Rush insists conservatives don’t want to control you.

Posted on June 12, 2007. Filed under: entertainment, environment, humor, life, media, politics, radio, writing |

Today our favorite fat man was annoyed that the British government is trying to promote vegetarianism as a means to fight global warming and promote health.  And true to form Rush linked vegetarianism immediately to big government and, you guessed it to liberalism.  According to Rush liberals want to control you more than conservatives via big government.  Something strange was missing in the argument.  Like amendments against gay rights and laws making abortion illegal.  Sure, conservatives don’t want to control what you do.  As long as you adhere to their standards of morality you can do whatever you want…

Advertisements

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

11 Responses to “Rush insists conservatives don’t want to control you.”

RSS Feed for portlandprincess Comments RSS Feed

Actually, Rush has lost an enormous amount of weight over the last serveral years. Personally, I’ve always enjoyed his rants – even if they are a bit over the top. I can admire someone who knows what they believe and believe it with conviction. And would you mind if I dispel the myth of the anti-abortion laws? Actually, the desire to overturn Roe v Wade is about that fact that it became a federal law. Abortion was and would remain (likely)legal in all but 2 states. So, really if Roe v Wade were overturned, women would not be resorting to back alley butchers for their abortions, they would go to their local free clinic or gyn for them, just as they do now.

Anyway, that’s my two cents for what it’s worth.
WC

Conservatives don’t want to control you, it’s actually quite the opposite. I’m a conservative, and I don’t believe you need an ammendment against gay marriage. As for Rowe v Wade, it’s bad law- because as the Constitution points out- laws are created by the legislative branch, not the judicial. So if Rowe v Wade was overturned, as writerchick pointed out, the states (as it should be by the Constitution) would have the ability to decide.

But who really is looking for control? Most of the ‘liberal’ candidates for president, aren’t even liberals anymore, they’re socialists. A libertarian would want the government out of evertying- legalize drugs, stay out of abortion, etc. The liberal thought is that it’s the person that should decide. However, if you watched one democratic debate, you’ll see the hypocricy. All the liberal candidates are standing for control. Everyone one of them said they are going to raise taxes, the biggest gov’t control mechanism out there. They voted against the removal of the death tax (a staple in Marx’s Manifesto). And they are touting social program after social program after social program. A social program sounds great, but when you look into it, it’s simply craddle to grave control. And it doesn’t work. All you have to do is look to Europe who is far ahead of us in terms of implimenting a social agenda, and realize that all of those counties are collapsing.

hypocricy is not limited to the democrats or republicans. It’s that sort of “line in the sand” thinking that mires us more in bickering than in truly weighing the merits of a given proposal. And part of that process has to be getting beyond the donkey and the elephant.

That said, it is inaccurate to claim that democratic candidates are “socialists.” It’s just as inaccurate as calling republican ones heartless beancounters or the enforcers of big business’ greedy desire. Social reform, whether through new programs or overhauls of existing systems, does not constitute socialism. Didn’t Bush want to offer money for faith-based initiatives and couldn’t we call that a social program?
Furthermore, on a large scale, I sincerely believe we have an obligation to serve others; it is, to my thinking, the implicit contract we make when we try to better our own lives. This is not my life alone. I am beholden to the fabric of a society and owe that society whatever I have to offer. If these ideas can be put into practice through governmental policy–and I question the ultimate effectiveness of this–it should at least be tried.

But I feel a little soapboxish, so perhaps I’ll shut it down now.

Ugh. *hypocrisy* How lame of me!

All your points are well taken. I was being a little less than objective with my last Rush post. He was throwing around generalizations and I hopped into his Cadillac for awhile (hee hee, I don’t know what kind of car Rush actually drives but I’ll find out) and drove around with him. I agree that conservatives want less control, but liberals don’t believe that. Working out of Portland the typical liberal line is that conservatives do want to control us via ideology. I don’t agree with this necessarily. I think everything is so polarized now that people aren’t even thinking anymore but just deciding what team they need to be on.

Hey Princess,
I agree with your last statement whole-heartedly. People really aren’t using their noggins anymore – it’s just that whacky, emotional thing that’s going on. Frankly, I’d like to see us take back our country and start at square one again. Then, we might make some progress.
WC

I have to agree and disagree with you puddlehead. Though I agree that the hypocrisy is more than just democrat or republican, but I can’t see how you can look at the presidential debates and say that the Democratic front runners are not running on a socialist platform.

First, I’m not a huge W fan, but that being said, him wanting to establish a faith based social program does not make him a socialist.

Socialist theory subscribes too:

1. a heavy progrssive or gradual income tax- (all candidates have vowed to let the tax cuts expire which would result in the largest tax increase in our nations history as well as adding new taxes)
2. abolition fo all right of inheritance- (all of the candidates voted against removing the death tax and the inheritence tax)
3. use of land for public purposes (each one is supporting emminent domain, not just for public use ie new road, but also to increase the tax base ie remove a farm and put up condos to gain more tax revenue)
4. More government control in terms of all aspects of life to keep everything equal (it was Hillary who said, “I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society….I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”)

You even say I am beholden to the fabric of a society and owe that society whatever I have to offer- which is great if that is your personal choice. If the goverment forces that upon you, then you might as well just say, ‘from each according to his ability, for each according to his need’

that should say

to each according to his need (typing too fast again)

Hi, AL66888.

I wasn’t suggesting that W is a socialist but only that faith-based initiatives are social programs. And it is, to my thinking, a good idea to implement social programs. So, nomoreso are the democratic candidates socials as Pres. Bush is one. I do think the democrats are farther left than we’ve seen in a long, long time. But that does not make them socialists. Neither would well-intentioned and carefully executed programs make us a socialist state. Social programs, whether they are funded through federal or state money or private organizations, serve underrepresented or neglected populations and reaffirm our commitment to our nation’s population.

I am not asking for “everything to become equal” but only that a level playing field is in place for all to acheive what they can. Consider Peter Singer’s argument that if we live excessively in our private lives, we are effectively turning our backs on someone else. Granted, his position is extreme, and I do not fully subscribe to his line of thinking on many positions, but the point does have merit. You quoted my statement about owing society what I have to offer, and I appreciate your distinction between choice and governmental policy. However, I believe that the governmental–whichever party is in power–has an obligation to give individuals every opportunity to realize their own ability to make positive social and economic change for others.

This is not to say that everyone should have a Cadillac and a trust fund. However, when someone can afford high end homes, cars, electronics, and otherwise live far beyond comfort and into the realms of opulence, and at the same time there are people whose full weekly menu consists of Ramen and Kool-Aid, something’s amiss. I do not advocate large screen televisions in every room of every house in America. Nor do I advocate no large screens in any house in America. There is a middle ground here that, perhaps because of political wrangling and polemics, gets lost in the shuffle and the soundbites.

Should a psychologist who has worked her tail off through graduate school, etc, “get more” than, say, manual labor or the intentionally unemployed? Absolutely. Otherwise, there’d be little motivation or initiative to thrive in competitive and difficult fields. But can’t the creature comforts be pulled further in line with social and political realities? By this I mean that we’re all here together. There is not rich US and poor US. There is the US. And if the wealthiest of the nation were asked (and duly rewarded somehow) for making cuts in their own lives which in turn could be funneled into social programs such as job training, childcare, college scholarships for those who would be unable to succeed otherwise, isn’t that a good thing? Whether it comes from a governmental initiative or not is less important to me than figured out a viable system by which the individuals can achieve their own financial security. There is a huge disparity between social classes in this country and I would like to see that rectified.

Anyway! Sorry Portand Princess for hijacking the comments post. And I hope, AL66888, you stuck with me. Phew! These politics are making me thirty.

Puddlehead

Yeah, we sure did hijack this- sorry about the PP.

I’ll be brief as to not take to take up more space.

I agree we should help the less fortunate, and give of ourselves. And remember, the top 5% of all earners in this country pay for greater than 50% of the tax bill every year. So, in making a lot of money, they are giving a lot of money to the government to help those less fortunate.

and here is where I’ll shut up.


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: