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 4)
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6 
on Jun 14, 2005
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...


I only used pornography as an example to highlight the fact that the First Amendment has been used to cover all sorts of filth and sewage into the public domain. That is a fact. Decency has come under attack time and again using the FA as a weapon.

4. The Nuclear Family


If you've ever examined any liberal propaganda on the subject, you've seen a significantly negative attitude toward the family unit. Men and husbands are bad, women and wives are good. Men are under attack from the Left; women are promoted.

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.


I'm not attempting to "force" anyone to do anything. I merely hate to see the way people have acquired a lack of respect and consideration for each other as a result of the loosening of morals, and fear that we're headed in the wrong direction.
on Jun 14, 2005
They seem ok with all other religions except for Christian.


And therein lies the rub.
on Jun 14, 2005
---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?


--Perhaps, I feel i've turned out fine...but, with the step fathers i've had (two), the whole father thing didn't work out with them (one was abusive and the other was...difficult...)
on Jun 14, 2005
I only used pornography as an example to highlight the fact that the First Amendment has been used to cover all sorts of filth and sewage into the public domain. That is a fact. Decency has come under attack time and again using the FA as a weapon.


You could just as easily say religious zealotry and an attempt to legislate based on morals and defining "decency" by it's most narrow points is as much of perversion of the law. I think there is a middle ground to the whole issue, and legislating based on a subjective word like "decency" isn't the solution. If you want to address the moral degredation of Americans, you need to take the problem on at base level, find the roots and work on those. Passing laws to enforce decency is like trying to kill a weed by covering it with a tarp. The roots are still there. You're not "fixing" anything, you're just pushing it out of sight.

If you've ever examined any liberal propaganda on the subject, you've seen a significantly negative attitude toward the family unit. Men and husbands are bad, women and wives are good. Men are under attack from the Left; women are promoted.


The issue of child custody and alimony payments is definitely slanted right now, but it's just a different slant from when men always got the kids (yes, this was a while ago, we're just now swinging to the other extreme). I would however like to be shown some of this propaganda. I hear a lot about The Left assaulting the family, but aside from the gay issue I hear very little proof on the matter
on Jun 14, 2005
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 think this is an attempt to balance the scales. Throughout history, men have mostly been the ones who have screwed up this planet. They have attempted to keep women "in their place," thanks to CHRISTIANITY! "The wife shall be subservient to the husband." (Or something to that effect.) I bet you still believe it, otherwise you wouldn't be going on and on about "traditional morals." You want to return to the way life was before women's lib. I think strong, independent women are great. Traditional, non-progressive Christian men like you can't accept that, and that's what the witch hunts were about. Women were the first healers. They knew which plants killed and which ones healed. (Thank you kb.) And their knowledge frightened Christian men.
on Jun 14, 2005
"The wife shall be subservient to the husband."


Grossly misstated and misunderstood. Though it WAS historically just misstated and misunderstood, so your point is well taken.
on Jun 14, 2005
Men are under attack from the Left; women are promoted.


Jealous?
on Jun 14, 2005
Grossly misstated and misunderstood. Though it WAS historically just misstated and misunderstood, so your point is well taken.


Thank you, GM.
on Jun 14, 2005
They have attempted to keep women "in their place," thanks to CHRISTIANITY!


Absolutely correct. Just look at how other cultures have historically treated women as equals. The Muslims are a great example of how women should be treated. Darn those nasty Christians anyway!
on Jun 14, 2005
Absolutely correct. Just look at how other cultures have historically treated women as equals. The Muslims are are great example of how women should be treated. Darn those nasty Christians anyway!


Ok, the Muslims are a lot worse, but this thread is about America. Besides, who thinks the Middle East is progressive about anything?

Don't some American men beat their wives because the wife wouldn't obey?
on Jun 14, 2005
Besides, who thinks the Middle East is progressive about anything?

You mean to say they aren't?

Ok then, we'll use the Japanese culture as a prime example of how women should be properly treated.
on Jun 14, 2005
Don't some American men beat their wives because the wife wouldn't obey?

Yes, some scumbags do that. But I'm sure it's just the Christian ones.
on Jun 14, 2005
Yes, some scumbags do that. But I'm sure it's just the Christian ones.


I bet they were raised in one of the Christian faiths.
on Jun 14, 2005
I bet they were raised in one of the Christian faiths.

Yes, I'm sure you're quite right. No-one who wasn't raised in a Christian faith would dream of mistreating women.
on Jun 14, 2005
No-one who wasn't raised in a Christian faith would dream of mistreating women.


I'm sure some of them would, but they wouldn't (or couldn't) use Christianity to justify it.
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6