Hear Me Now and Believe Me Later (Limbaugh on Schwarzenneger)

RushLimbaugh.com ^ | August 7, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[Macklew]

Ok, I'm hearing you. But you left something out. If not Arnold, WHO? Send Davis back?

[biffalobull]

iSorry charlie he ain't did you here the speech, he talking cradle to grave socialism

Wouldn't that be the same as having the Govt. care for you from "Erection to Resurrection"?

[MightyMouseToSaveThe Day]

Hey, PhilD...check out this thread about more conservatives in CA outside of Bay Area and LA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/961698/posts

It has some interesting stats, like 1 in 6 and 1 in 9 people in some more suburban/rural counties signed the recall petition compared to 1 in 108 for SF counties. Notice especially the quote that says "there are more conservatives than people think in CA"...

[Palladin]

Hey, Rush, stifle yourself!

[ElkGroveDan]

Hey, Rush, stifle yourself!

Yeah this is FreeRepublic. We only support big-government liberals here.

[Abe Froman]

The founder's differences on what would now be considered the finer points of the constitution did not include arguments about how much money one should be allowed to make and at what level you should pay taxes, how much to allocate to social services, who should have access to guns, and how far to go in purging government of any reference to God. They only had two opinions of government power in these areas: bad and worse.

The founders would no doubt consider our confiscatory tax scheme "absolutely" unacceptable. They would "react" wholly negatively to gun control and government charity. and their "ideology" would prohibit them from empowering the federal government to eliminate public religious displays.

Their ideology was the reason they went to war with England. Read Patrick Henry's speech and tell me that it doesn't rest on a bedrock of philosophical reasoning for individual liberty?

[Abe Froman]

You also can't fix anything if you're incapable or unwilling to do so, or if you refuse to acknowledge exactly what the problem is.

The bottom line is this-----electing Arnold does nothing for California if he doesn't fix the problem. I think it probably also makes things worse for real conservatives in the long run. If and when Arnold fails to do anything of substance, his failure will be immediately associated with republicans and therefore conservative republicans as well.

[Reagan Man]

We have a difference of opinion.

Your question was:

"I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but wasn't this country founded by ideologues and reactionary absolutists?"

My reply was simple and at the same time concise and precise.

I never said the The Founders weren't ideologues. I said the Founders weren't impractical ideologues. Once again, "the Founding Fathers were radical revolutionaries". I also mentioned, the Founders were the best politicians of there day and like their contemporary counterparts, all politicians compromise and negotiate. Nobody gets 100% of what they want. The facts are indisputable. During the First Constitutional Convention, the US Constitution went through several drafts before being accepted by a majority of the delegates.

What the Founders would have to say about modern American society, is total speculation on your part. Contemporary American's have a knowledge and awareness of historical events that the Founders didn't have. We have been exposed to a society that is different and far more complex then the one which existed in the late 17th century and early 18th century. Reacting to certain events is one thing, being a reactionary is the same as being a rightwing extremist. Such fringe extremsim serves no good purpose and solves nothing in the political arena.

As a traditional conservative, I don't advocate tax increases and more governmnet spending. Nor do I support gun control and removing references to God from our everyday activities in the public domain.

This is the 21st century, my friend. Stop living in the past.

[Abe Froman]

It is true that I speculate on the founder's opinions on today's political matters, but my speculation is not without merit; the fathers went to war over government abuses that our current government has long since completely eclipsed. The frame of the debate has shifted far towards the socialist left. If the founders were to judge our current government with the same criteria in which they judged the British crown, they would no doubt ask why we hadn't had open rebellion thus far. They were politicians, yes, but they were only willing to compromise with those people who were like-minded and had basically the same goal in mind (a limited government and personal freedom.) When it came to the king, obviously they took a stand that was completely impractical and stubborn, and as a result they jettisoned politics and went to war.

Having a rightwing extremist (by this I assume you mean a "give me liberty or give me death" attitude) view is only useless if you hold it alone. If enough people can be convinced to think as you do, it is no longer extreme, futhermore, the entire concept of liberty is such that comprimising on ANYTHING means you have failed.

"Freedom can't be kept for nothing. If you set a high value on liberty, you must set a low value on everything else." --Lucius Annaeus

[Reagan Man]

>>>If the founders were to judge our current government with the same criteria in which they judged the British crown, they would no doubt ask why we hadn't had open rebellion thus far.

Again, this isn't the late 17th century. It's impossible to say how the Founders would view contemporary American society from our perspective and for good reason. They haven't lived in our time and been exposed to 227 years of historical human advancement. And the issue of rebellion, is not an issue in todays world. FreeRepublic doesn't support the overthrow of the American government. Ask JimRob. While your rhetoric may be provocative, it's just more examples of fringe extremism and reactionary absolutism, running wild.

>>>Having a rightwing extremist (by this I assume you mean a "give me liberty or give me death" attitude)....

You assume wrong. It should be clear to you by now what I mean. Rightwing extremism is just more impractical idealism exhibited by political malcontents, social misfits and wild-eyed militants.

"The paradox with me is how any friend to the union of our country can, in conscience, contribute a cent to the maintenance of anyone who perverts the sanctity of his desk to the open inculcation of rebellion, civil war, dissolution of government, and the miseries of anarchy."
Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1815.

>>> ... futhermore, the entire concept of liberty is such that comprimising on ANYTHING means you have failed.

What utter hogwash. You sound like a libertarian.