From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberal Agenda
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:59:02 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1992Nov13.210035.22702@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> jpsb@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (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).
>
>        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.
>

>        This of course will be the end of the traditional family as we
>        know it.

Oh, and what is the 'tradional family'?  The nature of the family has 
changed from the beginning of written records to now.  Are you saing
that the changes from 1600-1990 were bad?  Change happens.


>        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 mem and women be forced to undress, shower,
>        and sleep with people that find them sexually appealing?

Welp.  Time to advocate everyone wearing full white decontam suits.
I don't want to see anyone who might be sexually appealing, so
everyone MUST wear full white decontam suits.  That way I can't
find anyone appealing and if **I** wear one, no one will find *me*
sexually appealing.  That way, no privacy rights are violated.

>	 Do not tell me that this is not where the liberals are going to
>	take the country! I can add two and two.

But do you get four?

>        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?

In a way you HAVE a choice.  If you opt for air transport repair (CV-9?)
(aka you fix the planes that carry things to the front line) do you think
you'll go "into combat"?  You choose your location.  If you chose to take
a job pushing papers in the reserves back stateside did you not CHOOSE a
non-com position? 
 
>        Will desertion still be a crime?  "I changed my mind. I don't want
>        to go into combat"

Nice bold statement.  How are 'the liberals' supporting that?

>        3) Taxes on the affluent .... Liberals will of course tax all
>        Americans capable of paying, the only question is how much?
>        Liberals says only people earning $200,000 plus. I don't
>        believe it, but time will tell. Don't affluent people have a right
>        to the money they earn?

The only political party that is not hip on taxes is the Libertarians.

>        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.

1) does the post office serve POORLY?
2) does the public school (in and of themselves) do a poor job, or
is what they have to work with poor material?

>        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.

Did they break laws?  If so, why should they be immune from procecution.

>        Liberals believe in punishing people with opposing views. They will

If 'punishment' is loosing their job, lots of that happened under the
change of carter to reagan.

>The thing that scares me the most is the destruction of the American Family,

The American Family was destroyed long ago.  The family moved off the
farm and into the city.  Once in the city it was re-built.  And this
cycle of destruction and rebuilding is what moves things forward.
 
>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.

Then there is no need for debate.  Becasue trying to convice you to
re-think your position is futile.

>necessary evil). But this time you will go to far. This time you will
>be destoring the very fabric of our society. Don't do it.

Ya know, the editorial's in the papers of the late 1700's said that about 
the move away from the farm.  And said the same thing in the 1900's
about the car.  And in the 1950's about television.  And they were right,
the fabric was ripped asunder.  Should we go BACK to pre 1700?  Pre
1900?  Pre 1950?




-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh