When Liberals Stand for Principles, People Get Hurt

Rushlimbaugh.com ^ | 5/6/08 | Rush Limbaugh

[Dawnsblood]

RUSH: I want to expand on what essentially was a throwaway line right before the end of the hour because a lot of people are confused. I said liberals have their principles, and they stand for their principles above all else, and when they do, it is people who get hurt. It is not people that liberals stand for. And some of the e-mails that I have received, "Rush, liberals don't have principles." Oh, yes, they do. They have guiding principles. Doesn't mean they're right, but they have them, and they stick with them. If somebody in their movement sort of strays, like McCain, they kick 'em out. They don't call 'em mavericks and they don't say, "Oooh, this is another way to look at this, this is great, look at the diversity in our party." It's a great illustration, diversity, a great principle. What happens? There isn't any when it comes down to actual impact on people. They don't allow diversity in the Democrat Party. They don't allow diversity of speech. They don't allow diversity of appearance, yet they stand for it.

But in standing for diversity, somebody's going to get hurt, because when they enforce their principle of diversity, somebody has to be guilty, somebody isn't diverse enough, some organization isn't diverse enough, so the principle of diversity, which means nothing other than the way something looks -- and we're all told we're not supposed to judge anybody on that basis -- the way something looks, liberals have to fix it and change it, people get hurt. Now, all of liberalism occurs under the umbrella of "we care." And that's why it's so seductive to people, particularly ignorant people or people who want to think people care about people. We all care about people.

[fifthvirginia]

As usual, Rush puts out good stuff.

“... and the truth shall set you free.”

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Great rant... This should be standard fare from every Republican running for office but no, they leave these things unsaid... and leave it for Rush to promote.

Keep it up, Rush!

[theBuckwheat]

While a great riff, I would disagree that the Left can do anything for principle simply because the left is hostile to the very principle of principles. The left is in fact motivated by what remains when principles (and logic) are not only rejected, but are in fact anathema to the way that information is mentally processed. This is because people on the left live in an internal reality, where the external world and the various aspects of the external world are but mere bricks and boards, or raw materials from which the perfect internal mental world can be constructed and maintained.

In such a world, there cannot be any evil or sin because it is defined away. Any external criticism is an attack on this world, and must be resisted with every available resource. It is a world dominated by desires, wishes and feelings. Any fact or thread of logic that disrupts or questions the continual orderliness cannot be allowed in. As Rush said, the only thing that counts is good intentions.

[aruanan]

While a great riff, I would disagree that the Left can do anything for principle simply because the left is hostile to the very principle of principles.

Your problem is that you're failing to realize that there is more than one meaning for the word "principles". You're using it in the limited sense of "habitual devotion to right conduct" ie., morality. The primary meaning, though, is "fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption". The Left is full of these.

[Vanders9]

As the quote goes...”the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

[Carbonsteel]

"When Liberals Stand for Principles, People Get Hurt"

Liberals have no principles and that's why people get hurt!!

[theBuckwheat]

>>
The primary meaning, though, is “fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption”. The Left is full of these.
<<

The only use the Left has for any fundamental law, doctrine or assumption is when it serves their purpose. The instant it doesn't it is either ignored, or it is treated as something to be resisted because it deters the action being advocated.

Alternately it is co-opted by morphing and stretching the meaning of words. For example, constitutional clauses such as the welfare and commerce clauses gain permanent elasticity. “Shall make no law” becomes “shall make no unreasonable law”; “reasonable” thus becomes anything we want at the moment; “tax” becomes taking, and “principle” becomes “the reason we want what we want now”, or “the reason we refuse to allow what we object to”.