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 2)
6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Jun 13, 2005
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.


Really?

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.
on Jun 13, 2005
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.....


No, it's more embarrasing to go to the better areas. In the worse areas, everyone is a pervert.
on Jun 13, 2005
Really?


Yes, really...and only a rage-filled leftie like you would see anything wrong with that assessment. It's your beliefs that have made our society the dismal moral mess it is today, so it follows that you can't see the many things that are wrong with it and the fact that they stem from your attitudes.
on Jun 13, 2005
No, it's more embarrasing to go to the better areas. In the worse areas, everyone is a pervert.


Touche
on Jun 13, 2005
I sure am glad I didn't read much past the first paragraph. It was gays that went after Spongebob? Hmm...I could've sworn it was radical religious rightwing zealots who were claiming Spongebob was gay. You blame a gay man for ruining your perceived innocence just because you were ignorant of a particular homosexually related nickname....get over it. I mean come on! If I heard one of my buddies say something like "I sure wish I had a hummer right now," as that monstrosity of an automobile drove by us I'd probably laugh my ass off because he was obviously unaware of the reference to oral sex. Wouldn't you think he would want to know the other meaning to avoid further emberassment?

It's not liberalism that sucks, it's not conservatives that sucks, it's really just the people that claim they speak for all of one or other, or criticize all of one or the other that............well, suck.

Have a good day Mr. Sunshine,
Love Suspeckted
on Jun 13, 2005
I sure am glad I didn't read much past the first paragraph.


As I Suspekted from this post.....didn't like what you saw, so you just stopped, huh? That's okay...you wouldn't have gotten it, anyway.

You blame a gay man for ruining your perceived innocence just because you were ignorant of a particular homosexually related nickname....get over it.


He knew why I was calling the kid by that name, and he didn't have to apply it to that situation....the only reason he did it was to be an ass, that's all.

Wouldn't you think he would want to know the other meaning to avoid further emberassment?


It's only an embarassment if you know the meaning of the double-entendre; if you'd let it go and take the context as it stands, as any mature person would....see above.

It's not liberalism that sucks,


Yes it is.
on Jun 13, 2005
You'd have to understand that the liberal Left in America has degraded traditionalist ideals for their newer, less moralistic views


Funnily enough, I couldn't have put it better myself, because I make a firm distinction between 'moralistic' views and 'moral' views. To define our terms (courtesy of Dictionary.com):
Moral - Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character; Moralistic - Marked by a narrow-minded morality.

I see what they do as immoral... They need to go back in the closet where they used to be.

This, for me, is a good example of 'moralistic',

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

And this, for me, is an example of 'moral'. But that's because I have strong feelings about what is and isn't moral, which are probably different to yours. For me, a soft and fuzzy liberal (in the original meaning of the word), kindness, tolerance, honesty, straight forwardness, generosity, self-giving constitute the essence of morality. Especially kindness - it can never be over-rated.

What I have never understood is the view that puts sex centre stage in any discussion of morality. For me, that's an unhealthy obsession whether from a permissive or puritanical viewpoint. Sex is a powerful human energy, and we can use it for great good or great harm, but it's not the be all and end all of human life (although it is the beginning)

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with us.
on Jun 13, 2005
you angry leftie


And you're not angry that things aren't turning out the way you think they should?

If lefties are angry about anything, it's that things aren't turning out the way we think they should either. We don't think there should be so much greed in the world.

Peace and Love.

Make love not war.
on Jun 13, 2005
Moral - Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character; Moralistic - Marked by a narrow-minded morality.


Thank you!

I see what they do as immoral... They need to go back in the closet where they used to be.

This, for me, is a good example of 'moralistic',


Thank you again.
on Jun 13, 2005
What gay men do together is unpleasant to me too, but it doesn't directly affect my life and I'm pretty sure it doesn't directly affect yours either. Besides, the more gay men there are, the more women for the rest of us.
on Jun 13, 2005
If lefties are angry about anything, it's that things aren't turning out the way we think they should either.


Understood, but we're not the ones who are undermining the moral base of this country with our ideals, you are. This does far more harm over the long haul than any politcal policy or decision.

We don't think there should be so much greed in the world.


Tell it to John Billionaire Kerry.

Peace and Love.

Make love not war.


I'll second that emotion.
on Jun 13, 2005
What gay men do together is unpleasant to me too, but it doesn't directly affect my life and I'm pretty sure it doesn't directly affect yours either. Besides, the more gay men there are, the more women for the rest of us


What did didn't affect me until he started telling me all about his "lifestyle" and pushing his ideals on me and trying to change my mind. Then I got tired of him rather quickly.

The second point is kind of moot, but I'll agree with it.
on Jun 13, 2005
For more on my problems with "Mike": https://forums.joeuser.com/Forums.aspx?ForumID=17&AID=36850&cmd=myposts#463954

and: https://forums.joeuser.com/Forums.aspx?ForumID=17&AID=58048&cmd=myposts

Please remember that these were rather early articles of mine here on JU, and I was still in my "angry" phase. I'm done with them, and only add these links to give more insight.
on Jun 13, 2005
I'll second that emotion.


It's good to see you're agreeing with sentiments that the sixties flower children espoused.

And remember this: Rock and Roll started in '55.
on Jun 13, 2005
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?


I don't really see why this is a problem. So a rainbow means one things to gays and another thing to Christians...so what? Many symbols have different meanings depending on the context they're found in.

If you want to view the rainbow as a symbol of God's covenant, then do it.

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.


I really don't see the problem here, either. Homosexuality is not something new. The truth is, there are gays prominently and peripherally featured in life. It's just a reflection of life.

Guess what? There are many things on TV and the movies that I don't care for. I don't like the way Fear Factor takes these cookie-cutter, "ideal" women and puts them in bikinis and has them compete by doing disgusting and degrading things.

So I don't watch Fear Factor. Problem solved.

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…."


You complain about the prevalence of pornography, but as a supporter of capitalism, do you not realize that it is just a market demand that is being met?

I agree that pornography can be (note I said can be, not always is) a damaging influence and/or habit. I don't like the way our society has become sex-obsessed, but I believe it comes down to personal choice and personal values.

"Whoops…the line changed color; time to make another appointment." This happens too often these days.


I agree that abortion is not a desirable birth control option, but I'd be curious to read some numbers on how often it truly is used as a form of birth control compared to how often it is used for cases that are considered "acceptable."

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.


I won't disagree that the entertainment world's portrayal of men, particularly fathers, is often negative and degrading. However, women are subjected to similar false and negative stereo-types.

The husband is a fat, jolly oaf who acts like a child. The wife is a thin, young, "hot" woman who is neurotic and controlling but keeps the perfect house, keeps the sex life steamy, bakes cookies for the PTA, and has a truly beautiful belly button. Men are expected to goof things up and let their bodies go (yet they're still considered sexually attractive to their spouses) while women are expected to be a Stepford Wife.

Examples: Still Standing, George Lopez, King of Queens...even cartoons like The Simpsons and Family Guy.

The best way to combat this: Be the change you want to see. Raise a wholesome nuclear family. Be the competent and respectable father. (And the same goes for women)

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.


The thing that you have to realize is that society is us. It's you and me. Divorce rates are high because we commit to something before we realize what we're getting into. We are selfish and lazy and expect infatuation to last forever. When things are hard or the grass looks greener elsewhere, we give up.

Again, we must be the change we want to see in our society. By working hard at maintaining a healthy marriage, and instilling those same values in our children, we help perpetuate the good that we wish to see in society.

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.


We live in a nation that affords religious freedom to all. We are allowed to worship and believe as we wish but must respect the rights of others to believe and worship differently (or not at all).

The separation of church and state is a protection (for all religions and for those of non-belief), not a limiting factor.

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?


I think this comes down to personal freedom. We have laws designed to protect others from harm and then we have "good for us" laws designed to protect us from ourselves.

Most people would agree that alcohol has damaged many lives and been a factor in many deaths. And yet it's legal. And in fact, we've seen that making it illegal simply does not work.

Most people would agree that cigarettes have been a factor in many illnesses and deaths (prolonged respiratory illnesses, low fetal birth weight or growth restriction, emphysema, lung cancer). And yet it's legal.

Most people would agree that prescription narcotics have damaged many lives. And yet, they are legal.

Many potentially harmful things are legal. How do you determine which harmful things are OK and which aren't? At what point do you allow individuals the personal freedom to choose whether or not to engage in activities that might be harmful to themselves or even to others if improperly used?

The Liberal Left’s hedonistic war on our moral bedrock is ceaseless, and obviously has done us almost no good as a people.


While for some liberals it may be just a promotion of a hedonistic culture, I personally believe that our society should be full of freedom and choices. This is what so many men and women have died for...yours and mine and my children's and Tom Cruise's and Linda Lingle's freedom to craft the life that each of us finds ppealing and satisfying.

This concept is actually a reflection of Christianity, where everyone has free will and the ability to shape his or her own life and reap the rewards and/or consequences of such choices.

Instead of advocating an ideal or norm that we'd like others to adhere to, I believe we should be an example of the life and choices that we feel are admirable and good.

Again, be the change you want to see.
6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last