Comments on: The progressive movement’s abandonment of human rights, Part 45.

By: Hammer2008

Hammer2008 — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 13:15:21 +0000

Seriously, email me.

I’ve been plugged into One since about it’s inception, being that Amnesty International went off the deep end around the time Bubba Clinton was getting deep throated.

By: Menlo

Menlo — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 02:32:50 +0000

If these people gave one fig about human rights, they would be working to protect the most egregious violations of the rights of the most vulnerable humans. Instead they call the violations themselves “human rights.” A human right to hack off heads, dismember, and stab and burn babies’ bodies to death. They care more about animal rights.

In reality, it’s little more than a power grab. Most so-called “human rights” activists want control, and they want to rule the world.

By: red4ever

red4ever — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 02:31:57 +0000

They believe they can talk to the human rights abusers if they just “understand” the abusers point of view. They do not understand that the world needs policeman to enforce the law. Someone breaks it, you don’t just “talk” to them. You go in and remove them from the ability to continue to break the law.

By: Dencal26

Dencal26 — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 01:22:03 +0000

The left always supported Human Rights, Verbally that is. When tough action is required to support human rights they cower in the corner. What did Carter do when Pol Pot massacred 1.7 Million people? What did Clinton do when 1 Million in Rwanda was hacked to death? Is Jimmy Carter concerned about Cubans who risk their lives on floating 57 Chevies in order to get to Florida? Were the Dems ever concerned about Saddams rape rooms?

By: red4ever

red4ever — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:39:30 +0000

human rights organization (trying to incorporate, file the IRS paperwork, etc.). It is founded on the principle of the people are responsible for promoting and protecting human rights, not governments. This is movement among some progressives is why.

Freedom of speech, means freedom of speech for everyone — even the people you don’t agree with. Freedom of religion means all religions — even Christianity. Right to vote in elections and choose ones representatives means everyone gets to vote in a real election, not just a sham of an election to keep a dictator in power. Most importantly, Provision 30 of the UDR says you don’t get to act in a way that destroys these rights for others. Because everyday, in the guise of “political correctness” or even “multiculturalism” these rights are being trampled by certain groups.

Of course, if some group does speak out against freedom for all, you can speak out against it. Tolerance does not equal shutting up when you see wrong.

I don’t want to post the link here, but you contact me through my profile for it.

By: djemi

djemi — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:37:16 +0000

It has been my experence in this country, granted I’ve only been here seven years, that Liberals are only interested in one kind of freedom, there own freedom, not freedom itself. I have also noticed that when you are winning the arguement with them they just get louder and louder, maybe that’s just the gruop I have to put up with.
Have to admit that I believe Rush Limbaugh made the same ‘Ugly’ piont the other day.

By: SunDogII

SunDogII — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:55:42 +0000

To be successful, “progressives” must have control. Therefore it is only natural that they would envy those who have absolute control.