Saturday, May 21, 2005

A Short Post

In my interactions with liberals they get touchy about some charges I make

1 They blame America First
Absolutely, rather then give the USA credit they join the overseas anti American chorus. This is why on a familiar liberal blog the statement that Abu Gharib is typical behavior. I immediately responded and let the dunce who said it get an earfull. The problem with the liberals is they tend to believe evey anti American chage. Sadam in his Underwear is linked to alleged abuse in Guantanamo.... No a corrupt gaurd sold some photos and I got a good laugh

2 They make Common cause with Communist and other far left seditious types.
Code Pink , International Answer , United for Peace and Justice are Communist led front groups. Democratic Political figures speak at their rallies and have connections to these groups. The Antiwar movement is Communist led and organized. The failure of liberals to denounce or distance themselves from seditious parties
discredits the liberals. The liberal response is we are not Communists. No but you made common cause and failed to distance yourself.

3 The left has a range of officialy sanctioned bigotries. Thus liberal blogs can parody Religious Christians , Catholics , Jews, Mormons, Hindus. Thus the Chemist and company can Pope bash for a week , no problem. They can portray Fundamentalists
Christians as mental defectives with no problem . The reality is they are pushing their liberal views on Christians and Jews. I certainly know what the Torah says on homosexuality. This does not mean I want to see them persecuted.
All human rights including Gay rights are in the Constitution. They origins and source of human rights is civil law not theology.

11 comments:

Jason_Pappas said...

I pointed out in another comment section how much respect the left still has for communism. The other day, the New York Sun was talking about some leftist who proudly said "so-and-so was accused of being a Communist" as if this was a badge of honor. The Sun noticed that the left no longer adds "falsely" before "accused". Interesting?

Have you noticed all the “Che” tee-shirts? There seems to be a romantic notion about the good-old-days when the left was in love with communism and still had hope for a worker’s paradise. Even when they admit it didn’t workout, they talk with the tone of a love that was lost.

My wife’s friend (a friend who works at the New York Times) loaned my wife a book about one woman’s reminisces of life in Cuba. Even admitting the failure – in those few cases when they can admit socialism's failure – they talk about how wonderful the hope was. My wife couldn’t stomach the book to finish it. I skimmed the book in disbelief (I have a stronger stomach.)

The left just can’t come to grips with the fall of the Berlin Wall … it’s gone, lefty, get over it!

B said...

Prize for me and my first post! First of all you know it is extremely dangerous, disingenuous, and wrong to make such a blanket statment of things like "my interaction with liberals." What kind of liberals, socially liberal, economically liberal, environmentally liberal? Being liberal is such a broad term it is virtually impossible to know what type of person you are talking about. Take your profile for example, you state that you are a "Rudy Republican." What this says to me is that you are narrowing the characterization of yourself from the broad category of just being a republican. If I were to make a comment about extremely conservative republicans and tried to paint all republians like that, well, that's just wrong. I think that is what you do when you make your blanket statements.

Now going on to the substance of your post

1) I am by no means a blame America first liberal, however, I do believe they serve a valuable function in balancing the "right" who refuse to see ANY faults of America's actions. Most Americans, I believe, are in the middle, they give credit where credit is due and take blame where blame is deserved. However, there are those on the right that think America is infallible just as there are those on the left who blame America for the world's problems. I think they do a good job of balancing each other out. Without those on the left, it may be impossible to learn what America is doing wrong because one thing I learned from this administration, they will never admit when they are wrong.

2) If the anti-war movement is communist led and organized, then who cares because it is a good movement. If communists stand for peace, love, and helping the poor, what's wrong with that. What you are saying is liberals are guilty by association with so called "communist groups." Well, aren't conservatives associated with just as bad of groups? Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, all these countries that, as Bush would say, hate freedom, harbor terrorists, have public beheadings, give women no rights, etc. Each side has their associations. I would not call a republican a terrorist for praising being allies with terrorist harboring countries.

3) There are double standards on what side can make fun of. I'll be the first to admit that those on the left have it easier with not being PC with minorities, but the right can bring up things like hitler comparisons, bash gays, and bash jews (Robertson, Falwell, Rush) and it's fine for them.

Again Beaks, I would be careful of using such a broad stroke on the term liberal and anything liberals have, conservatives have as well.

Sorry for the long post!

beakerkin said...

B

Thank you for posting and as you know I have alot of respect for real Liberals like yourself and Kafkaeque. There is a problem on the right with some to label all
dissent unpatriotic. This is not the case at all but the presentation of the dissent is the key.

1 Terrorism is a problem but being in Iraq is not a solution. Fine
2Bush lied kids died. Neocons and the Likud blew up the WTC. Not Fine

The problem is in part something that I noticed at the RNC protests
which were a five day temper tantrum. The press went to all the screaming voices. Thus the woman hollering at a Republican you killed my brother got camera time.
Her brother was swept out to sea on
an Aircraft Carrier and this is a sad fact of life in Peacetime ,my brother has served on them. They ignored conversations like the ones
we are having .

2 The problem with Communists leading the peace protests is broken down into elements as follows.

A The issue is Iraq and Afghanistan
and they clutter the message with extraneous points. Capitalism, Israel and Mumia are not the issues.

B They are heirs to a movement that
has killed 100,000,000 and has a lengthy history of subversion and espionage.

C They do not stand for Peace and helping the poor. In reality they are protest parasites and run from protest to protest attempting to coopt causes. The goal is to build
followers for their cause . Remember a broken clock is correct
twice a day.

D It hurts the cause of people like
yourself. People like myself are liberals but know the history of Communism and you push moderates away. Sadly, one is judged by the company keeps.

E Would you be as Charitable of an Immigration enforcement march organized by David Duke. I would not march and spend my time heckling the bigots. Communists killed more people then White Supremacy.

Moving ahead Saudi Arabia , Egypt
and Pakitan as conservative.

1 Saudi Arabia is a repressive monarchy that approaches theocracy.
They do not in any manner have anything to do with conservatives
or liberals.
2 Egypt, Lybia are kleptocracies
the goal is to perpetrate familial
power while aquiring wealth. This is a serious problem in the third
world . They also have more in common with organized crime then William F Buckley. Egypt is making moves in the right direction at a snails pace.

3 Pakistan is run by a classic strong man. This has zero to do with Conservatives here. However I
will take Musharaf over Castro and Mugabe.

On the last point you are correct in large part. I would love to live in a less hypersensitive attmosphere.

Never appologize for raising valid points. Your post was insightful and I may be guilty of using somewhat broad strokes.

beakerkin said...

Jason

Communism is a twisted form of secular Utopianism. Man used to try
to use religion to achieve paradise. The question is are we worse off with secular uptopians
Communists or religious ones Islamisicsts. Both versions of Utopia are deadly.

The Che shirts are a nostalgia that
is sad. The Black Book of Communism
details what happens every time it is applied. Rodesia was an evil
country but it was never near starvation that it is today.

Maybe the correct deliniation for liberals like B and Kafkaesq for us is utopianisn- totalitarianism.
Liberals believe in the democratic
system as we do. The problem is that liberals need to step away
from the utopians.

Toynbee was correct Marxism is a Faith. We are talking facts and marxists are dealing in faith.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

If "gay rights" are in the Constitution, so is my right to set leftists on fire. I was born a pyromaniac, you know.

beakerkin said...

Mr Beamish

That is funny but the source of all
human rights are in the Constitution. Gay deserve the same
protection under the law that anyone else does.

The problem is that they want special rights. I think that children should be taught respect
rather then technique. I was looking at Pams site and the way it is being taught to young children in Mass is disgusting. Third graders do not need to be taught about mutual masturbation.

Their preference is one I do not share. I also hope that a biological cause is never identified. That would lead to the probability of people aborting their kids based on orientation ,people already do it
on gender. I wonder what 167 would
say about aborting kids if a gay gene were found. I am prochoice but certain types of abortion are repugnant.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Gotta disagree with you fiercely here, Beakerkin. The Constitution is not the source of ANY human rights. It's a piece of paper outlining how our society shall be governed, and is a contractual agreement forbidding or limiting the power of the government to impose or intrude upon certain specific human rights. Human rights of themselves are pre-existent to government.

Think about it. How can a government violate human rights if the government is the source of them?

beakerkin said...

Mr Beamish

There are rights in Constitution
but apparently not anything that can be twisted into Gay Rights. I spent two hours checking.

The over point is that liberals should look to Civil law for Human
rights. Religious scriptures were
not meant to be PC.

The question of who is forcing whose views on whom is relevant. I
see a secular disrespect for religion . The whole argument over
this issue should be predicated on a cleavage between religious law
and civil law. Attacking religious peoples views is counter productive.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

It's only been 30 or so years since America's established psychiatric community stopped calling homosexuality a mental disorder in their professional journals, under political, not scientific pressure.

How many times do we have to see the drama queens and they ostentatious ego tripped political rants about how their deviant sexual hygiene should be celebrated for what they are, mentally disordered, and get them the medicine they need to cure themselves?

Source Code Rights said...

Hi beakerkin, As you are probably aware, there are so many junk filled blogs. As I was searching for Source Code Rights related information today, it was a nice break from the 'usual' to come across your blog. I am happy I searched for Source Code Rights related ideas today. Thanks.

FireSale said...

Hi beakerkin, As you are probably aware, there are so many junk filled blogs. As I was searching for FireSale related information today, it was a nice break from the 'usual' to come across your blog. I am happy I searched for ##LINK"" related ideas today. Thanks.