Digging into Conservative 'values'

[saveliberty]

Conservatives are hypocrites, they like regulating the lives of other peoples as a benefit and profit to themselves like with abortion but take a libertarian view when they want to skirt around the law and use the Constitution for example with gun rights, they can't regulate call for regulating abortion and advocate prayer in schools and then turn around and claim state"s rights and invoke the 2nd Amendment when it comes to gun rights.

Feel free to explain how Conservatives (or Liberals for that matter) benefit or profit from not having abortions performed. Someone so uninformed should probably not advertise their lack of understanding by posting on a message board.

 

[Flaylo]

Conservatives are hypocrites, they like regulating the lives of other peoples as a benefit and profit to themselves like with abortion but take a libertarian view when they want to skirt around the law and use the Constitution for example with gun rights, they can't regulate call for regulating abortion and advocate prayer in schools and then turn around and claim state"s rights and invoke the 2nd Amendment when it comes to gun rights.

Feel free to explain how Conservatives (or Liberals for that matter) benefit or profit from not having abortions performed. Someone so uninformed should probably not advertise their lack of understanding by posting on a message board.

Its not so much about profiting, its about conservatives thinking their way is the only one true way and that everyone who doesn't follow their way are ut of touch with reality. There benefit is that feeling of power and control.

 

[Oddball]

Really putting your heart into getting that strawman building merit badge are ya?

 

[Foxfyre]

Conservatives are hypocrites, they like regulating the lives of other peoples as a benefit and profit to themselves like with abortion but take a libertarian view when they want to skirt around the law and use the Constitution for example with gun rights, they can't regulate call for regulating abortion and advocate prayer in schools and then turn around and claim state"s rights and invoke the 2nd Amendment when it comes to gun rights.

Feel free to explain how Conservatives (or Liberals for that matter) benefit or profit from not having abortions performed. Someone so uninformed should probably not advertise their lack of understanding by posting on a message board.

Its not so much about profiting, its about conservatives thinking their way is the only one true way and that everyone who doesn't follow their way are ut of touch with reality. There benefit is that feeling of power and control.

There are many ways to do many things, but there is usually a best way to do most things. Conservatives see that history has proved time and again that liberal policies drain the vitality and energy from a society while conservative policies free up people to strive for excellence and to be the most that they can be.

Conservatives want a nation powerful enough that nobody will presume to mess with it. But otherwise, they don't WANT power and control other than ability to prevent others from trampling on their rights. Liberals are the ones who presume to restrict and limit the people's rights.

Conservatives want freedom to breath, dream, explore, experiment, reach for whatever their hearts desire.

 

[Immanuel]

Conservatives are hypocrites, they like regulating the lives of other peoples as a benefit and profit to themselves like with abortion but take a libertarian view when they want to skirt around the law and use the Constitution for example with gun rights, they can't regulate call for regulating abortion and advocate prayer in schools and then turn around and claim state"s rights and invoke the 2nd Amendment when it comes to gun rights.

No one is pure conservative or pure liberal or pure progressive or pure libertarian.

I for one would fit into your statement above and have admitted it several times. I oppose abortion on the grounds that it is the destruction of human life. In most cases, I oppose big government as well as governmental interference in the lives of citizens. Edit: Allowing the government to limit or make abortion illegal means more governmental interference and directly opposes my belief in smaller government. However, my belief is that the government's main responsibility is to protect and defend life. That being my belief, I see the need to protect not only the life of the mother, but the life of the fetus within her.

There are cases where my beliefs in regards to limiting individual freedoms conflict with my believe in smaller government. Abortion is one instance. There are others. For instance, although I have a lead foot and would love to be able to drive as fast as my wheels will take me, for the safety of my fellow citizens, I understand that the government needs to step in and limit driving speeds. Doing so is an affront to my individual freedoms, but there are legitimate reasons for the government doing so.

The government does other things that I believe are beyond their scope of jurisdiction. The mandate created by Health Insurance Reform is one of those things. I believe in this case the government has overstepped its bounds, just as I did when the USAPatriot Act was signed.

Am I for smaller, better managed government that doesn't interfere in my life or the lives of others or in corporate affairs? Hell yes, I am. Do I believe that in all cases the government should stay out of my life? No, absolutely not. Total freedom = anarchy.

Immie

 

[Flaylo]

I don't see why conservatives are all about small government, give the people too much control independent of the government and the country would be in virtually anarchy in some places and draconian in others. Economically the government must regulate and some eyes of what goes on, the rights of the workers have been abused far too long and if conservatives had it their way there would be no unions and the companies would be able to control the people that work for them and may them virtual slaves. Less government regulation on big businesses isn't going to make companies more productive for all people, the goals of companies are to make the bosses rich with giving as little as possible to the people that actually carry out the work.

 

[Flaylo]

Really putting your heart into getting that strawman building merit badge are ya?

You already earned a strawman qualification badge. If I want to see how building strawmen are done I tune into Fox News and watch Hannity, liberals deal with the truth, raw truth.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't see why conservatives are all about small government, give the people too much control independent of the government and the country would be in virtually anarchy in some places and draconian in others. Economically the government must regulate and some eyes of what goes on, the rights of the workers have been abused far too long and if conservatives had it their way there would be no unions and the companies would be able to control the people that work for them and may them virtual slaves. Less government regulation on big businesses isn't going to make companies more productive for all people, the goals of companies are to make the bosses rich with giving as little as possible to the people that actually carry out the work.

In that respect you are right.

There is a continuum involved here. The continuum reflects governmental control. Too much control is a disaster, but so is not enough. Some where in between there is a happy medium.

None of us see that point as being in exactly the same place. For instance, I may think that this point should be say somewhere between mid point and smaller government but closer to the middle whereas someone not blinded by their hatred of me and somewhat level headed on the left might see that point as being somewhere between the middle and a larger more controlling government. Neither one of us are likely to be right and the best place is more likely somewhere in the middle. Which is why we are better off having liberals and Conservatives controlling this country, working against each other to keep one side from total domination and a disaster from happening.

Immie

 

[Wry Catcher]

In terms of a temporal defintion, and by observation during my lifetime, let me suggest the following characteristics of liberal and conservative:

The Liberal: "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you"

The Conservative: "Poo onto others before they Poo onto you"

I suggest this sums up the actual practice of today's conservative, as does this: "I've got mine, **** the rest of the world".

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see why conservatives are all about small government, give the people too much control independent of the government and the country would be in virtually anarchy in some places and draconian in others. Economically the government must regulate and some eyes of what goes on, the rights of the workers have been abused far too long and if conservatives had it their way there would be no unions and the companies would be able to control the people that work for them and may them virtual slaves. Less government regulation on big businesses isn't going to make companies more productive for all people, the goals of companies are to make the bosses rich with giving as little as possible to the people that actually carry out the work.

Just keep drinking the kool-ade friend. There are none so blind as the blind. You see liberals HAVE to deal in non sequitor and straw men because they cannot defend what they want to defend.

Conservatrives know that:

Small goverment is not anarchy

No more regulation than is necessary to secure our rights is not absence of regulation.

If our rights are secured, unions can provide a service but they are not necessary.

When rights are secured there are no slaves. Entitlements and forcing dependency on whole classes of people, however, can create slaves.

It is not government's job to make big business productive for all people. It is government's job to allow business to be as productive as it chooses to be. You see liberals think they should be able to control business for their own benefit instead of seeing it as their own responsibility to look to their own prosperity. That's why it is liberals who are into the game of control and forcing people to do things. Conservatives don't expect YOU to support them. You DO expect others to support you.

Your boss owes you no more than what you agree to work for. To assume that you are entitled to HIS profits is a very socialist concept that is anathema to conservatives who believe every person should look to their own industry for their profits.

 

[Flaylo]

I don't see why conservatives are all about small government, give the people too much control independent of the government and the country would be in virtually anarchy in some places and draconian in others. Economically the government must regulate and some eyes of what goes on, the rights of the workers have been abused far too long and if conservatives had it their way there would be no unions and the companies would be able to control the people that work for them and may them virtual slaves. Less government regulation on big businesses isn't going to make companies more productive for all people, the goals of companies are to make the bosses rich with giving as little as possible to the people that actually carry out the work.

In that respect you are right.

There is a continuum involved here. The continuum reflects governmental control. Too much control is a disaster, but so is not enough. Some where in between there is a happy medium.

None of us see that point as being in exactly the same place. For instance, I may think that this point should be say somewhere between mid point and smaller government but closer to the middle whereas someone not blinded by their hatred of me and somewhat level headed on the left might see that point as being somewhere between the middle and a larger more controlling government. Neither one of us are likely to be right and the best place is more likely somewhere in the middle. Which is why we are better off having liberals and Conservatives controlling this country, working against each other to keep one side from total domination and a disaster from happening.

Immie

You make good points, the government does need balance or equilibrium to it, liberals in general do not want too much government but conservatives want less and less of government. Government involvement is needed in some cases such as protecting the rights of employees from being abused by employers and making sure big businesses don't use dirt tactics to box out smaller businesses. I don't support big businesses, I support having lots of small businesses so that every American or at least most can a part of the economic cake.

 

[Immanuel]

In terms of a temporal defintion, and by observation during my lifetime, let me suggest the following characteristics of liberal and conservative:

The Liberal: "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you"

The Conservative: "Poo onto others before they Poo onto you"

I suggest this sums up the actual practice of today's conservative, as does this: "I've got mine, **** the rest of the world".

A total misrepresentation of fact and one that I was beginning to think that you had finally outgrown.

The truth is that it is more like liberals believe in letting people live their own lives and forcing everyone to live by that standards. "Thou shalt (we have law here) be tolerant of us. Thou shalt not interfere with gay rights, abortion rights, poor people's rights etc etc etc. If you make more money than us, thou shalt hand over your money to the poor."

There are ranges of the liberal. Some truly do live by the "live and let live" philosophy and then there are the extreme ones that live by the philosophy of "we support these rights and come hell or high water you will too."

Conservatives are much more authoritarian in the extreme. The "religious right" believes that they are right and that you are a sinner and you had damned well better "turn or you will burn". Note: they say they only do this for your own good. Then you have your more moderate conservatives who actually do care about the needs of others and want to help those in need but don't see giveaways as being helpful.

It is the extreme on both sides that are the problem, not the moderates on either side. Quite frankly I think the moderates on both sides are much closer in beliefs to each other than either one of them are to the extremes on either side.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I don't see why conservatives are all about small government, give the people too much control independent of the government and the country would be in virtually anarchy in some places and draconian in others. Economically the government must regulate and some eyes of what goes on, the rights of the workers have been abused far too long and if conservatives had it their way there would be no unions and the companies would be able to control the people that work for them and may them virtual slaves. Less government regulation on big businesses isn't going to make companies more productive for all people, the goals of companies are to make the bosses rich with giving as little as possible to the people that actually carry out the work.

In that respect you are right.

There is a continuum involved here. The continuum reflects governmental control. Too much control is a disaster, but so is not enough. Some where in between there is a happy medium.

None of us see that point as being in exactly the same place. For instance, I may think that this point should be say somewhere between mid point and smaller government but closer to the middle whereas someone not blinded by their hatred of me and somewhat level headed on the left might see that point as being somewhere between the middle and a larger more controlling government. Neither one of us are likely to be right and the best place is more likely somewhere in the middle. Which is why we are better off having liberals and Conservatives controlling this country, working against each other to keep one side from total domination and a disaster from happening.

Immie

You make good points, the government does need balance or equilibrium to it, liberals in general do not want too much government but conservatives want less and less of government. Government involvement is needed in some cases such as protecting the rights of employees from being abused by employers and making sure big businesses don't use dirt tactics to box out smaller businesses. I don't support big businesses, I support having lots of small businesses so that every American or at least most can a part of the economic cake.

There is hope for you yet.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I don't see why conservatives are all about small government, give the people too much control independent of the government and the country would be in virtually anarchy in some places and draconian in others. Economically the government must regulate and some eyes of what goes on, the rights of the workers have been abused far too long and if conservatives had it their way there would be no unions and the companies would be able to control the people that work for them and may them virtual slaves. Less government regulation on big businesses isn't going to make companies more productive for all people, the goals of companies are to make the bosses rich with giving as little as possible to the people that actually carry out the work.

In that respect you are right.

There is a continuum involved here. The continuum reflects governmental control. Too much control is a disaster, but so is not enough. Some where in between there is a happy medium.

None of us see that point as being in exactly the same place. For instance, I may think that this point should be say somewhere between mid point and smaller government but closer to the middle whereas someone not blinded by their hatred of me and somewhat level headed on the left might see that point as being somewhere between the middle and a larger more controlling government. Neither one of us are likely to be right and the best place is more likely somewhere in the middle. Which is why we are better off having liberals and Conservatives controlling this country, working against each other to keep one side from total domination and a disaster from happening.

Immie

You make good points, the government does need balance or equilibrium to it, liberals in general do not want too much government but conservatives want less and less of government. Government involvement is needed in some cases such as protecting the rights of employees from being abused by employers and making sure big businesses don't use dirt tactics to box out smaller businesses. I don't support big businesses, I support having lots of small businesses so that every American or at least most can a part of the economic cake.

In some cases there are needs for big business. Economy of scale applies.

However, regulation of those businesses is essential. For instance, I do not want to see big business controlling their own employment conditions because they will take advantage of the employee, yet, I'm not a fan of today's unions (which are as corrupt as politicians today) either. Again both sides are needed to counteract the other.

Immie

 

[Oddball]

Really putting your heart into getting that strawman building merit badge are ya?

You already earned a strawman qualification badge. If I want to see how building strawmen are done I tune into Fox News and watch Hannity, liberals deal with the truth, raw truth.

So, you really want me to deconstruct that delusional hallucination, do ya?

Well, here goes nothing:

I don't see why conservatives are all about small government...

Which "conservatives"?...Judging from the first six years of a Bush adminstration that was constantly decried as "far right", they expanded both spending and levels of bureaucracy at a faster rate than the supposedly "liberal" Clinton administration.

The facts match neither the rhetoric of "conservatives" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) nor your hallucination.

Leadoff strawman fails to reach base.

...give the people too much control independent of the government and the country would be in virtually anarchy in some places and draconian in others.

Which "people"?... Do you include yourself in the ranks of such "people"?...Why can't these "people" be trusted but politicians and bureaucrats (who are, incidentally, people too) can be?

Likewise, the notion that less bureaucracy and onerous regulation equal anarchy is a tired old cliche, not worthy of a middle school debate club.

Two strawmen in one.

Economically the government must regulate and some eyes of what goes on, the rights of the workers have been abused far too long and if conservatives had it their way there would be no unions and the companies would be able to control the people that work for them and may them virtual slaves.

There you go again...Painting so-called "conservatives" with the broad brush (or constructing the strawman), then branding them as virtual plantationers.

Maybe there's a job in writing plot lines for pro rasslin' in your future.

Less government regulation on big businesses isn't going to make companies more productive for all people

Care to cite the constitutional provision which makes the feds responsible for making companies profitable for "all the people"?...Oh yeah, there isn't one.

Strawman #5.

...the goals of companies are to make the bosses rich with giving as little as possible to the people that actually carry out the work.

Building the strawman by an appeal to ignorance...Two fallacies rolled into one.

Final score:

Strawmen: 6

Actual reality: 0

 

[Wry Catcher]

I don't see why conservatives are all about small government, give the people too much control independent of the government and the country would be in virtually anarchy in some places and draconian in others. Economically the government must regulate and some eyes of what goes on, the rights of the workers have been abused far too long and if conservatives had it their way there would be no unions and the companies would be able to control the people that work for them and may them virtual slaves. Less government regulation on big businesses isn't going to make companies more productive for all people, the goals of companies are to make the bosses rich with giving as little as possible to the people that actually carry out the work.

Just keep drinking the kool-ade friend. There are none so blind as the blind. You see liberals HAVE to deal in non sequitor and straw men because they cannot defend what they want to defend.

Conservatrives know that:

Small goverment is not anarchy

No more regulation than is necessary to secure our rights is not absence of regulation.

If our rights are secured, unions can provide a service but they are not necessary.

When rights are secured there are no slaves. Entitlements and forcing dependency on whole classes of people, however, can create slaves.

It is not government's job to make big business productive for all people. It is government's job to allow business to be as productive as it chooses to be. You see liberals think they should be able to control business for their own benefit instead of seeing it as their own responsibility to look to their own prosperity. That's why it is liberals who are into the game of control and forcing people to do things. Conservatives don't expect YOU to support them. You DO expect others to support you.

Your boss owes you no more than what you agree to work for. To assume that you are entitled to HIS profits is a very socialist concept that is anathema to conservatives who believe every person should look to their own industry for their profits.

So the USA is not a society, it is a collection of individuals all of whom have the natural right to control their own destiny. Since we are not a society, government is necessarily intrusive in the life of the individual, and must take no role in the regulation of commerce and industry or the bahvior of individuals?
Does that sum up your point? Or, are their some caveats? If there are, please offer them.

 

[Foxfyre]

In terms of a temporal defintion, and by observation during my lifetime, let me suggest the following characteristics of liberal and conservative:

The Liberal: "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you"

The Conservative: "Poo onto others before they Poo onto you"

I suggest this sums up the actual practice of today's conservative, as does this: "I've got mine, **** the rest of the world".

A total misrepresentation of fact and one that I was beginning to think that you had finally outgrown.

The truth is that it is more like liberals believe in letting people live their own lives and forcing everyone to live by that standards. "Thou shalt (we have law here) be tolerant of us. Thou shalt not interfere with gay rights, abortion rights, poor people's rights etc etc etc. If you make more money than us, thou shalt hand over your money to the poor."

There are ranges of the liberal. Some truly do live by the "live and let live" philosophy and then there are the extreme ones that live by the philosophy of "we support these rights and come hell or high water you will too."

Conservatives are much more authoritarian in the extreme. The "religious right" believes that they are right and that you are a sinner and you had damned well better "turn or you will burn". Note: they say they only do this for your own good. Then you have your more moderate conservatives who actually do care about the needs of others and want to help those in need but don't see giveaways as being helpful.

It is the extreme on both sides that are the problem, not the moderates on either side. Quite frankly I think the moderates on both sides are much closer in beliefs to each other than either one of them are to the extremes on either side.

Immie

I disagree Immie.

With a very few exceptions, the religious right lobby for their constitutional rights to pray where they want, display whatever symbols or emblems they want, teach what they want in the schools, etc. etc. etc. They do not presume to make it mandatory for YOU or anybody else to do that. They simply want the right to order their society as they want it to be.

That is a conservative concept--that the government secures our rights and then gets out of the way and allows us to form whatever society we want to have. The Founders held hard and fast to that principle.

Liberals also lobby for their own wants and desires so that they can have the society they want; the difference being that they want everybody to be forced to accept the society they want: legalized pot, all religious reference removed from public view, no religious influence of any kind allowed in the schools, abortion on demand without restriction, enforcement and punishment of violations of political correctness, mandatory enforcement of global warming controls, government control of property rights for the common good, etc. etc. etc. Liberals often have no use for the values or principles the Founders laid out when they adopted our Constitution.

The difference is that, short of laws preventing treading on the rights of others, conservatives mostly want to be left alone to live their lives.

Liberals want everybody else to be required to live their lives as the liberals want to live.

 

[Nosmo King]

Beneath all the ideological disputes, there remains a troubling quality about political discourse today.

Seems we have devolved into the same ring of passion reserved for sports fans where politics is concerned. Nearly everyone understands the dynamics of rivalry. Lakers/Celtics, Buckeyes/Wolverines, Red Sox/Yankees. But now it's also Conservatives/Liberals.

There is precious little discourse, even less compromise where politics is concerned. It's generally regarded by both ideologies that the 'other side' fails to act responsibly. That regard leads to the false belief that the 'other side' is populated by idiots without a comprehensive understanding of how the world works. It leads to bitter divisive name calling and stonewalling. The 'Party of No!'. 'Moonbats!'.

I call for a moratorium on childishness and a concentration on constructive dialog. The problems we Americans face at the dawn of this century are as daunting as any we have faced since the Civil War. Pride goeth before the fall. Check your partisan pride at the door. this ain't the playoffs, it's the lot in life we have inherited.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In terms of a temporal defintion, and by observation during my lifetime, let me suggest the following characteristics of liberal and conservative:

The Liberal: "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you"

The Conservative: "Poo onto others before they Poo onto you"

I suggest this sums up the actual practice of today's conservative, as does this: "I've got mine, **** the rest of the world".

A total misrepresentation of fact and one that I was beginning to think that you had finally outgrown.

The truth is that it is more like liberals believe in letting people live their own lives and forcing everyone to live by that standards. "Thou shalt (we have law here) be tolerant of us. Thou shalt not interfere with gay rights, abortion rights, poor people's rights etc etc etc. If you make more money than us, thou shalt hand over your money to the poor."

There are ranges of the liberal. Some truly do live by the "live and let live" philosophy and then there are the extreme ones that live by the philosophy of "we support these rights and come hell or high water you will too."

Conservatives are much more authoritarian in the extreme. The "religious right" believes that they are right and that you are a sinner and you had damned well better "turn or you will burn". Note: they say they only do this for your own good. Then you have your more moderate conservatives who actually do care about the needs of others and want to help those in need but don't see giveaways as being helpful.

It is the extreme on both sides that are the problem, not the moderates on either side. Quite frankly I think the moderates on both sides are much closer in beliefs to each other than either one of them are to the extremes on either side.

Immie

I disagree Immie.

With a very few exceptions, the religious right lobby for their constitutional rights to pray where they want, display whatever symbols or emblems they want, teach what they want in the schools, etc. etc. etc. They do not presume to make it mandatory for YOU or anybody else to do that. They simply want the right to order their society as they want it to be.

That is a conservative concept--that the government secures our rights and then gets out of the way and allows us to form whatever society we want to have. The Founders held hard and fast to that principle.

Liberals also lobby for their own wants and desires so that they can have the society they want; the difference being that they want everybody to be forced to accept the society they want: legalized pot, all religious reference removed from public view, no religious influence of any kind allowed in the schools, abortion on demand without restriction, enforcement and punishment of violations of political correctness, mandatory enforcement of global warming controls, government control of property rights for the common good, etc. etc. etc. Liberals often have no use for the values or principles the Founders laid out when they adopted our Constitution.

The difference is that, short of laws preventing treading on the rights of others, conservatives mostly want to be left alone to live their lives.

Liberals want everybody else to be required to live their lives as the liberals want to live.

\
All liberals are ...! All conservatives are ...! Both statements are de facto absurd.

My little play on the Golden Rule was little more than a cynical retort to the 'highbrow' post of PC and her (usual) rant on President Wilson. That aside, there is no archetypal liberal or conservative - both words defy definitition in the 21st Century for there use is (uaually) contextual and most times used as a perjorative in parisan rants and/or as hyperbole.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Beneath all the ideological disputes, there remains a troubling quality about political discourse today.

Seems we have devolved into the same ring of passion reserved for sports fans where politics is concerned. Nearly everyone understands the dynamics of rivalry. Lakers/Celtics, Buckeyes/Wolverines, Red Sox/Yankees. But now it's also Conservatives/Liberals.

There is precious little discourse, even less compromise where politics is concerned. It's generally regarded by both ideologies that the 'other side' fails to act responsibly. That regard leads to the false belief that the 'other side' is populated by idiots without a comprehensive understanding of how the world works. It leads to bitter divisive name calling and stonewalling. The 'Party of No!'. 'Moonbats!'.

I call for a moratorium on childishness and a concentration on constructive dialog. The problems we Americans face at the dawn of this century are as daunting as any we have faced since the Civil War. Pride goeth before the fall. Check your partisan pride at the door. this ain't the playoffs, it's the lot in life we have inherited.

Point made, well done!