How conservatives lost their moral compass

[saveliberty]

What is really shameful is redistribution of wealth, so you can enslave an entitlement group. All the while, acting like their salvation.

 

[konradv]

Seems like liberals think they have a moral compass and that's the only one that counts. It's moral to kill babies. It's moral to normalize same sex relationships. It's moral to rob someone who works and give the money to someone who doesn't. If that's your moral compass, no wonder you are going in the wrong direction.

There are also some that believe it's alright to kill the disabled to harvest their organs. Is killing immoral? Apparently not to some.

There are some conservatives that believe all gays, blacks and Jews should be killed. Since you didn't identify your "some", neither will I, but you KNOW it's true!

 

[ABikerSailor]

Seems like liberals think they have a moral compass and that's the only one that counts. It's moral to kill babies. It's moral to normalize same sex relationships. It's moral to rob someone who works and give the money to someone who doesn't. If that's your moral compass, no wonder you are going in the wrong direction.

There are also some that believe it's alright to kill the disabled to harvest their organs. Is killing immoral? Apparently not to some.

Got a link, or is this just more hack bullshit?

 

[kiwiman127]

Rush isn't a hatemonger. your premise is flawed.

 

[kiwiman127]

What is really shameful is redistribution of wealth, so you can enslave an entitlement group. All the while, acting like their salvation.

Is this the redistribution of wealth you're addressing?

 

[Mr.Nick]

How conservatives lost their moral compass



*snip*


American history can be read as a series of episodes in which we reached what could be called a “tipping point” of shame — when our behavior became so egregious that we, as a people, decided to desist from our worst excesses, whether it was slavery or antipathy to immigrants.

Take civil rights. The majority of Americans, even outside the South, might originally have had little real enthusiasm for the civil rights movement. Most urged patience. It was only after the public saw the beatings during the Freedom Rides, the firehoses and police dogs at Selma and the church bombing in Birmingham that Americans were shamed into accepting the claims of African-Americans to equal justice under the law. Shame was the moralizing force.

Shame also defeated the hatred of Father Charles Coughlin, the famous “radio priest” who laid the Great Depression at the feet of Jewish international bankers, and Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who recklessly accused his critics of communist treachery. Both had reached that tipping point at which ordinary Americans felt these provocateurs had gone too far. Americans felt shamed.

There is a reason we have never previously had a hatemonger like Rush Limbaugh enjoy popularity for as long as he has. The reason was shame. You couldn’t find enough people, let alone a broadcaster, who wanted to be identified with that sort of viciousness. The initial enthusiasm for it eventually waned.

But that was then. Surely when a group can publicly cheer a man’s death for not having health insurance, the sense of shame is gone. It faded not only because liberals had subverted it by casting it as a conservative scheme to corset society, but because conservatives managed to delegitimize it. They attacked it as yet another elitist scheme, contrived to neuter strong conservatism.

Conservatives portray shame as a way of making people feel bad about the lesser angels of their nature. Which is exactly what shame should be.
Their bigger trick, though, has not been to delegitimize shame so much as to convert shamelessness into a valid political position. It can be attacked only at the peril of seeming to take sides in our political wars — which the mainstream media steadfastly refuse to do.


*snip*

Yeah, yeah..

Anyone who doesn't give others whatever they want is morally misguided...


The words "liberal" and "conservative" have to be the most misused words in the English language..

 

[rdean]

Let him die!​

 

[California Girl]

Rush isn't a hatemonger. your premise is flawed.

So, what exactly is he?

He's a political commentator.

I really need to listen to this Rush guy. I had him pegged as an idiot. Was I wrong?

 

[Avatar4321]

Seems like liberals think they have a moral compass and that's the only one that counts. It's moral to kill babies. It's moral to normalize same sex relationships. It's moral to rob someone who works and give the money to someone who doesn't. If that's your moral compass, no wonder you are going in the wrong direction.

There are also some that believe it's alright to kill the disabled to harvest their organs. Is killing immoral? Apparently not to some.

There are some conservatives that believe all gays, blacks and Jews should be killed. Since you didn't identify your "some", neither will I, but you KNOW it's true!

I dont know of any. But you could be right.

Bioethicists Suggest Killing ‘Universally and Irreversibly Disabled’ Person Not Morally Wrong | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[Avatar4321]

So, what exactly is he?

He's a political commentator.

I really need to listen to this Rush guy. I had him pegged as an idiot. Was I wrong?

I wouldnt call him an idiot. I think he's wrong about a few things.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Let him die!​

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

 

[Amelia]

Let him die!​

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Give a fish a computer and you get rdean.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let him die!​

 

[g5000]

How conservatives lost their moral compass

I don't think the writer of that opinion piece actually heard the debate in which he claims, "Rep. Ron Paul’s declaration that an uninsured 30-year-old man who needs medical care should be left to die".

He betrays an ignorance of that particular exchange later when he says, "Indeed, even if they harbored those feelings, the nation’s overwhelming sense of Judeo-Christian moral righteousness forced them to at least talk about concern for the underprivileged. No one wanted to seem mean."

If that idiot had actually watched the full debate instead of what he heard about that debate, he would have known that Ron Paul went on at some length about it is the responsibility of the 30-year-old to get health insurance before he gets into an accident which puts him in a coma.

The scenario Ron Paul was given was of a man who could afford insurance, not one who couldn't. But the hysterical liberal spinners always shriek that conservatives cheered the death of a man who could NOT afford insurance.

Ron Paul also went on to say that churches and charitable groups used to take care of such people, and that is what he would prefer.

So this asshole who wrote the opinion piece is quite literally MAKING SHIT UP!!!

 

[g5000]

After FDR's friends the Soviets tried to start WWIII in Berlin and immediately before FDRs friends the ChiComs started killing American soldiers in Korea, Joe McCarthy warned us that US State and the White House had genuine Communist spies and history vindicates him completely

The problem with McCarthyism is the same problem with all tyrannies. You could be accused of being a Commie even if you weren't.

If the megolamaniac is finding a commie under every bed, that just undermines the whole cause. Which is exactly what the drunken Senator from Wisconsin did.

 

[g5000]

Seems like liberals think they have a moral compass and that's the only one that counts. It's moral to kill babies. It's moral to normalize same sex relationships. It's moral to rob someone who works and give the money to someone who doesn't. If that's your moral compass, no wonder you are going in the wrong direction.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone being gay. Whether a man plugs his dick into a consenting woman or whether he plugs it into a consenting man does no harm to civil society whatsoever.

The "Ick Factor" is not a good enough basis for civil law.

 

[Mr.Nick]

How conservatives lost their moral compass

I don't think the writer of that opinion piece actually heard the debate in which he claims, "Rep. Ron Paul’s declaration that an uninsured 30-year-old man who needs medical care should be left to die".

He betrays an ignorance of that particular exchange later when he says, "Indeed, even if they harbored those feelings, the nation’s overwhelming sense of Judeo-Christian moral righteousness forced them to at least talk about concern for the underprivileged. No one wanted to seem mean."

If that idiot had actually watched the full debate instead of what he heard about that debate, he would have known that Ron Paul went on at some length about it is the responsibility of the 30-year-old to get health insurance before he gets into an accident which puts him in a coma.

The scenario Ron Paul was given was of a man who could afford insurance, not one who couldn't. But the hysterical liberal spinners always shriek that conservatives cheered the death of a man who could NOT afford insurance.

Ron Paul also went on to say that churches and charitable groups used to take care of such people, and that is what he would prefer.

So this asshole who wrote the opinion piece is quite literally MAKING SHIT UP!!!

Not only that, Ron Paul has made it clear he is not against social services in general - he is against the federal funding of social services.

From the libertarian perspective states can do what they want as long as it's in context with the Bill of Rights.

Ron Paul, or real libertarians for that matter just want to see the federal government do their job while respecting the Tenth Amendment.

That doesn't make libertarians evil or not sympathetic to individuals in tough positions or who got a raw deal in life.

If people want benefits from the government then they can move to a state that provides them with those benefits.

It's not our federal governments position or duty to force ideas on the populace.

We have a Tenth Amendment for a reason.... Choice.

 

[Mr.Nick]

So, what exactly is he?

He's a political commentator.

no he is a entertainer.

No you're an entertainer..

Your smugness and ignorance is pure comedy..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

After FDR's friends the Soviets tried to start WWIII in Berlin and immediately before FDRs friends the ChiComs started killing American soldiers in Korea, Joe McCarthy warned us that US State and the White House had genuine Communist spies and history vindicates him completely

The problem with McCarthyism is the same problem with all tyrannies. You could be accused of being a Commie even if you weren't.

If the megolamaniac is finding a commie under every bed, that just undermines the whole cause. Which is exactly what the drunken Senator from Wisconsin did.

Too bad that the Communists themselves admitted McCarthy was right, that they did penetrate State and WH.

And you're a stupid fuck to boot

 

[CrusaderFrank]

After FDR's friends the Soviets tried to start WWIII in Berlin and immediately before FDRs friends the ChiComs started killing American soldiers in Korea, Joe McCarthy warned us that US State and the White House had genuine Communist spies and history vindicates him completely

The problem with McCarthyism is the same problem with all tyrannies. You could be accused of being a Commie even if you weren't.

If the megolamaniac is finding a commie under every bed, that just undermines the whole cause. Which is exactly what the drunken Senator from Wisconsin did.

Have a grown up read it to you, try not to be an ignorant fuck your entire life

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/140008105X[/ame]