if there were a lot more people than were watching the speeches.
            • I was joking.

              On a serenditous side note. Crowd counting! Explain how that works. I am very interested in that. Was it part of a course? Which one? Which school? I am seriously interested. Details welcomed.

              • I was joking.

                No biggie ... I was just explaining. Oh, and I did some more looking up, and apparently there was a march and a concert separate from the speeches, so that could account for the additional people I couldn't see on CSPAN.

                On a serenditous side note. Crowd counting! Explain how that works. I am very interested in that. Was it part of a course? Which one? Which school? I am seriously interested. Details welcomed.

                It's not an exact science, but you section off the crowd into more easily guessable qu
  • This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
    To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=46492 [worldnetdaily.com]

    Saturday, September 24, 2005

    Look Ma, I'm a partisan hack!
    Posted: September 24, 2005
    1:00 a.m. Eastern

    By Kyle Williams
    © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com--> ©2005WorldNetDaily.com

    I remember when I was a young child, my brother and sister and I would gather on the bed with my parents and every night my dad would re

Slashdot Top Deals

"My sense of purpose is gone! I have no idea who I AM!" "Oh, my God... You've.. You've turned him into a DEMOCRAT!" -- Doonesbury

Close