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 3)
6 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Jun 13, 2005
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'd say no, in reference to the question,...as for being nasty,i don't think he was nasty...that i saw

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


--I was raised by a single mother,as my father left when i was less than a week old...so i somewhat disagree,i do feel that a father and mother,whether together or seperate, is needed for a child.

Besides, the more gay men there are, the more women for the rest of us.


LMAO I doubt that...

(Oh, BTW,we (Jasmine and I) got to Tuscon fairly faster than thought,as we left early(friday) and flew down...she is startinng her job next week and our stuff is in a moving van,on its way [CFO of a mid-sized company here in tuscon...] BTW We have a date for our wedding...June 25th...



on Jun 13, 2005
we must be the change we want to see


Truer words were never spoken.
on Jun 13, 2005
Very good, Tex.
on Jun 13, 2005
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…."


Because things are not black and white, as you wish they were. It would make your life a lot easier, but sorry, deny it all you want, but people are more complex than that.

You are a stereotype. The stereotypical Conservative who just can't (or won't) understand that people change. The world changes. It's called evolution.
on Jun 13, 2005
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




Fact is, all of the things you seem to despise about today's society where just as prevelant in the Leave it to Beaver society of the '50's, except maybe it wasn't so on TV. Seems that you, RW, prefer the ignorance of an era that was very repressive, very Victorian in it's repressiveness, and totally one-sided in its view on life.

Well, we have grown up, as a society. We're not sweeping gays into the closets anymore. We're not keeping people of color out of white neighborhoods anymore. We're not pretending that abortions don't exist and women are not dying from back alley procedures. We're not living with our collective heads up our collective asses anymore, and we are being exposed to all facets of life's little dramas, peoples, experiences, lifestyles, wars, etc. and it's not because of liberals. That's nuts.

Maybe, just maybe it's because of the fact that we now live in a global society, wherein the internet won't allow us white bread americans to live in these sequestered little ticky tacky dream world Leave it to Beaver neighborhoods anymore. Information is the wave of the future, and you just cannot shove it back into a box and stick it into a closet, close the door and pretend it doesn't exist. Not anymore. Those days are over. And, it's not liberals.



IT'S CONSERVATIVES.
Bwahahahahahahahhahhhhhhaaaaaaaa
on Jun 13, 2005
Rightwinger, when I read your piece, I was reminded of the graduation speech given by Charleton Heston at one of the big Ivy League schools a few years ago. He spoke about how he was being vilified by the liberal press for being the president of the NRA, and outspoken about his conservative opinions on gay rights. He reminded everyone that he was active in the civil rights movement in the late 60's and early 70's, and that being an actor, had been working with homosexuals in hollywood long before they were main-stream popular. He maintained that there was a difference between respect and tolerance, and actual promotion of concepts that he felt were inappropriate.

If I was better at this JU thing, I'd try and provide a link, but till I figure it out, I'll just say that I was impressed by his speech, and by your article. It's a compliment on my part; I feel that with your attitude, you are keeping good company. I wish I could have written as well the things you've said here.
on Jun 13, 2005
sucks?

sucks what?

sounds like your former co-worker aint the only one familiar with what may well be bi- or homosexual "insider" terminology for non-vaginal-intercourse sex. and you're advocating it be done with an animal no less.
on Jun 13, 2005
Personally, you sound homophobic to me...
on Jun 14, 2005
Personally, you sound homophobic to me...


I hate how people automatically judge those who speak out against the homosexual lifestyle as "homophobes". "Phobia" means "an irrational fear of". There is no irrational fear among ANY who oppose the homosexual agenda; just a public expression of one's beliefs and values. Homosexuals have the right to state THEIR view, the opposition should have equal right to state their own without fear of jingoistic liberal labels.
on Jun 14, 2005
jingoistic


I got spurs that jingo, jingo, nistic, as I go strolling merrily alongggggggg.........
on Jun 14, 2005
We're not keeping people of color out of white neighborhoods anymore.


Guess you have not listened to the left lately. They are still trying. not suceeding, but trying. That's liberals for you.
on Jun 14, 2005
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.
---Tex W

Tex, I take exception to this out of everything you wrote because of simple aesthetics. Which would you rather be portrayed as? A slovenly, immature, selfish and undisciplined idiot or an intelligent, "hot" young woman who manages quite well despite the retarded screwups of the Village Moron you're married to? Who always gets the better end of the deal here?

As to everything else you've said, thank you for your comments, but I didn't really expect to get any converts. I wrote this because I fear the erosion of morals in our culture is leading us as a nation down the wrong path. You're of course free to disagree.


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.
--Tex W

I added the whole thing about homosexuals mainly because their attempts to force us to accept their lifestyle irritates me. I don't like Fear Factor, either, so I don't watcn it myself. It's idiotic, and I wouldn't eat any of that stuff for any amount, especially so small an amount as fifty grand.


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.


This might work if people who've been married for decades didn't get divorced, too. It's been made too easy, too acceptable. I agree that we need a change in our society; we need to re-learn how to commit, like we did back before the"freeing" attitudes of the 60s changed us as a culture.

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.



This is a cop-out. Just because people want something doesn't mean they absolutley need to be able to get it; otherwise, the live murder-as-entertainment of slaves in the Coliseum would still be going on. Hmmmm...Rome...another culture that collapsed under its own lack of morals. Yes, I am a supportert of capitalism, but capitalism by its very nature provides many things we don't need and that harm us.



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.


People used to adhere to this norm, however, at least on the surface. I know perfectly well there's always been immoral behavior, but it didn't used to be so prevalent and accepted. That's what made this society a better place in the past.

--I was raised by a single mother,as my father left when i was less than a week old...so i somewhat disagree,i do feel that a father and mother,whether together or seperate, is needed for a child.
---Lucas Bailey

That being the case, you probably were better off without your father, but wouldn't it have been better if you'd HAD two parents?

1.4 million times per year in America alone, and I'm not sure what you mean by acceptable but that's an awful lot of human flesh. I posted some stats on my thread about accidental pregnancy, and the largest reason cited was simply, "did not want more children." The second largest reason was "have not finished professional training." Next was "cant afford."

You get the point. The numbers aborted to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape is infinitesimal compared to the overall number.
--LW

Thanks, LW.

Because things are not black and white, as you wish they were. It would make your life a lot easier, but sorry, deny it all you want, but people are more complex than that.

You are a stereotype. The stereotypical Conservative who just can't (or won't) understand that people change. The world changes. It's called evolution.



My, but you are a grumpy one, aren't you, Icon?
See, I know very well that things aren't black and white, that people are complex, and that things change. My point is that some changes are not for the better; some changes casn actually harm us as a people. And they have. As I said in a reply above somewhere, you just can't see it because their your changes. I may be a stereotype, but at least I'm a stereotypoe that stands for something rather than letting society rot away.


Zinkadoodle, I kind of answered everything you said here in replies above, except that I want to point out that I made no racist comments at all; nothing whatsoever about keeping blacks anywhere; you slid that in in an attempt to take a shot at me. Nice try, and extremely stereotypical, right, Icon?


Rightwinger, when I read your piece, I was reminded of the graduation speech given by Charleton Heston at one of the big Ivy League schools a few years ago. He spoke about how he was being vilified by the liberal press for being the president of the NRA, and outspoken about his conservative opinions on gay rights. He reminded everyone that he was active in the civil rights movement in the late 60's and early 70's, and that being an actor, had been working with homosexuals in hollywood long before they were main-stream popular. He maintained that there was a difference between respect and tolerance, and actual promotion of concepts that he felt were inappropriate.

If I was better at this JU thing, I'd try and provide a link, but till I figure it out, I'll just say that I was impressed by his speech, and by your article. It's a compliment on my part; I feel that with your attitude, you are keeping good company. I wish I could have written as well the things you've said here.


Thanks, H-W, your comments are much appreciated.

Personally, you sound homophobic to me...


I would, to you.....




I hate how people automatically judge those who speak out against the homosexual lifestyle as "homophobes". "Phobia" means "an irrational fear of". There is no irrational fear among ANY who oppose the homosexual agenda; just a public expression of one's beliefs and values. Homosexuals have the right to state THEIR view, the opposition should have equal right to state their own without fear of jingoistic liberal labels.


Thanks, Gid.
on Jun 14, 2005
I got spurs that jingo, jingo, nistic, as I go strolling merrily alongggggggg.........




Guess you have not listened to the left lately. They are still trying. not suceeding, but trying. That's liberals for you.


Good point, DrG
on Jun 14, 2005
Ok, I'll try to address as much of the original post as I can.

1. Corruption of Symbols and Phrases (Rainbow, Mr. Sunshine)
Symbols take on many different meanings to many different people. It's all based on your perspective and a bit of history. The cross is an example of a symbol that has transformed over human history and come to represent many different things. Before the days of Christ it represented the most inhumane form of execution. To the Muslim world of the Middle Ages, it was a sign of aggression, of hate and anger. To blacks in the south it could easly transform into a symbol of hate if set on fire. To some today, it represents an attempt to force beliefs. The other side of the coin is what it represents to those who weild the symbol. The Romans saw it as justice, Crusaders saw it as a holy banner, and White supremecist groups saw it as a symbolic last stand against what they thought was a degredation of society.

I would not blame homosexuals for "stealing" the rainbow symbol. Or the color purple. It means different things to different people... and most of all, those meanings transform.

That said, "Mike" is just a flat-out jerk. He is an example of the wrong sort of activist, one who isn't interested in educating so much as indoctrinating. However I still take issue with your attitude that they are somehow less than the rest of us, that they shouldn't be allowed to display who they are, that they should be hidden away from public view. They live, they breathe, they pay taxes and are just as valuble to society as you or I. Unless they're somehow infringing on your rights to life, liberty or the persuit of happiness (and no, seeing something you disagree with is not infringing on your right to happiness) you can't do the same to them.

2. Pornography and The Freedom of Speech
You say this freedom is being perverted, that it couldn't possibly be being used for what was intended. Well, the wording of it doesn't go on about intent, so all we have to go with is what it says...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's what the amendment says. See anything indicating provisions for what is decent, or acceptable, or anything of the sort? Nope. The framers of the Constitution were very careful in writing this document. They knew the dangers of an oppressive government and how if they weren't careful in defining the base rules, that it could be abused. Speech, art, expression is different to all people, no one holds an absolute "correct" take on it. The government recognizes this through the first amendment and simply states that they can not pass laws that would attempt to limit speech (or religion, or the press, or assembly). There have been a great number of perversions of law that have simply ignored this very simple fact... the ACLU fighting against censorship or limiting of the First Amendment, is not even close to a perversion. If anything it's a last ditch attempt to keep it alive.

You don't like Porn, that's fine. That is your right to not purchase any, or watch movies or television shows that have it present. It is your right to avoid any such items that offend you or rub raw against your moral values. Your right does NOT however extend to being able to dictate to others whether or not they should have access to it, or how they should have access to it. If you don't want your kids accessing it, it is *YOUR* responsibility to keep it out of their hands. It is not the job of the government, or a service provider to filter Internet sites from your kids. It's your responsibility to keep an eye on what they're doing with your computer or Internet connection.

Face it, the wording of the first amendment is incredibly broad and liberal so as not to be twisted to start excluding certain forms. It is an INCLUSIVE statement/law. I'm always amused when extremists on either side try to use the First Amendment because they use it to defend their right to speech/religion/assembly but at the same time try and say it doesn't apply to their opposition.

3. Abortion
Ok, I don't really disagree with you here. But I do have a hard time, as a guy, trying to enforce my views on any woman. Pregnancy is not a burden I'll ever have to bear so it's not really fair or right for me to try and tell women how they have to deal with it.

4. The Nuclear Family
I'm sorry, but you just can't place the blame for this one solely on the Left. Well, unless you want to place "Women in the workforce" as some evil liberal plot that we must undo. The fact is, the family has been degrading for decades now due to a number of bipartisan factors.

Families in which both parents work is a contributing factor (yes, some make it work out... but it's harder and many aren't up to that challenge sadly). Our workaholic culture is a contributing factor with parents spending more time at work than with their families. Simple irrisponsibility is probably the biggest contributing factor of all... and that one knows no political party. My friends growing up who had divorced parents that were particularly conservative and loved to proclaim to the world they were good Christian were probably the worst parents of all. Not saying that's true of all conservatives who divorce, just a counterpoint to the assertion that the problem is completely a liberal one.

Fact is, most people don't want to have to work at something that doesn't have an immediate return anymore. I've seen it on both sides of the fence and there's no real root cause you can point to and say "There it is! That's why we're all lazy bastards now!" It's just too complex to nail down like that.

Gay marraige is NOT an assault on the family. Gays will never be a part of the traditional family structure like you envision, they never would have been. And they don't lure people away from it. Heterosexuals will marry heterosexuals... Joe and Jim getting married doesn't prevent Jane and Eric from doing so, nor does it help destroy their family as a whole.

The Nuclear Family is a concept and an issue that SOCIETY is abandoning (for right or for wrong... I personally think we're better off with kids raised in households where there are two loving parents), no one group is assaulting it.

5. The Assault on Religion
I am going to PARTIALLY agree with you on this. I think what we're seeing now is an abomination and a perversion of law, the courts and public resources. However, I'm OK with the removal of religion from Government and publicly funded programs. By this I mean the formal inclusion. I'm fine with a kid praying in school. I'm not OK with a teacher forcing their kids to pray in the morning. I'm OK with the 10 commandments in a school or government building as long as other religions are given equal access to display. Originally Christianity had a monopoly on public institutions here... I would like to see them opened up to all faith's equally... but what's happening now is an attempt to erradicate any traces, and that's just flat-out wrong.

This is probably the ONE point that I'll agree with the idea that the Extreme Left is attempting to assault the moral foundation of this country.

---------------------

The Right vs Left battle is not one of "The One True Way to Live" vs "Satan's Guidebook to Damnation". Removing the extremists from either side, it's different views on how to regulate people. The Right wants to regulate morals and faith, usually Christian faith. The Left (again, extremists excluded) wants to regulate morality and faith in a very minimal way, saying go and do your own thing, don't pass laws saying how I can practice what I believe, who I am etc.

At least that's how I view myself as a liberal. I think it is unacceptable for someone to come up to me and say that how I lead my life is fundamentally wrong because it doesn't match their religion or set of ideals and morals from decades long gone. I hate to use it, but I try and sum up my position as one of "Tolerance" But this time I mean REAL tolerance. Letting people do what they will, I may not agree with it, but I will not try and force or regulate it. I'm perfectly fine with people disagreeing with me, with people having contrary views and opinions, but I will fight tooth and nail against anyone who attempts to force or regulate others based on their faith or morals.
on Jun 14, 2005
Fact is, most people don't want to have to work at something that doesn't have an immediate return anymore. I've seen it on both sides of the fence and there's no real root cause you can point to and say "There it is! That's why we're all lazy bastards now!" It's just too complex to nail down like that.


That's easy. Microwave ovens. They're the real culprit!

I'm fine with a kid praying in school. I'm not OK with a teacher forcing their kids to pray in the morning. I'm OK with the 10 commandments in a school or government building as long as other religions are given equal access to display. Originally Christianity had a monopoly on public institutions here... I would like to see them opened up to all faith's equally... but what's happening now is an attempt to erradicate any traces, and that's just flat-out wrong.


Well said and I agree 100%. Unfortunately for many, if Christianity has to been included they won't stand for it. They seem ok with all other religions except for Christian.
6 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last