CDZ Rush Limbaugh explains which candidate is the most steadfastly OPPOSED to liberalism-Video

[Stephanie]

Go Cruz. our last best hope should be his motto.

SNIP:
Rush Limbaugh explains which candidate is the most steadfastly OPPOSED to liberalism
Posted by The Right Scoop on Oct 1, 2015 at 9:46 AM in Politics | 337 Comments



Yesterday Rush Limbaugh was talking to a caller and told that caller which GOP candidate to pick if they want someone who is the absolutely most steadfast against liberalism. You’ll never guess who it was!



all of it with comments here:
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/rush-limbaugh-explains-which-candidate-is-the-most-steadfastly-opposed-to-liberalism/#ixzz3nQ0WTIG5

 

[Stephanie]

Ted Cruz on Hannity:

We need leadership that listens to the people back home

 

[Pete7469]

Yesterday Rush Limbaugh was talking to a caller and told that caller which GOP candidate to pick if they want someone who is the absolutely most steadfast against liberalism. You’ll never guess who it was!

I guessed right away.

 

[regent]

Yesterday Rush Limbaugh was talking to a caller and told that caller which GOP candidate to pick if they want someone who is the absolutely most steadfast against liberalism. You’ll never guess who it was!

I guessed right away.

So why were the framers of the Constitution noted for their liberalism?

 

[Pete7469]

So why were the framers of the Constitution noted for their liberalism?

The framers were noted for the concept of "liberalism" as it was commonly perceived at that time. A "liberal" in 1789 America promoted the agenda of the individual. The "welfare" of the state was not a priority, the freedom of the individual out weighed the needs of the state.

Collectivist parasites have deceptivly altered the meaning of many words and taken the framers out of context.

If a time machine was available I would love to take a few foaming at the mouth moonbats to meet Jefferson and Washington. I'm quite sure they would not only level a flintlock and blow the moonbats away, but they would have specified in the COTUS that queers were forbidden from getting married, abortion would be illegal, and that social dependency on government would be forbidden.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't care about who is most steadfastly against liberalism or conservatism. I only care about who has the best ideas, tactics & strategies overall for moving the country forward.

And any candidate who will automatically reject ideas from the "other side" essentially disqualifies themselves immediately from consideration, because they are clearly going through life with truly closed mind, zero curiosity and only one eye open.

No thanks. I want a President with a fully-functioning mind, one who understands the world is a bit more complicated than Left vs. Right.
.

 

[TNHarley]

Yesterday Rush Limbaugh was talking to a caller and told that caller which GOP candidate to pick if they want someone who is the absolutely most steadfast against liberalism. You’ll never guess who it was!

I guessed right away.

So why were the framers of the Constitution noted for their liberalism?

That is classic liberalism which favors limited government and liberty. Not that pussy, Marxist bullcrap of today.

 

[regent]

So why were the framers of the Constitution noted for their liberalism?

The framers were noted for the concept of "liberalism" as it was commonly perceived at that time. A "liberal" in 1789 America promoted the agenda of the individual. The "welfare" of the state was not a priority, the freedom of the individual out weighed the needs of the state.

Collectivist parasites have deceptivly altered the meaning of many words and taken the framers out of context.

If a time machine was available I would love to take a few foaming at the mouth moonbats to meet Jefferson and Washington. I'm quite sure they would not only level a flintlock and blow the moonbats away, but they would have specified in the COTUS that queers were forbidden from getting married, abortion would be illegal, and that social dependency on government would be forbidden.

The framers took a government that had little if any power and changed it into the government we have today with powers galore compared to the government it was replacing. The new government also gave the responsibility for social dependency to the state governments. The state governments assumed that responsibility until the Great Depression, when unable to handle the numbers, the federal government assumed the responsibility.

 

[oldsoul]

The framers took a government that had little if any power and changed it into the government we have today with powers galore compared to the government it was replacing.

Have you read the US Constitution? It spells out exactly what the federal government is responsible for, which is not much, and specificly says everything else is reserved for the various states, or the people.

Originally, the federal government was little more than an alliance between 13 states. Read that as 13 nations, which is another term for state, and you get a much clearer picture of their vision for "These United States" (not to be confused with The United States), see how changing one word alters the meaning of a phrase? Cool, isn't it...

Each and every phrase, and sometimes even a single word, was carefully deliberated and chosen for a reason. The framers enumerated the specific powers of the federal government for a reason. If it's not there, they can't do it. Everything in the constitution, including amendments, must be put into the historical context in which it was written.

 

[Pete7469]

The framers took a government that had little if any power and changed it into the government we have today with powers galore compared to the government it was replacing. The new government also gave the responsibility for social dependency to the state governments. The state governments assumed that responsibility until the Great Depression, when unable to handle the numbers, the federal government assumed the responsibility.

That's leftist psycobabble and it has minimal basis on reality, just like most regressive "thinking".

The framers realized that in order to maintain a strong nation the republic needed a federal system that still allowed the states to govern themselves. The Articles of Confederation did not give the national government enough power to prevent internal insurrection or provide for the common defense from an external threat.

The COTUS put severe restrictions on the federal government that have been usurped because the states did not have the resources, and neither did the feds BTW of supporting the people in the time of crisis. The people never should have been fooled into believing the feds would ever be able solve the problem, and the problems have all been exacerbated.

The recent power grabs by the moonbat messiah's regime gave similarly failed to provide the promised results.