I'm a Liberal

Does anyone else find it highly ironic that the group once so adamantly for the civil rights of blacks and other minorities is now just as adamantly for Islam, a group that mistreats outsiders and inside women far worse than anyone has ever been mistreated on U.S. soil? The group of supporters I'm referring to is, of course, liberal. However, liberal has changed a lot.

Liberal used to mean someone for the human and civil rights of all individuals regardless of race, color, creed, etc. It used to mean that if you were liberal, you were for spreading freedom and democracy to parts of the world so desperately in need of it. Now, a liberal isn't about any of those things, unless he's "Old School" liberal, and in that way, I am.

You heard it here first, folks. Emily is a liberal, but not a modern one, a JFK style liberal. Spread that freedom as far as we can! "The Man" we're fighting now is an Islamic one, and far more dangerous than any Anglo man; but he's going down under my watch...I'm not about to stand for any more women being murdered for no reason, babies being blown up, citizens having their tongues cut out, girls being raped in front of their parents. It has to stop, and it's the "old school" liberals, aka "conservatives," who are really the only ones who recognize this threat. Therefore, we will go down in history as the ones who fought against the greatest evil of our time. Not Nazism, or Fascism, or Communism, but radical Islam.

Posted by Portia at December 30, 2004 04:00 PM

Just as you're opposed to those protesting for civil rights today, you would probably have been opposed to those protesting for civil rights in the 1950s. You are a conservative now, and you would likely have been a conservative in the past. What determines whether someone is a liberal or a conservative is not their opinions about the past, but their opinions about the present.

Posted by: Ziggy at January 2, 2005 02:19 PM

Ziggy, you obviously don't read my site well enough to understand my worldview. I have no idea where you could have gotten that I am "opposed to those protesting for civil rights today." I want Sudan out of the human rights commission of the U.N. because they still enslave and crucify Christians, black ones, at that. I am for the human and civil rights of all decent people in every country. That's an "old school" liberal ideology. I would have had it then; I have it now. Don't speak out of assumptions...you know what they say.

Your posts are really not worth responding to, except that I don't want people actually believing the dribble you put on my site. I'm happy to engage in constructive debate, but you've never done that. In the meantime, the only reason I'm responding is because of your blatant lies about me...which, unfortunately, need an answer.

Posted by: Emily at January 2, 2005 02:54 PM

Check out Littlegreenfootballs' posts on 1/1/05 and 1/2/05 both addressing the Islamification of Europe (Eurabia). One 'scholar' named Fregosi is encouraging European culture "to adapt to Islam".

Posted by: Dee at January 3, 2005 08:00 AM

One example of someone protesting for civil rights today to whom you are opposed is Michael Moore. He has criticized the disenfranchisement of blacks in Florida in the presidential election of 2000, the permanenent disenfranchisement of felons in 7 states, as well as the curtailments of civil liberties under the Patriot Act. You have made your intense opposition to him, both personal and political, very clear over many months.

You have also made many blanket statements criticizing liberals. Many liberals share Moore's concerns about civil rights. Many others are also concerned about the suspension of habeas corpus and use of torture for prisoners overseas, and favor the extension of equal rights to gay Americans.

The only assumption I am making is that when you criticize liberals, you are also criticizing these policy positions of theirs. Please go ahead and correct me, however, if I am mistaken in believing that you believe the vote in Florida in 2000 was fair, favor the disenfranchisement of felons, the Patriot Act, preventive detention at prison camps such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, Bush's policies on the use of coercion in interrogation, and laws against gay marriage.

Just as important as the content of a person's ideas is where they stand in relation to their times. If your relative position is on the conservative end today, it would probably have been on the conservative end then as well. In the 1950s, conservatives were extremely antagonistic to Martin Luther King and other radicals protesting segregation and disenfranchisement such as James Farmer, Bob Moses, and Medgar Evars. This is often forgotten in the embrace of King as a national hero. Even Kennedy was very slow to embrace the Civil Rights movement because he did not want to lose the South, which was at that time solidly Democratic. It wasn't until the Johnson administration that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act 1965 were enacted.

I do not think I have been making up arguments and attributing them to you. You, on the other hand, have been making up nonsensical arguments and attributing them to unnamed persons on the "left," for instance that Bush is to blame for the Tsunami.

I have been attempting to contribute to your web site in as constructive a way as possible. I have not engaged in any name-calling or personal insults. If you wish to improve the discussion, you might consider abjuring the same.

Posted by: Ziggy at January 3, 2005 03:39 PM


Disenfranchisement of felons? Since when did felons ever have voting rights? As far as Blacks being disenfranchized, those elections were gone over with a fine-tooth legal comb, and nothing, nada, zip, was proven with evidence (remember, here in the U.S. we need evidence to convict, not accusations); if there were one shred of real evidence, the media would have been all over this.

The Florida 2000 election is over; the votes were counted and Bush won. The recount was certified by none other than the New York Times. Get over it. (Another irony: In WA only after the THIRD recount did the democratic candidate for governor finally win...sound fishy? What about the obvious inequities like more votes than registered voters?)

Does it bother you at all that Sen. Robert Byrd used to head up the KKK? You keep bringing up the one anti-semitic remark Billy Graham made many years ago, but Byrd was burning crosses on people's lawns and possibly lynching Blacks. Doesn't bother you? (Do I have evidence he did that? No, only historical documents of cowardly men running around with pointy hoods on doing those very things.)

Yes, you have been making up arguments, in light of the fact that you never answered your own accusations. Until you can answer those questions I will assume you have no facts to back them up; i.e. WHO is forcing women to have babies and exactly which Muslim towns have we "flattened"?

Which of your rights have been curtailed by the Patriot Act?

Let's see: panties on the heads of prisoners vs. sawing off the heads of prisoners. Pictures of men standing in the nude vs. video of sawing off heads. Dog collars around necks vs. necks being sawed off. Mmm, were the actions of a few unfortunate and embarrassing? Yes. Was anyone's head sawed off? No.

Posted by: Dee at January 3, 2005 05:25 PM

Here's one of your problems, Ziggy. I just wrote about how the term liberal has changed. Meaning, now conservatives are what liberals used to be and visa versa. Under that logic, I would be a liberal in the 60's and 70's and You would be the conservative. You're clearly not following me here. I hope this is a bit more accurate.

Secondly, what equal rights are gays denied? They can vote just like straight people can. What rights are blacks denied? They can vote just like white people. Felons don't have rights. They forfeited theirs when they broke the law and most likely violated someone else's.

Third, I am NOT for the civil rights of terrorists or their accomplices. In that way, I absolutely am for their pre-emptive detainment.

Fourth, Michael Moore doesn't represent black people any more than Pat Buchanan represents Jews. Give me a break. He's exploiting them for his capitalistic gain. That man is about as sincere as Paris Hilton's concern for the environment. And exactly what rights have been violated under the Patriot Act? I don't see the FBI pounding down your door for some of your statements. We still live in a very free country, sir.

Fifth, Iraqi prisoners were not tortured, they were humiliated. Yes, it was a shameful moment, but they were not tortured. They've [the insurgents] brutally murdered (sawed heads off) American, Japanese and Italian innocent civilians, but somehow that's slipped off your radar screen of injustice. In addition, every soldier involved is being prosecuted.

Sixth, I said I was "waiting" for the left to blame Bush for the Tsunami. There were allegations he was responsible for the hurricanes in Florida, why not the SouthEastern Asian tsunami while we're at it? And, by the way, there was an article on Lucianne and Drudge about a group blaming Bush. I'm not attributing. I'm predicting and then proven right.

Finally, you misused abjure. Not the correct context.

Anything else I missed, I second Dee's comments.

Posted by: Emily at January 3, 2005 11:34 PM

Liberals in the 1960s were in favor of Head Start, Food Stamps, Welfare, Community Action, public housing, unions, and Keynesian economics. Are you?

Posted by: Ziggy at January 4, 2005 03:54 PM

I'll answer your questions after you answer mine.

Posted by: Dee at January 5, 2005 09:20 AM