NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/9912

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 10.0 KB | 191 lines

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!anasaz!john
From: [e-mail] (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Liberal Agenda
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:24:30 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Lines: 178

Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
]In <[e-mail]>, Jim Shirreffs writes:
]
]>Conservatives are going to be faced with the greatest onslaught of liberal
]>values that we have ever seen. Our basic principles are going to be attacked.
]>The current liberal target is the military. Perhaps the strongest conservative
]>organization in the country. They are going to attack our strongest point.
]>Many good men will resign. (Thank you very much Ad. Crowe).
]
]I assume you mean gays in the military.  I can see both sides here.  I can
]see why it's wrong to prevent someone from serving just because they are gay,
]but I may find it uncomfortable if I had to share a shower with a man who
]found me sexually attractive (wouldn't a woman in a similar situation be
]a bit intimidated by sharing a shower with a man who also found her sexually
]attractive?  If I *didn't know* he was gay, it wouldn't be an issue.  How-
]ever, is it fair to make a gay person hide their homosexuality?  Sigh...isn't
]any issue clear-cut?

This one isn't, but it is important IMHO to keep in mind that the military
doesn't exist to be fair. It exists to (as RL says) break thinks and kill
people. It doesn't just discriminate against gays - it also discriminates
against people who are colour blind, people who are too experienced
in life (I couldn't get in now because I am too old at 44), and for lots
of other reasons. As a Navy veteran, I am opposed to gays in the military
because of the effect I think it would have on morale and unit cohesion.
Military people have to work and live, often in small teams, under conditions
of great stress. Adding any other stressors reduces their effectiveness
and also increases their risk of death or injury. Sexual attraction,
whether actual or feared, is known to be a problem in the military (as
is shown by the many problems with situations where women live and
work in close proximity to men today in the military).

]
]>        1) Gay Rights .... The Liberals will legitimize the homosexual life
]>                style. Homo-sexual marriages will have the same legal status
]>                as tradition male-female marriages. Homo-sexuals will be
]>                able to adopt children and file tax returns joinly. Sex
]>                education in PUBLIC schools will teach gay, lesbian, and
]>                heterosexual techniques.
]
]Personally, I think that just as current marriage laws (and benefits only
]received by married people and their dependents) discriminate against gays,
]they also discriminate against single people.  I think that all such perks
]should be abolished--then there *can be* no discrimination with regard to
]marital status!

Well, I disagree somewhat. As one who does not heed the biblical "abomination"
characterization of homosexuality, I have nothing against gays. However,
full marriage rights (such as the right of adoption in particular) are
IMHO wrong in a gay marriage. I have no problem with most aspects
of marriage law for gays, but adoption is too much - and this is not
a position based on morals - but on my beliefs about raising children.
]
]>        This of course will be the end of the traditional family as we
]>        know it.
]
]Only if people choose to live in a different way.  I live in a traditional
]family--I work, and my wife is at home right now, as she plans to be as soon
]as we start having children.  Pretty much right out of Ozzie and Harriet.  Yet
]I treasure the fact that under our Constitution, we can live differently if
]*we so choose*.  We don't deny that we have traditional values--call them
]Republican-style "family values," if you will--but the difference is that
]we don't feel that government has a role in enforcing our values on other
]people.

Ultimately family values have to come from the family itself, not
government. Unfortunately (I speak as a parent here) it is impossible
to sequester one's family from the values of the mass media, and they
have been brainwashing kids about liberal values (ranging from sexual
mores to views on capitalism to environmentalism) as fast as they can.
I doubt Clinton will make this much worse, unless (and he COULD do this)
he makes school choice harder and forces anti-value programs in schools.
]
]>        By the way how come Mr Clinton is not protecting the
]>        rights of straight men and women to privacy in the military?
]>        Why will straight men and women be forced to undress, shower,
]>        and sleep with people that find them sexually appealing?
]
]As I said, this has no easy answer (except for *four* separate living and
]bathing quarters--gay and straight, male and female?).

You have just hit upon one reason not to have open gays - the requirement
for four sets of quarters instead of two. What a mess.
]
]>        2) Womens rights .... The liberals what to give women the right
]>        to choose to go into combat. What about men? Why don't we get
]>        a choice? When will a women be able to change her mind about combat?
]>        Will desertion still be a crime?  "I changed my mind. I don't want
]>        to go into combat"
]
]Either they are in combat or they are not.  I can live with it either way as
]long as the women don't get it *both ways*.  I feel the same way about most
But they WILL get it both ways. They already do on abortion, where they
can decide to terminate a pregnancy, but if they choose not to, the father
is on the hook for child support. The danger of liberal group-ism is that
all favored groups will get MORE than fairness from the government.

]That includes taxes.  "Tax the rich" bothers me in that it is easy for a
]majority of poor and middle class to vote to "soak them."  In that sense, our
]democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for lunch.
]Alexis de Tocqueville warned us about this.  I mean, it's so easy for the
]majority to vote to tax a minority!  Why not soak the blacks?  Or the gays?
]Or the handicapped or the poor or...

Exactly!
]
]*ABSURDITY ALERT*  Of course I'm not serious, but it does illustrate a point
]about people being able to vote to adversely affect other people.
Why not be serious. The issue is serious.
]
]>        4) Access to health care .... Liberals want to make health care
]>        accessible to all, a noble goal, the result with be that America
]>        health care will be like our public schools, our post office.
]>        Everyone will be servered equally poorly.
]
]Exactly.  Given government's past track record of programs (how much of each
]Medicare dollar is eaten by red tape?), I don't want to trust them with
]people's lives.

On the other hand, the current system is definitely not working either.
Health care unfortunately needs some government intervention because
it is not at all like a free market.
]
]>        5) Procecution of Conservitives officals ... Although no one
]>        is talking about it, I fully expect the liberals in power to
]>        procecute presidents Reagan and Bush for thier part in Iran-Contra.
]>        Liberals believe in punishing people with opposing views. They will
]>        "legistrate policy" (pass laws making it illegal to pursue policy
]>        which differs from their "correct" view). As they did with Contra's
]>        and as they are doing on numerious college campuses.
]
]Many of the PC crowd on campus do this, but the resistance to it is starting
]to grow.  True liberals in the classical sense would have nothing to do with
]"speech codes."

True liberals are not the problem today. True liberals would be very
comfortable in the libertarian-conservative wing of the republican party.
]
]And ever since Watergate, the Democrats have tried to attach major scandal
]to all prominent Republicans.  Apparently, some of them don't think that
]they can win elections on their own merit.

I hope we can get some democrats with some of this trip-wire nonsense
like Iran Contra. It would serve them right, and might lead to a safer
republic when both sides realize that criminalizing policy disputes is
incredibly dangerous to freedom!

]>The thing that scares me the most is the destruction of the American Family,
]>My belief in family is similar to my belief in God. I take it on faith.
]>I can not "prove" that belief in God is right. I simply believe it. I can
]>not "prove" that heterosexual life style (traditional family) is right, I
]>simply know it is.
]
]Nor can I prove anything.  Belief in God is a *personal* thing, encompassing
]you, your family and your church--but NOT government.  Our government has no
]Constitutional authority to push religion.  It's my personal belief that
]government should act as agnostics.  And yes, I am somewhat religious, but no,
]I don't think that's any business of Washington or Sacramento.

Unfortunately, government today is actively secular - it persecutes
religion. Try to organize a Bible study club at a public school and
see how far you get. Now try to organize a group for the study of modern
liberal religions (such as pro-choice club) and you will get much farther.
]
]There will be "moral wrong" and "moral right" as a society; it's just that
]many of us don't believe that morality is the basis of law.  Law is based on
]rights and the infringements of those rights.  I don't believe that any of us

That in itself is a moral view. Keep that in mind as you decry morality in
law.

--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
[e-mail] ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz![e-mail]
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Clinton: "Read my lips: We will bring utopia, at no cost to you!" - -