Skip to comments.
Peace marches? War protests? Anti-bombing demonstrations? What's the right term?
vanity
| February 16, 2002
| southernnorthcarolina
Posted on 02/16/2003 5:39:36 PM PST by southernnorthcarolina
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
To: dalebert
How about French wannabees? Everybody hates the French. We should start tying these hate filled anti american pro terrorist maggots and the Dems with the French. Show the American people that these weasels stand with French against the United States.
To: BossLady
They do not even deserve the term 'peacenik'....nothing about their rallies/activities suggests this...
"Peacenik" was invented as a derogatory term at the latest in the early 60s, and possibly sooner. The "-nik" ending is in Russian, I am told, similar to our "-er" ending meaning: "One who...". (Think "farm" & "farmer", "program" & "programmer".)
The "-nik" ending was intended to label the "peaceniks" as Soviet fools/tools, with all the heavy irony that went with the term. Sadly, that aspect has been lost over the years to where the word now stands on its own, shorn of its roots.
Now if there were only an Arabic modification to the English word "peace" that could be applied to update the term... (but studying http://www.madrasaprogram.org/lesson_2.pdf it doesn't seem likely...)
42
posted on
02/16/2003 6:47:56 PM PST
by
Eala
To: southernnorthcarolina
They are antiAmerican rallies.
They are antiAmericanWar rallies.
They are antiBush rallies.
They are antiSemite rallies.
They are anticapitalism rallies.
They are not antiPalestinian war rallies.
They do not press for removing the dictator Saddam Hussein (who is "unopposed" in elections) from power. A man who has used chemical attacks against Iraqi citizens. The leftists would rather still beat the drum at their rallies that George W. Bush was not elected or should be "impeached".
Whatever their motivations, THIS IS NOT A PEACE MOVEMENT.
43
posted on
02/16/2003 6:53:47 PM PST
by
weegee
To: jwalburg
I like that term "appeasenicks."
VISUALIZE WORLD APPEASEMENT

"Peace in our lifetime"
44
posted on
02/16/2003 6:57:44 PM PST
by
weegee
To: weegee
Treasonous encounters
To: southernnorthcarolina
Traitors!
46
posted on
02/16/2003 7:35:40 PM PST
by
knarf
To: Betty Jane
Great thought. Sorry I did not think of it myself.
47
posted on
02/16/2003 8:42:59 PM PST
by
dalebert
To: southernnorthcarolina
Saddam Hussein Fan Club Rally
To: southernnorthcarolina
They were anti-Bush, anti-Republican rallies. Where were these people when Clinton was bombing innocent Serb civilians and trying to forcefully remove an elected leader?
49
posted on
02/16/2003 8:52:14 PM PST
by
dfwgator
To: dalebert
I think we should just make French the worst insult you can call somebody.
Just say, oh, you're so French!
That was the Frenchest thing I ever heard!
How could you be so French!
Frenchman! Even though it would be odd at first everybody would know exactly what you mean.
To: southernnorthcarolina

They are
APPEASERS, at best, since they ask only that the U.S. appease Iraq, not that Iraq disarm (in their protests)...
51
posted on
02/16/2003 9:17:31 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: southernnorthcarolina
I was there today, in San Francisco, and here are a few facts you might want to consider. First, only about one person in 15 on average carried a sign. Second, there were tens of thousands of people and just a few relatively "organized" groups marching: people who had cooperated to create a large banner, or carried signs obviously made together with similar materials and messages. This includes some groups from labor, specific universities, and of course the perennial Grim Leftist Marching Grudge, whom I hooted as I stood on the sidewalk. (My companion, a venerable Lefty, made a few snide comments too.)
So it would be tricky to generalize people's reasons for marching beyond the obvious shared decision to spend the day dissenting from government policy on Iraq. There were a lot of people and a lot of reasons for being there. My own? I love my country and fear my government, and felt that if I didn't go out and express my opinion, I didn't deserve my cherished right to vote.
52
posted on
02/16/2003 9:44:59 PM PST
by
smaturin
To: southernnorthcarolina
Iraqi Pro-Torture Rallies
To: Betty Jane
"I'm getting in touch with my inner Frenchman" has become military slang for "I want to surrender"
To: southernnorthcarolina
No question about. Every last protester is an anti-American SOB. And if any of you pricks are lurking on this thread....yeah, I'm talking directly to you.
55
posted on
02/16/2003 9:55:23 PM PST
by
Mr. Mojo
To: Steel Wolf
Excellent. I love it. I teach math to a group of sixth graders who are always saying, "I don't get it. I give up". I will now reply, "you don't want to grow up to be a Frenchman, do you?"
To: smaturin
So it would be tricky to generalize people's reasons for marching beyond the obvious shared decision to spend the day dissenting from government policy on Iraq. There were a lot of people and a lot of reasons for being there. My own? I love my country and fear my government, and felt that if I didn't go out and express my opinion, I didn't deserve my cherished right to vote. I would agree with you in that the vast majority of people who attend peace rallies are not hardcore stalinist thugs, Iraqi agents, or similiar radicals. Those people are there, of course, but they are not the majority.
Most of them are people who believe themselves to be moral, open minded, and compassionate. They are people who know that America has done wrong in the past, and are deeply skeptical of the government and its current reasons.
They are also people, who, by and large, are prone to emotional arguements, cynicism and oversimplification of the problems. I've yet to hear a liberal arguement against the war that can't be easily dismissed in a paragraph or two. Most of their arguemnts sound much more convincing than ours when reduced to soundbites, however. Liberalism, at its core, appeals to the heart, and not the head, so the imagery they invoke is more persuasive than logic.
I think that most liberals are good people who are blinded by their own ignorance and indoctrination. In their hearts, they feel they are right, and will shrug off most intellectual arguements with a 'well, you can't deny it's all about oil' or similiar one liner.
To: southernnorthcarolina
These "Peace" protests are really subversive socialist anti-semitic anti-capitalist demonstrations against the USA and Israel.
These are the same anti-American untermenschen that riot against "Globalization".
If they can get worked up over the "Group of Eight Summit", they must be frothing at the mouth at the thought the USA is going to make the world safe for capitalism.
These hypocritical creatures weren't out in the streets when the ragheads perpetrated a sneak attack in NYC and killed 3,000 Americans in cold blood.
They are intellectually and morally bankrupt and pathetic.
Thankfully they help the GOP in the polls everytime they take to the streets, and they'll find out what Americans really think about the war on Election day.
58
posted on
02/16/2003 10:12:03 PM PST
by
Rome2000
To: southernnorthcarolina
I prefer to use the term "anti-freedom" marchers. Try it, it drives the liberals batty! I love it!
59
posted on
02/16/2003 10:16:40 PM PST
by
Azzurri
To: weegee
Great one.
60
posted on
02/16/2003 10:16:49 PM PST
by
jwalburg
(Will renewed fears of nuclear winter cancel out global warming?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson