A place for me to pour out my rants without clogging the inboxes of my friends and family. Also a place to give info on myself and Mary, our family news and events.
…..the Donkey’s Slick Willie. One conservative’s rant.
Published on June 13, 2005 By Rightwinger In Politics
Disclaimer: this may not apply to you. If it does, you'll know it...if not...my apologies.


A few summers ago, when I was still working at a restaurant back home, a little boy came in, as he had every day that summer, to purchase his usual, a medium chocolate shake, double cheeseburger and large fries. He was a nice little kid from Florida, who, he’d once related to us as he awaited his order being filled, stayed one month at the beginning of every summer with his grandparents there in Weirton, WV. Since I’d discovered that he was from Florida, I had begun calling him "Little Mr. Sunshine", for obvious reasons, and he liked the nickname.
This particular day, however, our cook, "Mike", a young homosexual man I described in an article I wrote several months ago, heard me call him by that moniker, and approached me after "Mr. Sunshine" had left. With a wide, highly amused grin on his face, Mike informed me that "Mr. Sunshine" was the name that older homosexuals in the bars often used to refer to the "Twinks", or youngers.
Annoyed, I replied "so what" and went about my business. But you know, I never again called the kid by that name with the same carefree innocence that I had originally intended. Mike had ruined it for me somehow.
Homosexuals also ruin other innocent things…..rainbows, the very definition of the word "gay" and the color purple, for example. They’ve defiled these things for everyone. Couldn’t they have chosen some other symbols or terms for their particular group identities?
They’ve made the rainbow the "swastika" of their system of belief, and as such have changed the overall perception of that symbol, just as the Nazis did with the ancient hooked cross.
The rainbow used to mean "God will be with us no matter what", or something to that effect. Now it also means "I like to have sexual intercourse with people of my same gender", and you can’t see one anymore without thinking of that, too, no matter in what context you see it. It often seems they’ve somehow made it their specific goal to target anything of innocent idealism. Poor old Spongebob, for example. Scooby-Doo, I guess, is another.
They put their "preferences" out there for all to see, with gays prominently or at least periphally featured in movies and TV shows (it seems almost every show nowadays just has to have its obligatory gay or lesbian lurking somewhere, showing us that they're just "regular folks"), and we're being force-fed the acceptance as "normal" of something literally everyone knows to be....well, really weird at the very least. Like the saying goes: "Repeat the Lie long enough and loud enough, and people will believe it". This irritates me to no end.

In the last few decades, we’ve allowed the First Amendment to be severely perverted. While unfettered speech is indeed the most important of our rights as a free nation, we’ve been steadily and insidiously coerced to interpret it too liberally (no pun intended…eeer…well, okay, pun intended, I guess).
Pornography, for example, has poisoned us as a people. While it of course has been around, in various forms, forever, it was always, up until the last 30 years or so, kept under cover, so to speak. This was because of consideration for others and simple decency (and decency was something that didn’t used to have to be legislated, either…it was just something people unconsciously strove for, allowed and acknowledged, and also appreciated). Also, we all knew what ‘decency’ was and meant; there was no semantic speculation, as there is today. " What does ‘decency’ really mean?" and "Define ‘decency’ as it applies to me, personally…."
These days, as I’ve said before, porn is right out there, on the magazine shelves with Mad and Disney Magazines, TV Guide, Sports Illustrated and Good Housekeeping; over there by the pop cooler behind the comic book racks (and sometimes even on the same racks).
On the internet, the only thing keeping kids from accessing it, unless their computers have the appropriate software, is a disclaimer that tells them they have to be at least 18 to enter. "Oops….I’m only eleven…..I better not go in", right? Riiiiight. Hoooboy; that’s some barrier. Often the only thing dividing the porn section from the regular movies at the video store is an unlocked door at best or a curtain, sometimes of beads, at worst.
Pornography, while indeed protected under the First Amendment, is not something, I’m sure, that by and large, the framers of the Constitution intended to be so casually tolerated. Neither, I’m sure, would blatant, explicit sexual content and profanity in mainstream music, motion pictures and television. They were acknowledged as gentlemen; people who had more respect for others than that.
There is no more real call for self-censure or consideration for others. That, sadly, has all fallen by the wayside.

Abortion, while one thing I do support in some extreme cases, is now too often used simply as a method for birth control. "Whoops…the line changed color; time to make another appointment." This happens too often these days.
It used to be illegal for any purposes….this was wrong. There are cases where it should be allowed, such as rape and medical/physical complications that endanger the mother, but not to just simply get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.
There are too many of us couples out here who want kids, but for whatever reason can’t make it happen for ourselves, to just throw it away like spoiled milk. Complete and open choice degrades and disrespects the sanctity of life, makes it seem like just another commodity to be discarded or kept. For a group that claims compassion and respect for life as their sole purview, this is perhaps their most hypocritical point of issue.

The Nuclear Family used to be the standard by which all others were measured. The Nuclear Family consisted, ideally, of a mother and father and any number of offspring, which "orbited" around those two nuclei. In recent years, however, the Nuclear family has come under assault. Fathers, specifically, have come under attack, and have mostly been declared unnecessary and been discredited, in favor of the noble, all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful single mother. Just look at the liberal-dominated media if you want evidence of this.
Movie or Television fathers/husbands (and often men in general) are frequently cruel, thoughtless, distant, overbearing and unbending. Very often portrayed also as imbeciles, they are frequently immature, undisciplined and moderately selfish morons, utterly ruled by their passions and unable to make decisions or even function properly without the direction of the intelligent, sensible mother/wife. Granted, mothers are a powerful force in raising the family and managing the relationship and household, but two is always better than one, if both are strong and willing to work together for the good of all.
This is what we should be working toward, not the defamation of fatherhood and destruction of marriage and the family unit as a whole, as seems to be happening these days.
The stigma of divorce has also passed into history; if a marriage is unhappy, why bother to work hard at it? Just try to work out a reasonable settlement (most often favoring the female in all aspects, naturally), sign on the dotted line and go your separate ways.

Religion used to be one of the most important parts of our nation’s identity. America was a Christian country on the whole, and proudly acknowledged that fact, and we pretty much welcomed people of other faiths, even if we didn’t understand or personally accept those beliefs.
This lasted from the founding of our nation until approximately the early 1960s, when it was decided by a liberal-dominated Supreme Court that religion held no place in public life. Prayer, and God in general(mainly the Judeo-Christian God, as it has turned out), was all but completely kicked out of public schools and government-funded buildings or property. A liberal assault was then begun on the religious foundations of America, which continues to this day. It seems it is the goal of that assault to exclude God from all but the most peripheral of roles, and perhaps even then.
It is true, as some point out, that Thomas Jefferson, himself a "Christian", declared there to be an "insurmountable wall placed between church and state" (paraphrased).
Jefferson was one Founder among many others, however, and one with extremely liberal and secularist opinions at that. He personally rejected the Divinity of Christ, and wrote his own Bible in which he edited out the miracles of Jesus and even the Resurrection itself. Probably had a very short New Testament. Some Christian, huh?

Let’s legalize drugs; people are going to get them anyway, right? Legalize them like booze and tobacco products (as if those two things have done civilization any real good at all) and tax the hell out of them. Think of the money we could raise! And not to mention the drug-related violence we could end! What’s the problem?
The thought that hospital emergency rooms, trying desperately to save the lives of overdosing addicts, and of course rehab clinics, would be doing bang-up business doesn’t seem to occur. Likewise, the thought of things like dirty needles carelessly discarded like cigarette butts and cluttering the sidewalks and gutters doesn’t seem to present itself, either.
And would these people, now legally permitted to do their drugs, really stop their violence? If someone really needed a fix and blew what little there was of their paycheck (because they called off from work three or four out of five days last week) on crack, would they hesitate to bash in the skull of the old lady at the ATM?

These are just a few of the things liberalism supports, either directly or indirectly…gay rights, unlimited free speech (unlimited by anything, even our own consciences, unless that speech is not PC, of course), abortion, the defaming of the family unit, the legalization of drugs, and the complete exclusion of religion from any effective position in society. Unless, of course, you worship some god other than the one worshipped by Jews and Christians; then it’s pretty much anything goes. Want to talk about Islam or Buddhism in school? What’s stopping you? Discuss Wicca or Paganism in class? No problem. Vampirism? Go ahead, we won’t say anything.
Mention God or Jesus Christ in any real context, however, and you’ll likely find yourself in court. Is this fair? Of course not….but fair play isn’t in their agenda. They have minds to free and spirits to unleash.

The Liberal Left’s hedonistic war on our moral bedrock is ceaseless, and obviously has done us almost no good as a people. Back in the "old days", before liberal ideals became so dominant, people had more respect for each other and themselves; as a result, I think, we had a ‘classier’ society. Overall, we treated each other better back then.
For example, men who regularly treat women with a lot of respect
---opening the door for them, tipping their hat to them when meeting them, pulling out their chair at dinner---are seen as quaint and even odd. Throwbacks, because they still do these things. But know what? Women seem to find these ‘throwbacks’ desirable. They like their style.
I always take my hat off when I eat. I sometimes get odd looks from people in restaurants and from friends who joke about this habit, because it’s not common anymore. That’s a shame. We used to have respect. The liberal assault has eroded that respect.

Acknowledged, liberal ideals have added a few good things to our system; women’s right to vote, for example. Civil rights and increased systems of public welfare and access to health care also leap to mind.
Things such as misuse and abuse of Affirmative Action, and virulently race-and-gender-biased eligibility clauses and personal views, however, have perverted even those things.
It’s funny, too, how hypocritical some aspects of liberalism can be. Feminists, for example, who support women’s rights and empowerment and such, are also vehemently against such things as pornography, which they see as demeaning and degrading to women. "Down with men!" they often seen to cry. "Beware! They use things like pornography to chain us to traditional roles and to objectify us! Shame!"
The well-known fact that women do play an active role in the porn industry itself, and that the women starring in those movies and featured in those magazines are well-paid for expressing their sexual freedom and are shapers of their personal destinies---things wholeheartedly supported by the feminists---isn’t acknowledged.
To do this would be harmful to the feminist message, and they can’t have that.
It’s also hypocritical, in my mind, that they say nothing of the men in porn movies being objectified, though. They’re just as naked and just as….occupied, aren’t they? They’re being used by the pornographers for at least one of their ‘natural attributes’, too, right? I doubt they’d be there otherwise.
The only side arguing for both the men and women in the porn industry, if you come right down to it, is the Right. We tend to see porn as a bad thing for everyone, PERIOD. Shame on you sex-crazed lefties.

Disagree if you will, but the future of our society and nation is at stake. We conservatives alone, it seems, can clearly see that, and need to guard against further moral erosion and stand firm in our convictions, no matter how harsh and unfeeling it may make us seem.
The modern conflict between Right and Left has evolved a prominent moral aspect to the debate, after all; it is not just a political struggle any longer, as some might continue to characterize it.

Liberalism, while an important aspect of our system, has been taken to ridiculous extremes in recent times, and this perversion has, as a result, come to be a chronic disease in our society; a kind of cultural or societal cancer.
The only cure, sadly, is for those who seek to achieve this liberal agenda to realize the danger it poses, and their foolishness, and come back from the edge.
I increasingly fear that this will not happen, however, and that we as a society will continue to wallow ever deeper into a swamp of moral degradation and bewilderment. We will continue on this path, I fear, until our nation eventually goes the way of others in history which ultimately allowed themselves to fall into moral decay….and that was never a good thing.

Comments (Page 1)
6 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Jun 13, 2005
Rates an insightful from me.
on Jun 13, 2005
Excellent points, RW, and not much left for me to say other than "I agree."


Rates an insightful from me.


Thanks, guys. If these are going to be the only comments I get, at least they're nice ones.
on Jun 13, 2005
Good work,, hooooooooo haaaaaaaaaa hooooooooo haaaaaaaa {deep breathing} obviously rightwinger "I AM YOUR FATHER" hooooooooo haaaaaaaa ho haaaaaaa
on Jun 13, 2005
I agree with you on every point except drug legalization. Punish the crime, not the instrument of the crime. If someone commits a crime while "under the influence", their impaired condition should NOT be mitigating circumstances. Same goes with robbery at an ATM. Truthfully, are there a shortage of emergency room cases or domestic violence calls regarding alcohol? I can also walk down any street and see an abundance of discarded beer bottles in the same neighborhoods where we would (and, newsflash: DO) see discarded needles.

But our disagreement on the drug issue does not detract from this well written, well presented piece. Excellent work!
on Jun 13, 2005
Punish the crime, not the instrument of the crime. If someone commits a crime while "under the influence", their impaired condition should NOT be mitigating circumstances. Same goes with robbery at an ATM. Truthfully, are there a shortage of emergency room cases or domestic violence calls regarding alcohol? I can also walk down any street and see an abundance of discarded beer bottles in the same neighborhoods where we would (and, newsflash: DO) see discarded needles.


Kind of agreed, but which is worse, alcoholism or Crank, heroin and/or cocaine dependence? Kind of the same overall, you say?
We already have enough problems with addiction....we don't need to make them worse by making hardcore drugs freely available at the BP or Gumby's Cigarette World along with smokes and alocohol. In my opinion, at least. And think about the number of discarded needles you'd see if heroin was available behind the counter at the 7-11. The number would increase exponentially.


But our disagreement on the drug issue does not detract from this well written, well presented piece. Excellent work!


Thanks.
on Jun 13, 2005
Good work,, hooooooooo haaaaaaaaaa hooooooooo haaaaaaaa {deep breathing} obviously rightwinger "I AM YOUR FATHER" hooooooooo haaaaaaaa ho haaaaaaa


"NNNNnoooooooooooooooo!! It's not true!! It's not POSSIBLE!!!!! NNOOOO!!!"
on Jun 13, 2005
Kind of agreed, but which is worse, alcoholism or Crank, heroin and/or cocaine dependence? Kind of the same overall, you say?
We already have enough problems with addiction....we don't need to make them worse by making hardcore drugs freely available at the BP or Gumby's Cigarette World along with smokes and alocohol. In my opinion, at least. And think about the number of discarded needles you'd see if heroin was available behind the counter at the 7-11. The number would increase exponentially.


I don't personally advocate for heroin to be made available over the counter, so to speak. Even as we discuss drug legalization, you and I are again in agreement that we need to protect our children from this access, and any legalization should be highly regulated, at least at the outset.

That being said, I have a problem with the fact that marijuana is tied with these hard drugs in the minds of so many. In fact, our DARE(thank goodness THAT program's gone!) students were propagandized to believe that marijuana was the MOST DANGEROUS drug, based on spurious claims as to its being a "gateway drug".

Legalization of certain drugs will also bring with it the possibility of curtailing the production of "designer" drugs, such as meth, that can be made from readily obtainable OTC products. These designer drugs have a high addiction rate, along with a high risk of fatality due to inconsistency in production. Drug legalization isn't a "left/right" issue; I can find many who otherwise fit the bill of conservatives who are hard core legalization advocates, as well as many among the left who push for our current system. The fact that drugs weren't legalized under Clinton should support that.
on Jun 13, 2005
I've come across many from the Left who would love to see any and all drugs made freely available. This is why I mentioned it in my article; it follows that there would be some dissention to that point, however, and here you are. What would be the point of legalizing say, cocaine or heroin, if we were just going to have to go through the process of regulating its distribution, too? Meth production is taking a hard hit from state laws now that strictly reduce the number of boxes of cold pills one can buy in a month's time. Indiana limits people to 3, and when you purchase them, your name goes into a dtabase that keeps track of any more you buy or try to buy. After all, how many people are going to buy more than one or two packs of cold tablets a year, unless they're using them for illegal purposes?
I see pot as the least of the drugs. The only thing I worry about is what fillers are used to stretch the pot. Mostly oregano, from what I've heard, but who knows? If it were mass-produced and sold legally, it could be regulated. No worse than alcohol, really.
on Jun 13, 2005
Well, your article wouldn't have had its desired effect unless someone steps forward to disagree, so I might as well be the first. Not that its all bad: there's a lot wrong with this sorry world and I appreciate that you have a vision of how it might be fixed and a regret for older values that seem to have been lost. However, for me the problem with the 'conservatism' I find presented on JU is that it relies too much on sticking the boot into someone, somewhere: gays, single mothers, whoever. For me, there's a nastiness about this that sits uneasily with the espousal of 'Christian' values.

Of course, just as I eventually realised that the 'liberals' you attack are (in my European terms) actually Radical leftists, so the penny has finally dropped and I now see that 'conservative' is also a JU code word for Radical rightist. I just have this strong feeling of 'a plague on both your houses'

Because you have to ask this simple moral question: "If the world you dream of can only come about/be restored by being really nasty and hateful to someone, somewhere, is it really a world worth having?"

Living in Asia I daily come into contact (and have come to greatly respect) centuries old conservative values, which have little to do with your right-wing radicalism. Social harmony, civility, concern for the feelings of others, eschewing of extremes, these have all passed the test of time. For example, here in Korea homosexuality (your bete noir) is not tolerated as it is in the west, but neither is it hated so much.

You feel your world is under attack and it makes you mad. I understand that. But I prefer to see these issues as essentially moral rather than 'political'. You make that claim too, so there's a starting point for an honest dialogue.
on Jun 13, 2005
This is why I mentioned it in my article; it follows that there would be some dissention to that point, however, and here you are.


LOL, yeah, but in my defense, not many accuse me of being "liberal".

I hope you don't take my exception the wrong way. I see it as a highly debatable issue, and only took exception to applying it too hard and fast to "liberalism" (that's a stench that, as a legalization advocate, I DON'T need...I'm sure you understand that...lol)
on Jun 13, 2005
Of course, just as I eventually realised that the 'liberals' you attack are (in my European terms) actually Radical leftists, so the penny has finally dropped and I now see that 'conservative' is also a JU code word for Radical rightist. I just have this strong feeling of 'a plague on both your houses'


Couldn't have said it better myself.

Yes, liberal and conservative do have different meanings here with regard to political ideologies. While I consider myself to be somewhat conservative, it's more the way the word is meant in your part of the world. I hold "old fashioned" ideas like honor, self-reliance, morality, and principle in high regard. This has far less to do with political ideals than in personal charactor.

I can see how this would be confusing to someone from another country, especially in the Asian countries, where these words are taken in their original meanings.
on Jun 13, 2005
Social harmony, civility, concern for the feelings of others, eschewing of extremes,


I thank you for posting an opposing view, and for taking off your track and field cleats before jumping on me.

One of my laments is the leeching away of exactly the things you mention above...people in America used to truly care about others and treat each other with civility and respect. That has dropped off considerably since the US's liberal revolution in the 1960s, when, ironically, such things were declared almost sacred. The loosening of morals, however, that began back then, has taken an across-the-board toll on the moral code. Respect has taken a substantial hit, and resepect for public and even personal property, as well, has fallen quite a bit.

gays, single mothers, whoever


You'd have to understand that the liberal Left in America has degraded traditionalist ideals for their newer, less moralistic views. Gays are touted as "just like anyone else"...this is false. They are not like anyone else. The right and wrong of what they do is open to opinion,of course, but it is, as I said, seen by all as "really weird, at the very least". I see what they do as immoral. That's me. You may not. That's you. All I can say, however, is that the constant shoving of the "normality of gays" down our collective throats by the sympathetic media is annoying and overbearing. They need to go back in the closet where they used to be.
As to single mothers, they are being touted by some on the Left as preferable to a two-parent family. Fathers are no longer needed, it seems. This is patently wrong and just idiotic, of course.

Because you have to ask this simple moral question: "If the world you dream of can only come about/be restored by being really nasty and hateful to someone, somewhere, is it really a world worth having?"


I don't want people to be nasty and disrespectful; I want them all to get along and treat eachother with the kind of consideration for others we had in the days before the 60s were inflicted on us.

Thanks again for posting.

LOL, yeah, but in my defense, not many accuse me of being "liberal".

I hope you don't take my exception the wrong way. I see it as a highly debatable issue, and only took exception to applying it too hard and fast to "liberalism" (that's a stench that, as a legalization advocate, I DON'T need...I'm sure you understand that...lol)


I'd never qualify you as a lib, Gid, and understand completely.
on Jun 13, 2005
It's interesting that you used red letters, your "holiness."

When porn was kept undercover, zoning laws kept it in the seamier, dirtier areas of the community. The cleaner the area, the cleaner the stores. You sound like Marvin Cooley on this issue.

Do you really think there were any actual families in the fifties that were like Ozzie and Harriet?

Imbecilic fathers on TV are caricatures. Get a sense of humor.

Unless, of course, you worship some god other than the one worshipped by Jews and Christians


What other God?

Excellent points, RW, and not much left for me to say other than "I agree."


Is this what Simon would say? It seems to me he's for the breakdown of morals.

And no, Satan wouldn't smoke menthol. He'd smoke a judicious mixture of premium-cut Turkish tobaccos along with the finest Lebanese Black hashish, bought with the proceeds of prostituting Red-haired Christian girls.

And more power to him.
on Jun 13, 2005
When porn was kept undercover, zoning laws kept it in the seamier, dirtier areas of the community.


Where it belonged. What's wrong with this, exactly? Made it hard for you to get out there and buy it, huh? Added a little embarassment? I see how you are.....

Do you really think there were any actual families in the fifties that were like Ozzie and Harriet?


Of course not, you angry leftie...but you have to admit that people had more respect for each other back then than they do now, and that's because of the libs attack on our moral code....case in point right here, Chagkoka, if you're wondering....

Imbecilic fathers on TV are caricatures. Get a sense of humor.


I have a sense of humor....I get to use it every time I read your posts or articles.
The fathers on TV, despite their broad strokes, are popular images that reflect the attitudes of the people who write the shows and create the characters.
Mothers (women in general) are portrayed as intelligent, warm, sensible nurturers...fathers (men in general) are selfish doofuses who can barely tie their shoes. This is another case of yelling the Lie loud and long enough....MEN ARE STUPID AND SELFISH!!! WOMEN ARE INTELLIGENT AND CARING!!!! Propaganda comes in many forms, Icon....problem is, it's working.

What other God?


Not even gonna worry about this.....
on Jun 13, 2005
Oh, and I apologize for the red letters...it was an accident.
6 Pages1 2 3  Last