Brilliant article by Rush Limbaugh

POSTED BY: Skywalken
UPDATED: Friday, October 28, 2005 15:37
VIEWED: 7807
PAGE 3 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:31 AM

I started laughing when I saw the words "brilliant" and "Limbaugh" in the same line.

My hubby and I have a conspiracy theory that Limbaugh is actually a liberal shill pretending to be conservative, very badly, in order to discredit everything conservative. It's the best explanation we can come up with for how he still has a job--cause he sure isn't helping his own cause.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

SIGNYM

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:01 AM

Quote:
I can't imagine something more offensive than the whole made-up deity thing.

I assume ALL deities are made up, don't you? I more or less toss Jove and Minerva into the same bag as the ocelot god, Harvey, Jaweh, Moloch, Tiamat, and Shiva. I guess I'm just an equal-opportunity offender.

Please don't think they give a shit.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
By definition an originalist is one who follows the original intent of the constitution, by the English language:
Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

the intent of the Second Amendment was to strengthen a well regulated militia. As such an originalist in the Supreme Court would be forced to decide that either:
a) The Militia should be reinstated
b) The right to bear arms is not protected by the Second Amendment at this time

The National Guard does its job quite nicely and, to my knowledge, it is not in the power of the court to reinstate the militia anyway. As such an originalist in the court would be forced to overturn any gun rights claimed to result from the second amendment.

If you assume that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” actually means that the right should be infringed then you might have a point. But that’s not what it says. It says that since the framers of the Constitution believed that the states should have a Well Regulated Militia then the people should have the Constitutional right to form that Militia. What you are saying is since the people have not necessarily formed that Militia that the right should be taken away, but no where in the Constitution does it say that a right is lost if it is not exercised. So an originalist would insist that the right to keep and bear arms exists whether or not modern societies views the right necessary or not.

On another point, I would say this quite clearly defines the Postmodern Conservative philosophy as I’ve understood it.

“Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.”

And if those outside the US (or inside the US) wish to despise Americans for holding such beliefs, I think they should have such freedom.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I more or less toss Jove and Minerva into the same bag as the ocelot god, Harvey, Jaweh, Moloch, Tiamat, and Shiva.

Say what you want about the rest, but please don't dis Shiva!!
I have a personal relationship with her, you know.
You know Signy, not everything's a joke! I'm secure in my belief, but when people make fun of Shiva, she sometimes instructs me to do some damage!!
(She speaks through my cat)

Hey! Little angels...gettin' all bendy....

Anyway, let's try to be a little more tolerant, okay?

Chrisisall, respectin' everyone's right to believe stupid s**t....

ROCKETJOCK

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Conscience:

Any honest neurologist will tell you that a human fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.

As a reminder, Roe V Wade established a right to abortion only during the first trimester. That's twelve weeks, not twenty. They were trying to set a compromise position, one that reasonable people could differ over but accept.

But even so, the ability to feel pain is not the primary criteria for humanity. A dog can feel pain. So can a white rat. So can a cockroach. Some have even argued that plants can feel pain.

The conservative viewpoint in this area is that the embryo is human at the moment of conception; this is based not upon logic or scientific knowledge, but upon a religious dogma, one not shared by all religions even within Christianity. (As an example, Hinduism states that the soul (prana) enters the infant with its first breath (also prana).

I'll admit, at some point in the gestation process the fetus crosses a line, and becomes human. I don't know where that line is. But it's pretty obvious it's further on than twelve weeks.

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

ROCKETJOCK

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skywalken:
: We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in... a color-blind society...

Huh? Excuse me, I was born in the fifties and grew up in the sixties. Back then, racial equality was a crazy liberal daydream. J. Edgar Hoover, you might recall, worked on the principal that the Civil Rights Movement received its orders direct from Moscow, since obviously Negroes couldn't have possibly organized the thing themselves.

And before anyone accuses me of being Liberal, let me announce that I'm a registered Libertarian, and them's fighting words, podner.

"You cant enslave a free man; the worst you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

CAUSAL

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I can't imagine something more offensive than the whole made-up deity thing.
I assume ALL deities are made up, don't you? I more or less toss Jove and Minerva into the same bag as the ocelot god, Harvey, Jaweh, Moloch, Tiamat, and Shiva. I guess I'm just an equal-opportunity offender.

What you happen to believe isn't what's eating at me, see. It's only common decency to allow others the dignity of their own opinions, even (especially) when those opinions contradict your own. So from that point of view, I've no problem at all that you and Knibblet think that all deities are made up. As an individual with a lifelong love of philosophy, that's an opinion I respect a great deal because much serious thought has gone into by many great thinkers. What gets me, though, about Knibblet's original post was not her assertion that all deities were made up. It was her absolute insistence upon it and the implication that those who believe in said deities were imbecilic "prigs". Now, she's all entitled to her own opinion. But what she said was assinine and childish, not so much for the content but for the bald-faced insensitivity to anyone on the board who happened to be a theist.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Huh? Excuse me, I was born in the fifties and grew up in the sixties. Back then, racial equality was a crazy liberal daydream. J. Edgar Hoover, you might recall, worked on the principal that the Civil Rights Movement received its orders direct from Moscow, since obviously Negroes couldn't have possibly organized the thing themselves.

Yeah, and obviously Postmodern Liberals are smelly drug addicted communist hippies, because 45 years ago some were.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

HARDWARE

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
By definition an originalist is one who follows the original intent of the constitution, by the English language:
Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

the intent of the Second Amendment was to strengthen a well regulated militia. As such an originalist in the Supreme Court would be forced to decide that either:
a) The Militia should be reinstated
b) The right to bear arms is not protected by the Second Amendment at this time

The National Guard does its job quite nicely and, to my knowledge, it is not in the power of the court to reinstate the militia anyway. As such an originalist in the court would be forced to overturn any gun rights claimed to result from the second amendment.
If you assume that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” actually means that the right should be infringed then you might have a point. But that’s not what it says. It says that since the framers of the Constitution believed that the states should have a Well Regulated Militia then the people should have the Constitutional right to form that Militia. What you are saying is since the people have not necessarily formed that Militia that the right should be taken away, but no where in the Constitution does it say that a right is lost if it is not exercised. So an originalist would insist that the right to keep and bear arms exists whether or not modern societies views the right necessary or not.

On another point, I would say this quite clearly defines the Postmodern Conservative philosophy as I’ve understood it.

“Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.”

And if those outside the US (or inside the US) wish to despise Americans for holding such beliefs, I think they should have such freedom.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

Actually, if you look at the preamble to the Constitution it pretty clearly underlines what the 2nd ammendment is all about;

Quote:

2.2 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
2.3 Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
2.4 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

The foundin

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:37 PM

I'm going to say well said, Rush. I occassionally have problems with Rush, I'm not sure he's the conservative he claims to be. He is too often spouting a Bush line or one of his corporate sponsors, but maybe this is a sign he's coming around. I have to disagree with one post, If Ann Coulter were running in a primary against George W. Bush, she'd get my vote. I also have to disagree with Rush on Reagan. Reagan in the primary was a fierce fight because it was a hostile take over. Reagan's campaign was assembled by a marriage of the social democrats and christian right. If someone needs a source, just check wikipedia, I'm sure they'll bear that out. Anyway, that split was ended by a compromise making Bush Sr. the VP. A similar split in the 90s cost us two elections. I think that the right is not as stable as Rush likes to believe, but I agree it's not splitting up right now. I think the moderates and the wingnuts are teaming up to oppose the neocons, and they will win. When they do, the neocons will have a choice to either support the new republican leadership, or become democrats.

A note to democrats, I don't envy you if the neocons come to join your side again. You know this will have happened if Hillary Clinton is on your ticket in '08. I hope someone here gets what

I've been trying to say, which is Cheney and Clinton are old buds, and members of the same inner circle. They were both members of neocon think tanks, and they worked extensively and corruptly together in the 90s.

Everyone who is getting mad at Bush because he's a conservative or supporting him for that reason is missing the point.

In Bush/Cheney, Cheney wears the pants, and Cheney is Clinton. If this were an all right wing forum I'd just call Cheney a stealth leftie and leave it at that, but in deference to democrats I'll agree to settle on Cheney/Clinton are an it-thing which has invaded politics.

Also, PS. I don't think it's productive to have left/right bashing. The arguments: 'Damn liberals' and 'Damn conservatives' aren't going to get us anywhere. I get that liberals care about a set of issues, and they think that a certain set of solutions will solve those issues. I happen to disagree on both counts, but I get that's what they care about. If I want to argue with liberals I'm not going to say "oh give it up and join the right or get out." I'm probably going to say "Don't elect Hillary Clinton if that's what you want, because Hillary is married to Bill who is a member of the trilateral commission, and buds with most of the neocons, hence, Hillary is a neocon, and it will be exactly like re-electing Bush, only afterwards instead of the majority of the assault on the lock step mirror image policies coming from kneejerk liberals it will be coming from kneejerk conservatives."

PREV PAGE 1 2 3