AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Socialism is Built for a Static, Unchanging World

And the irony is that those who promote socialism call themselves “progressives”. Go figure.

Socialism destroys free will, individual responsibility. People become zombies.

Posted by: Sofia at November 15, 2009 04:04 PM

Socialism is staticist, in nature. It is built for a static, unchanging world – ergo the idea that all power can be effectively and efficiently centralized. Because a static world forms the socialist foundation, all socialist mechanisms try to force this static nature on the world around it. Socialism, thus, promotes and works towards stagnation, the antithesis of human creativity and the exercise of individualistic thought and behavior. Most cultures don’t mind this, as they have been founded in tribal systems that denigrated the individual, and many are actually built for it – as with those Oriental cultures that value stability above progress. But, Western civilization was built on the notion of progress and any embrace of socialist theory represents a major regressive step … though, unfortunately, ignorance is bliss to many.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 15, 2009 04:19 PM

November 15, 2009 , 5:11PM Posted by | Liberalism, Socialism | Comments Off on Socialism is Built for a Static, Unchanging World

You Start Trying to Redefine Basic and Foundational Societal Terms, You’re Gonna Lose

Some great discussion in the comments to this post regarding the vote to repeal Maine’s “same-sex marriage” law.

It seems to me that there are a lot of ‘conservatives’ who start acting like liberals (‘thinking’ emotionally about an issue) when it comes to the GLBT movement. Mostly it is because they have friends who are homosexuals. Which is fine. But it’s a poor excuse for throwing logic and common sense to the wayside, simply to support bad policies. Again, this is how liberals think about issues, using emotion instead of logic. Disappointing.

And I bet none of the ‘same-sex marriage’ proponents realize that every argument they make to redefine marriage for homosexuals can also be used to redefine marriage for polygamy. But, of course, ask most GLBT movement supporters and they will say they don’t want polygamy. Well, why not? Just use every one of your arguments in favor of creating ‘same-sex marriage’ and apply them in favor of polygamy. But no, no can’t do that, that’s wrong! Yet they still can’t understand why we think their movement to redefine marriage is wrong. Oy…

Thankfully, there are still many people who still think logically about the issue of ‘same-sex marriage’.

It’s difficult to oppose the domestic partnership angle, even if it’s full marriage in all but name. But you start trying to redefine basic and foundational societal terms, you’re gonna lose.

Life does not need to and should not change so that 3-5% of the population can feel better about their deviation from the norm.

Posted by: hobgoblin at November 04, 2009 01:53 AM


The reason to oppose gay “marriage” is that it will make people drop out of their own culture.

The union of one man and one woman, as the sole self-sustaining procreative unit, is the basic building block of society. Religious people believe it ordained by God (which is enough reason for many), but leaving that aside, a society that fails to encourage (i.e. show exclusive favoritism—yes favoritism) to that basic unit is doomed.

Marriage and child rearing are hard. It’s hard to keep marriages together, and having children in non-agrarian societies is far more a burden that a boon, economically. De-emphasizing the value and exclusivity of marriage—as has been done with quickie, no-fault divorces AND gay marriage—devalues the sacrifice individuals make in coming together as a procreative unit.

Will gay marriage result in men leaving their wives for a life of sausage-smoking? Not likely (unless you’re an Episcopal priest who’s sick of the wife & daughters). But it will, over time, make marriage less valued in society. When marriage is devalued, procreation suffers (as can be seen from the child-rearing difficulties in the age of divorces). When the procreative function is hampered, society itself is imperiled.

Yes, divorce and promiscuity are huge hits against marriage that are already in wide acceptance. But piling worse on top of bad doesn’t make the situation any better.

Historically, one might think of Athens as the “one of the most civilized societies . . . ” Sure, it was advanced in culture, but at the time of Socrates it was also decadent and foppish, skittish and indecisive, and generally so torn by internal strife and apathy that it crumbled upon itself. So too Rome under the latter Caesars. While you may equate decadence with civilization, it is in fact the slow-motion destruction of all things civilized. Decadence invariably leads to the fall of societies, and the open flowering of homosexuality (more properly, gay cohabitation) in a culture is one of the recurring hallmarks of decadence. That’s not a value judgment on homosexuality, that’s a historical truth.

The reason gay marriage is such a big deal is that it is a harbinger of societal collapse.

My theory on why this is so is, briefly, that a vast majority of any population is not gay. (at least 95% in the current USA). Many, if not a majority of that 95% find homosexuality distasteful. In a society where gayness is celebrated on the part of a “civilized” elite, you thus have a large segment of the population (perhaps even a large majority) alienated from their own culture. This erodes the civic spirit and displaces the natural feelings of (non-jingoistic) patriotism and love of country that most folks bear for their homeland.

Remove that love of country and people will simply refuse to wage the millions of small battles against chaos that face any culture (from random adults scolding misbehaving children walking down the street [that used to happen a lot, it’s virtually non-existent now] to people refusing to help the victim of violent crime when they witness it happening). People simply disconnect from society. Apathy is a culture’s deadliest disease.

You ask why. The best answer is that civilization might very well actually depend on it.

Then again, maybe not. But who wants to take that chance if you can see it coming?

Posted by: hobgoblin at November 04, 2009 02:19 AM


71 Oh, and by the way, we quickly have to embrace gay marriage because opposing it is so obviously a losing issue.

This is all Meghan McCain and her ilk talk about. Well, that and the hateful, bigoted, old, mean Republicans that need to go away.

This issue has been put on the ballot in 31 states, and has lost in all 31 states. Meghan really needs to get to work purging the party of these bigots and remaking it to her image. There’s lots of work to be done!

Posted by: tinkerbella at November 04, 2009 07:41 AM


Very pleased how yesterday’s elections turned out. Unfortunately I’m going to have to have a black out regarding Facebook because all my “gay marriage is awesome!” friends (and I have a lot, one of the perils of being friends with a ton of musicians and teachers) are all on the “if you don’t agree with gay marriage you’re an evil homophobe” train. I love being told I’m evil simply because of the way I think. It’s faboo!

I don’t think the gay marriage folks really and seriously understand just what they’re asking of society. They’re asking — DEMANDING, really — for people to put aside beliefs and feelings and a way of life that has been in place since before recorded history. That sh*t takes a long time to do, and when the voting populace says “Sorry bubba, nothin’ doin’,” suddenly it’s the end of the world. It’s only a matter of time — as the older generation dies off and stop voting, and the younger generations — already indoctrinated by the public schools — begin to vote, the tide will turn in their favor.

In the meantime, those of us who long for a more conservative and traditional society are branded as the deviants and the “bad” ones — from a group that thinks it’s perfectly “OK” to rollerblade down the street wearing nothing more than a neon pink thong and a feather boa. Because, you know, THEY’RE JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

Posted by: CMS2004 at November 04, 2009 08:15 AM


The currency’s already been devalued, let’s spend a few trillion more.
Marriage has already been devalued, let’s devalue it further.

Posted by: Tom in Korea at November 04, 2009 08:28 AM


I don’t think anybody was making the argument that gays aren’t people, just that gay marriage is an absurdity. The difference between gay marriage and a real marriage is the difference between dressing up like a police officer or doctor and being one. Which is to say massive and fundamental.

Posted by: Zuggs at November 04, 2009 08:33 AM


American health care sucks, let’s let the government take it over.
The situation in Afghanistan is bad, let the Taliban have it back.
When life gives you lemons, give up.
When the going gets tough, quit.

Posted by: Tom in Korea at November 04, 2009 08:35 AM


It really disappoints me how intelligent conservatives can’t recognize the connection between every single social-wedge-issue (created and instigated by the Left, btw) and the radical Left wing.

The Left has created these social ‘issues’ for two reasons:
a) to undermine Western values, e.g., family, capitalism, Christianity.
b) to split the Republican party.

Wake the f’ck up. Social issues matter. At the very least, you’re undermining your fellow conservatives by supporting the other side in these issues.

Posted by: Tweet beats dead horses, unless they’re gay at November 04, 2009 08:42 AM


ford, you really think it’s good for kids to grow up with 2 dads or 2 moms?

This line of thinking is insane. The communists and muslims are laughing their asses off at us. All they need to is sit back and watch our Western civilization implode.

Posted by: Tweet beats dead horses, unless they’re gay at November 04, 2009 08:47 AM


Because it is absurd. The fact of the matter is that humans are not designed for that type of family. If they were, that type of family could procreate. It cannot. Heterosexual couples that cannot procreate can provide the same environment for an orphan as a couple which can, to the point where the orphan may not even know they are nt his biological parents. A homosexual couple cannot, since it does not give insight to both male and females to the child, and more importantly, can’t procreate at all.

There are many crooked cops, but that doesn’t mean just anybody should be able to say they are a police officer. Similarly, bad marriages are not an argument for gay marriages.

Posted by: Zuggs at November 04, 2009 08:54 AM


I support marriage for gays. Why not? We hetrosexuals are getiing married on game shows. We devalued marriage, not gays. BTW, why not let them see how great marriage is? The lawyers will benefit from all the addtional divorces.

Darling, there is a obvious fallacy to your argument; not fallacio but fallacy.

Former Gov McGreevy is an excellent example of the fact that if one is homosexual one is not banned from marriage.

Considering the fact that former Gov McGreevy married twice, extracted children then ran off with his male lover indicates in fact that homosexuals have debased marriage.

Lastly; ‘same-sex union between opposite-sex’ is an insane premise; how can anyone argue for that which is nonsense.

That’s called crazy.

Posted by: syn at November 04, 2009 08:57 AM


So get a general power of attorney for your partner, ford.

The legal mechanisms already exist to provide the benefits queers SAY they want.

But that’s not what they really want and you know it. They want to force us to declare that their aberrant sexual behavior is both normal, acceptable and desirable.
Here’s a newsflash: nobody cared, but you MADE it our business. They had our tolerance but it wasn’t enough.

F’ck ’em. Reap the ass-banging, carpet-munching whirlwind that you’ve sown, militant gays.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 04, 2009 08:57 AM


My personal take on these ‘social issues” is that we should avoid the “religious” slant and approach it from a Constitutional slant.

The abortion issue was brought about by the intrusion of the courts in a State matter. They did so using nothing more than pure opinion as there is NOTHING in the Constitution that supports their ruling. They had to stretch out to penumbras and emanations to get there.

On the issue of gay marriage the Constitution is silent. Now I know, gays will throw out the equal justice clause but that is a red hearing. Equal justice means they are treated the same was in court as anyone else. They are. Gays can get married all they want. They just have to get married IAW with State law, just like everyone else.

If gays were being singled out for “punishment” laws I would be the first to champion actions to stifle and remove those laws. What I am against is creating yet another class of “privilege” based on something dreamed up by the liberals who champion the phony diversity meme. In any case, these kinds of things never result in an increase in net freedom and liberty among the people. What they wind up doing is creating another class of lawsuits for full employment by the lawyers.

If the people in ME wish to change their laws to allow two men or two women to get married, then let them do it at the polls. It appears that they went to the polls last night and said they didn’t want this. Well then so be it. But I am sure it will be back in the courts soon.

Posted by: Vic at November 04, 2009 09:04 AM


It’s hard to describe my stance on gay marriage — I don’t think marriage in the traditional sense should be passed. It infringes upon freedom of religion; it could devalue the term “marriage” even further than it has been now (we already have enough straight people who stupidly marry to make a “statement” — marriage is not about “making a statement” and never ends well when that is its soul purpose), and then we get into the can of worms concerning children, lifestyle choices, etc. — it’s a potential mess of astronomical proportions and I fear would create a huge amount of bureacratic red tape and legal boondoogle down the road. No thank you.

On the flip side — if two same sex people want to live together in a mutually consensual union, I don’t feel I have a right to say “no you can’t”. Perhaps granting civil unions is the best compromise, although granted that is a slippery slope, as has been well illustrated by events.

Most of the sane homosexual people I know really don’t care much either way concerning gay marriage (many find it a ridiculous sideshow and are more concerned about things like their jobs, their 401k, and being safe — aka. law enforcement and terrorist attacks — the hate crime thing also doesn’t really strike home with them that much; they are much more concerned about getting robbed by meth heads than getting accosted by skin heads). They don’t really see the existence or abscence of a marriage license as imposing upon their lives as much as losing their job or not making enough to pay for their car. It’s only the “activists” that seem to scream and howl about this stuff, and to be honest a lot of gays and lesbians I know are pretty sick of them.

It’s rather the same way I feel about “marriage” between two straight people: if you live with someone and start a home together, then no piece of paper really makes much difference in a boots on the ground sort of way as to whether you are married or not. You are, end of story. I think Texas, if it still has this, calls it a common law marriage?

Posted by: unknown jane at November 04, 2009 09:05 AM


I do support it being on the ballot, in any state , but it sours people like me if Pubs are reading our of their religious handbooks to tell people what they cannot do.

Gee, I didn’t know the dictionary constituted a religious handbook, did you?

What is “gay (ghey) marriage”? It’s a desecration — of language. You can call a cat a dog because it too has four legs and a tail, but it is still a cat.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 04, 2009 09:16 AM


Marriage exists as an institution to curb the male instinct to exploit the female. Males have an advantage over females in that the more of the opposite sex they mate with, the greater the likelihood their genes will be passed on. For an individual male, promiscuity is a good strategy, but it puts the other males at a disadvantage. So, marriage is meant to be a social countervailing force against the male’s nature to keep society stable. Nature says “screw any woman you can get your hands on” and society says, “not so fast buddy.” Society does this through an institution that convinces a male heterosexual the opposite of the biological truth — namely that he is more of a man for staying faithful to a single woman as opposed to banging every woman in sight. Gay marriage short-circuits this message. Good luck convincing macho young males who want to spread their seed that they’re more manly by being just like that nice barren gay couple across the street. Gay marriage completely deconstructs marriage’s message to the young heterosexual male. It’s not rational, but that’s the way it is.

Also, gay activists will start to sue churches for civil rights violations. That’s why they want the word “marriage.” It’s important for the lawsuits they have planned.

Posted by: caspera at November 04, 2009 09:29 AM


What 107 said. Maybe a tad more circumspect.

Tell me why homos don’t already have the exact same rights that heteros do. And please, don’t give me that love crap. Love is neither a requirement nor a qualifier in any state in the union. The qualifiers mainly have to do with age and mental status.

Explain to me, please, how gay marriage is equal rights and not special rights.

Posted by: FUBAR at November 04, 2009 09:38 AM

November 15, 2009 , 12:20PM Posted by | GLBT Movement, Homosexual Movement, Liberalism, Marriage | Comments Off on You Start Trying to Redefine Basic and Foundational Societal Terms, You’re Gonna Lose

Conservatives vs Liberals

Heh, got this from a friend today. Sad, but true…

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion* silenced.
*(Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he’s in labor and then sues.

November 15, 2009 , 1:22AM Posted by | Conservatism, Liberalism | Comments Off on Conservatives vs Liberals