Friday, 10 April 2009
-
An interesting evening...
So last night I happened to scan across the channels and stopped on CSPAN where Rush Limbaugh was addressing CPAC I believe, and since I find him immensely humorous I stopped to listen for a bit and for the first time in my life, I heard some serious things come out of his mouth. Now this was serious in the sense of "not joking or trifling" and "having important or dangerous possible consequences" which is indeed a double hit for him.
One thing he said was basically, the the recession of the 80's ended because of tax cuts. He totaly ignores the FACT that Reagan was forced to raise taxes on several occasions before he left office because he screwed up. Silly me, bringing facts to bear on Limbaugh..
Another thing he said was "Next thing, we've got to stop treating voters as children. [Applause] Somebody says they want something that's bad for them, do you give it to them just to be nice? Or do you tell them, regardless of their age, no, you shouldn't have that?", followed closely by "But you still have to have the ability to tell people what's right and wrong. And that's not authoritative. That's not authoritarian." Lets examine that for a second, so telling voters that they can't have something they voted for is the way government should work? Isn't telling someone you can't have something treating them like a child? Isn't telling people what is right and wrong, (relative terms if I have ever heard them), authoritarian? The word, authority, from which the word authoritarian is derived means ,"power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior", so telling people what is right and wrong isn't trying to "influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior"? WOW, he really has his own dictionary.
He was addressing this body because they granted him the "Defender of the Constitution" Award. Interesting that the defender of the constitution should be promoting a government where a few people tell everyone what is right and wrong, that doesn't sound like our constitution at all.
Finally, as I was driving to work this morning, thinking of what I had heard last night, I noticed that the car in front of me had a bumper sticker that read, "HATE is not a family value", and I thought, how true, and how typical of the mouthpiece of the party of "Family Values" to so obviously point out their failures though his actions.
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to erehwyna's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in erehwyna's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (3)
The US Constitution established a LIMITED government that promoted individual liberty and self-sufficiency. At the same time, it was made for people who could clearly distinguish between right and wrong.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-John Adams
@Chibi_Son_Gokou - WOW! So moral and religious by what standards? What is moral for a Christian might not be moral for an Orthodox Jew. What is moral for a Mormon is definately not moral for a Baptist. I believe you have just tried to justify a religious state. Apparently the Taliban have nothing on you.
John Adams also said "Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society." and "Power always thinks... that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws." and "If we do not lay out ourselves in the service of mankind whom should we serve?"
I would strongly suggest that you actually read the entire statment that seems to be taken out of context so much, he goes on to say "What does morality have to do with its articles? While it establishes freedom of religion, why would it be wholly inadequate to the government of a non-religious people? The Constitution itself gives us little clue; it simply states that it was ordained to "secure the Blessings of Liberty" to succeeding generations (Preamble). Is our constitutional liberty derived from morality and religion? What is liberty? How is it defined? Is it the same as freedom?" He is making a statement to create an argument and ask these questions. But then, quoting things out of context is how you abuse words, isn't it?