Digging into Conservative 'values'

[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

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.

I can handle the fact that you disagree with me, but in some respects I think you are wrong.

Much of what you say regarding liberals is correct in the extreme. As far as the Religious Right, I will just mention a few examples abortion, prostitution, gay marriage to name a couple. It is not about being left alone, it is about controlling the lives of others. Now, you know that I am opposed to abortion and would love nothing more than to see the procedure die a cruel and terrible death, but that is because I do tend to have some deep conservative blood within me. Gay marriage? The battle over gay marriage is a battle over control of people's lives. Truth be told, if the Religious Right did live by the philosophy of "just leave us alone and we will leave you alone", this would not be an issue today.

For your points on liberals much of that too is truth in the extreme, but then you have the moderate liberals who don't really care about most of those issues. Religious freedoms, for instance, they really don't care what god you worship many even worship the same god you worship, they simply don't believe that you have the right to make everyone else believe in that same god. Legalized pot? In the extreme, liberals want drug laws abolished pot as well as other drugs. Moderates don't really care as much, if at all. Some might feel it is time to end the ridiculous "war on drugs"... wait, come to think of it, I think it is time to end this ridiculous war on drugs. Our prisons and jails are filled with non-violent drug offenders. That is simply ridiculous when from my understanding pot is no worse than alcohol. Another one is gun control. In the extreme liberals want to take your guns away from you. Moderates are ambivalent for the most part. Not at all interested in taking your guns although registration is not a bad idea kind of philosophy.

So again, in the extreme both sides have their flaws.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

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' absurdity 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 their use is (uaually) contextual and most times used as a perjorative in parisan rants and/or as hyperbole.

I agree that you cannot apply hard labels to most people because all of us will vary from the absolute at different times in various degrees. No two people will be exactly alike in philosophy, perception, experience, ideology, or prejudices.

But the definition of the terms themselves can be pretty accurately nailed down.

The modern American conservative is essentially the Classical Liberal of the 18th and 19th Centuries. And borrowing in part from Wiki that Classical Liberal is described thusly:

Modern American Conservatism (MAC)/Classical liberalism is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.

As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The "normative core" of MAC/classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.

The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.

MACs/Classical Liberals promote strong national defense and such necessary regulation to prevent the citiziens/states from violating the rights of others, but are otherwise suspicious of all but the most minimal government necessary to perform its Constitutional mandates and object to most of a federal welfare state.

MAC's/Classical Liberals want a government that secures and defends their rights, promotes (not provides) the general welfare, and otherwise stays mostly out of their way so they can pursue life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as they determine that for themselves.

By contrast, with some exceptions, Social Liberals favor shared ownership, responsibility, accountablity, guilt, blame, credit, and resources, and look to Government as the ultimate owner of all to distribute all as equitably as possible. Liberals are comfortable with government being as big and powerful as it needs to be in order to create the world that the liberals envision.

In the simplest defiinition:

Conservatives look to themselves for happiness and prosperity.

Liberals look to government for their happiness and prosperity.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

The religious right is lobbying for rights they used to enjoy for almost two hundred years. Liberals seem bent on making rights worthless and insignificant in an attempt to make things "equal".

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

The religious right is lobbying for rights they used to enjoy for almost two hundred years. Liberals seem bent on making rights worthless and insignificant in an attempt to make things "equal".

That's it. There was a time when a mostly religious community could have a generic prayer for safety and good sportsmanship before the highschool football game, and nobody thought anything about it. The nonreligious just thought about something else and the game went on.

There was a time that the town could celebrate a religious holiday with symbols appropriate for that holiday and nobody thought anything about it. The non religious could enjoy the colors and festive atmosphere; the religious could appreciate the symbols, but all was considered normal.

And though that was the norm for 150 or more years, the few theocracies in a few states dissolved and went away and no national theocracy developed. It was a better, more free, and more just time in America.

There was a time when local school boards, with input from parents and the PTA, selected the curriculum for the local schools. Maybe there was some screwy stuff adopted through that process, but there is absolutely no doubt that school kids were getting a far superior education back then than what they get now.

If we could just get back to a live and let live mentality and let each community be who they want to be, we would see a much improved America I believe.

 

[Nosmo King]

As a Liberal, I would qualify my belief in government as the one universal institution. That is to say, we all have a stake in our government. Government is the one and only institution in modern American life that each and every American has in common.

Corporations, the church, the media all have tendrils reaching into American society. But government is the only institution that covers each citizen. It covers them with hopefully equal justice. It covers them with hopefully an equal say in the course it should take.

Government, therefore stands in a unique position to do right by its citizens. Corporations, the church and the media can't make that claim.

Ceding power to corporations to do as they want without the regulatory enforcement of government is a path to destruction. the vested interest of corporations is to make money. When something like environmental catastrophe gets in the way of corporate interests, it is not in the interest of corporations to correct the problem they caused. It's just too damn expensive. government can rectify those wrongs. The same paradigm can be drawn for consumer protection, worker health and safety, price gouging and all the other ills wrought by corporations wearing 'profit blinders'.

It must fall to government, therefore, to act in the interest of the citizens of this country.

 

[rikules]

Limited government, lower taxes, individual responsibility, and accountability, liberty, and honoring the traditions of our constitutional republic are supposed to be cornerstones of conservatives but are any of these things really conservative? Lets take individual responsibility, how many conservatives take responsibility for the mishandling of 911? They don't, they blame Democrats. What about the most recent recession and the housing and car industry crisis? They don't take any responsibility, they blame Democrats, its a pattern that repeats itself, blame the Democrats. Limited government, for what, to pocket more money from the people that have them paid off? Traditions of the constitution? They can't even rightfully interpret the constitution, they misuse the constitution to suit their dirt and hide behind it with distortions to protect their dirt and uneven distribution of wealth and power.

The other values all Americans hold dearly, liberals stress personal accountability and responsibility and hold themselves to the same standards they hold others, unlike conservatives. We want only as much government that is needed to solve problems and believe that since Americans pay taxes into the government to pay for politicians the government should help the people that pay taxes into it and not desert the people in times of need after taking our money. We believe in lower taxes also, for the poor who work multiple jobs to feed their families.


Where are the truly conservative values? I'll tell you, their values are more money, more power and more control of the country and its resources to the ones with the most money who's willing to pay for it.

Have you considered the possibility that the Democrats are the problem?

Now, a tutorial for your edification:
1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

4) Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

5) Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!

6) Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, with the assumption that each person must do whatever he could to avoid requiring assistance, as opposed to involuntary collectivism, as in “let the government do it..” Burke's understanding that the "little platoon" - family, neighborhood, professional organizations etc - is the "first principle" of society has been consistently identified as providing the necessary inspiration for conservativism. And explains why conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

7) Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

8) Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and “Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter) We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

9) Conservatives view results differently from Liberals. Liberals respond to success and material wealth with envy and hostility, encourage class warfare and an attempt to obviate any chance that it might happen again. The exception is when it is a Liberal with the wealth. Conservatives see success as the validation and culmination of the application of Conservative principles, most prominently Liberty.

10) Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

" Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent."

and what are those truths?
could you list ALL of them, please?

so far as I know the only ABSOLUTE MORAL TRUTHS are; don't kill, don't steal, don't enslave, don't lie unless you have no other choice


" The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster."

the sky is falling! the sky is falling!

other than trying to scare people with LIES (so much for the absolute moral truth; don't lie) and hyperbole could you explain, logically, using facts and reason, just how acceptance pf homosexuality or premarital sex or divorce is going to cause
atrocities and social disaster?

cus..I just don't see it...

and I think that is all crap.


" Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’."

You are lying again...(breaking that moral truth once again)
this is absolutely untrue!

liberals believe that MURDER, THEFT, SLAVERY, LYING to CHEAT and STEAL and bearing false witness to cause an innocent person harm are ALL immoral acts.

like....your post...

using fear and lies and extreme hyperbole in order to demonize liberals is VERY IMMORAL.


" These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses."

1. "These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites"

so?
is this any different than the conservative who refuses to stop eating fatty foos?
or the conservative who refuses to stop smoking tobacco?

because of their selfish demand to gratify their appetites they end up developing health problems and then trudge off to the doctors and demanding pills and checkups that are paid for with other peoples money (insurance, medicare,medicaid).

simply because they chose to be irresponsible inm their personal health practices and just HAD TO gratify their appetites

2. what appetites are you talking about
sex? pot? alcohol? fatty foods?
because
for all the whining about "immoral liberal behavior" studies indicate that conservatives indulge in these same behaviors at a greater rate.

(conservative rush limbaugh has had more divorces than I EVER will)
(prostitutes claim that they do MORE business at republican conventions than at democratic ones)

3. "and exhibit anarchistic impulses."

nonsense.
we merely believe in LESS LAWS and SMALLER GOVERNMENT

isn't that what YOU believe?

isn't that one of the main tenets of conservatism?

---------------------------


2)" Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke)."

"Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention"

and you'll beat the crap out of anyone who dares question this!

customs and tradition deserve to be examined regularly

customs and traditions (and laws) should make sense


"Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention"

such extreme vilification you employ!
are you always this insane?


if a custom or tradition doesn't stand up to the tests of logic, reason or time then they should be disposed of.

or ignored.

the customs of abusing people for having sex outside of marriage or getting divorced were BAD customs and needed to be disposed of.

"To a conservative, change should be gradual,"

really?
is that why so many conservatives, armed to the teeth, have formed the tea party?
to affect GRADUAL change?

ha ha

"as the new society is often inferior to the old."

who says?
you?
persosnally i think our new society is infinitely superior to the old;

people have sex outside of marriage
people refuse to stay in bad marriages
people marry outside of their race
gays are out of the closet everywhere
women, blacks, gays, minorities are in prominent positions in all aspects of life
and, GRADUALLY, we are beginning to change the outdated and unfair pot laws

-------------------

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.


you do spin, don't you...

"liberals are EVIL!" "conservatives are GOOD!"

we are certainly no more impulsive than the conservative teabaggers with their guns demanding INSTANT CHANGE government

and i'm not sure that being impulsive is such a bad thing;

we realized that some traditions and morals were bad...
so
instead of waiting thousands of years for society to change
we nudged it along...

personally...
I think that worked fine...

---------------------

4)" Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century."


" Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity."

I marvel at how the conservative brain can believe two opposing things at the same time!

cons believe in variety, as long as it is white, conservative, christian

while liberals, who accept minorities, blacks, gays, non-christians, non-whites....
well
we FORCE "narrow uniformity"

the more you type
the more insane I believe you to be.


"Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. "

I don't know any liberals who do NOT ALSO believe that.
You are just spouting lies....


"Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century."

spoken like a communist!

liberals merely want to level the playing field so that MORE people have GREATER opportunities

"Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century."

many of whom were OVERY PATRIOTIC, CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES

heck
YOU sound like an ideologue, to me....

-------------

"5) Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!"

so what pamphlet are you quoting from?
is this the capitalist manifesto?
or the communist manifesto?
or the deranged lunatic who KNOWs who she hates and who to blame manifesto?

I don't agree that freedom and property are linked...
and I don't understand why you would imply that liberals oppose freedom or property?

certainly we believe in both

ya know
it gets awfully tiresome having to refute your insanities and lies

what next; liberals eat babies! liberals have HORNS! liberals worship the devil!

well
it is obvious you are just quoting from the deranged conservative lunatics handbook of lies and misinformation (is that one of newts?)

so
yes
I could keep responding to your lunacies

but life calls...

 

[Foxfyre]

As a Liberal, I would qualify my belief in government as the one universal institution. That is to say, we all have a stake in our government. Government is the one and only institution in modern American life that each and every American has in common.

Corporations, the church, the media all have tendrils reaching into American society. But government is the only institution that covers each citizen. It covers them with hopefully equal justice. It covers them with hopefully an equal say in the course it should take.

Government, therefore stands in a unique position to do right by its citizens. Corporations, the church and the media can't make that claim.

Ceding power to corporations to do as they want without the regulatory enforcement of government is a path to destruction. the vested interest of corporations is to make money. When something like environmental catastrophe gets in the way of corporate interests, it is not in the interest of corporations to correct the problem they caused. It's just too damn expensive. government can rectify those wrongs. The same paradigm can be drawn for consumer protection, worker health and safety, price gouging and all the other ills wrought by corporations wearing 'profit blinders'.

It must fall to government, therefore, to act in the interest of the citizens of this country.

But you see, that's where you, as a liberal, differ from me, a conservative.

You, the liberal, see the proper role of government acting in the interests of the citizens as being proactive in correcting all human ills.

I, the conservative, see the proper role of government acting in the interests of the citizens as securing the rights of the citizens and then leaving the citizens to look to their own interests.

You think government is necessary to save the citizens from themselves. You see people as incapable or unwilling to order a just society without intervention by the federal government.

I think the citizens, once our rights are secured, are better able to look to our own interests than government will ever be able to do on our behalf and that the more power we give to the federal government, the less ability we will have to do that.

 

[Nosmo King]

As a Liberal, I would qualify my belief in government as the one universal institution. That is to say, we all have a stake in our government. Government is the one and only institution in modern American life that each and every American has in common.

Corporations, the church, the media all have tendrils reaching into American society. But government is the only institution that covers each citizen. It covers them with hopefully equal justice. It covers them with hopefully an equal say in the course it should take.

Government, therefore stands in a unique position to do right by its citizens. Corporations, the church and the media can't make that claim.

Ceding power to corporations to do as they want without the regulatory enforcement of government is a path to destruction. the vested interest of corporations is to make money. When something like environmental catastrophe gets in the way of corporate interests, it is not in the interest of corporations to correct the problem they caused. It's just too damn expensive. government can rectify those wrongs. The same paradigm can be drawn for consumer protection, worker health and safety, price gouging and all the other ills wrought by corporations wearing 'profit blinders'.

It must fall to government, therefore, to act in the interest of the citizens of this country.

But you see, that's where you, as a liberal, differ from me, a conservative.

You, the liberal, see the proper role of government acting in the interests of the citizens as being proactive in correcting all human ills.

I, the conservative, see the proper role of government acting in the interests of the citizens as securing the rights of the citizens and then leaving the citizens to look to their own interests.

You think government is necessary to save the citizens from themselves. You see people as incapable or unwilling to order a just society without intervention by the federal government.

I think the citizens, once our rights are secured, are better able to look to our own interests than government will ever be able to do on our behalf and that the more power we give to the federal government, the less ability we will have to do that.

Not all human ills. But providing a level playing field for real justice. Some corporations act with impunity ravishing the environment, creating unhealthy conditions in and around their facilities or pulling out of agreements negotiated in good faith with their workers and devastating the communities. In those cases, yes citizens are incapable of securing justice without Federal over site.

The citizens interests are forgotten in the rush to profit and exploitation. We must cede power to the federal government so that the collective power of that government may render a real effect on the monied interests of the faceless, unaccountable corporation.

Some idyllic Jeffersonian vision of a free nation populated by farmer citizens all free to act in their own best interest is grand for the nineteenth century mindset. But in a world where power, real power is leveraged by an unaccountable company which dodges its responsibilities to the workers serving it and the neighborhood in which it produces, some greater power accountable to the voters is a necessary thing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Limited government, lower taxes, individual responsibility, and accountability, liberty, and honoring the traditions of our constitutional republic are supposed to be cornerstones of conservatives but are any of these things really conservative? Lets take individual responsibility, how many conservatives take responsibility for the mishandling of 911? They don't, they blame Democrats. What about the most recent recession and the housing and car industry crisis? They don't take any responsibility, they blame Democrats, its a pattern that repeats itself, blame the Democrats. Limited government, for what, to pocket more money from the people that have them paid off? Traditions of the constitution? They can't even rightfully interpret the constitution, they misuse the constitution to suit their dirt and hide behind it with distortions to protect their dirt and uneven distribution of wealth and power.

The other values all Americans hold dearly, liberals stress personal accountability and responsibility and hold themselves to the same standards they hold others, unlike conservatives. We want only as much government that is needed to solve problems and believe that since Americans pay taxes into the government to pay for politicians the government should help the people that pay taxes into it and not desert the people in times of need after taking our money. We believe in lower taxes also, for the poor who work multiple jobs to feed their families.


Where are the truly conservative values? I'll tell you, their values are more money, more power and more control of the country and its resources to the ones with the most money who's willing to pay for it.

Have you considered the possibility that the Democrats are the problem?

Now, a tutorial for your edification:
1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

4) Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

5) Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!

6) Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, with the assumption that each person must do whatever he could to avoid requiring assistance, as opposed to involuntary collectivism, as in “let the government do it..” Burke's understanding that the "little platoon" - family, neighborhood, professional organizations etc - is the "first principle" of society has been consistently identified as providing the necessary inspiration for conservativism. And explains why conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

7) Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

8) Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and “Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter) We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

9) Conservatives view results differently from Liberals. Liberals respond to success and material wealth with envy and hostility, encourage class warfare and an attempt to obviate any chance that it might happen again. The exception is when it is a Liberal with the wealth. Conservatives see success as the validation and culmination of the application of Conservative principles, most prominently Liberty.

10) Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

" Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent."

and what are those truths?
could you list ALL of them, please?

so far as I know the only ABSOLUTE MORAL TRUTHS are; don't kill, don't steal, don't enslave, don't lie unless you have no other choice


" The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster."

the sky is falling! the sky is falling!

other than trying to scare people with LIES (so much for the absolute moral truth; don't lie) and hyperbole could you explain, logically, using facts and reason, just how acceptance pf homosexuality or premarital sex or divorce is going to cause
atrocities and social disaster?

cus..I just don't see it...

and I think that is all crap.


" Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’."

You are lying again...(breaking that moral truth once again)
this is absolutely untrue!

liberals believe that MURDER, THEFT, SLAVERY, LYING to CHEAT and STEAL and bearing false witness to cause an innocent person harm are ALL immoral acts.

like....your post...

using fear and lies and extreme hyperbole in order to demonize liberals is VERY IMMORAL.


" These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses."

1. "These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites"

so?
is this any different than the conservative who refuses to stop eating fatty foos?
or the conservative who refuses to stop smoking tobacco?

because of their selfish demand to gratify their appetites they end up developing health problems and then trudge off to the doctors and demanding pills and checkups that are paid for with other peoples money (insurance, medicare,medicaid).

simply because they chose to be irresponsible inm their personal health practices and just HAD TO gratify their appetites

2. what appetites are you talking about
sex? pot? alcohol? fatty foods?
because
for all the whining about "immoral liberal behavior" studies indicate that conservatives indulge in these same behaviors at a greater rate.

(conservative rush limbaugh has had more divorces than I EVER will)
(prostitutes claim that they do MORE business at republican conventions than at democratic ones)

3. "and exhibit anarchistic impulses."

nonsense.
we merely believe in LESS LAWS and SMALLER GOVERNMENT

isn't that what YOU believe?

isn't that one of the main tenets of conservatism?

---------------------------


2)" Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke)."

"Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention"

and you'll beat the crap out of anyone who dares question this!

customs and tradition deserve to be examined regularly

customs and traditions (and laws) should make sense


"Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention"

such extreme vilification you employ!
are you always this insane?


if a custom or tradition doesn't stand up to the tests of logic, reason or time then they should be disposed of.

or ignored.

the customs of abusing people for having sex outside of marriage or getting divorced were BAD customs and needed to be disposed of.

"To a conservative, change should be gradual,"

really?
is that why so many conservatives, armed to the teeth, have formed the tea party?
to affect GRADUAL change?

ha ha

"as the new society is often inferior to the old."

who says?
you?
persosnally i think our new society is infinitely superior to the old;

people have sex outside of marriage
people refuse to stay in bad marriages
people marry outside of their race
gays are out of the closet everywhere
women, blacks, gays, minorities are in prominent positions in all aspects of life
and, GRADUALLY, we are beginning to change the outdated and unfair pot laws

-------------------

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.


you do spin, don't you...

"liberals are EVIL!" "conservatives are GOOD!"

we are certainly no more impulsive than the conservative teabaggers with their guns demanding INSTANT CHANGE government

and i'm not sure that being impulsive is such a bad thing;

we realized that some traditions and morals were bad...
so
instead of waiting thousands of years for society to change
we nudged it along...

personally...
I think that worked fine...

---------------------

4)" Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century."


" Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity."

I marvel at how the conservative brain can believe two opposing things at the same time!

cons believe in variety, as long as it is white, conservative, christian

while liberals, who accept minorities, blacks, gays, non-christians, non-whites....
well
we FORCE "narrow uniformity"

the more you type
the more insane I believe you to be.


"Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. "

I don't know any liberals who do NOT ALSO believe that.
You are just spouting lies....


"Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century."

spoken like a communist!

liberals merely want to level the playing field so that MORE people have GREATER opportunities

"Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century."

many of whom were OVERY PATRIOTIC, CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES

heck
YOU sound like an ideologue, to me....

-------------

"5) Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!"

so what pamphlet are you quoting from?
is this the capitalist manifesto?
or the communist manifesto?
or the deranged lunatic who KNOWs who she hates and who to blame manifesto?

I don't agree that freedom and property are linked...
and I don't understand why you would imply that liberals oppose freedom or property?

certainly we believe in both

ya know
it gets awfully tiresome having to refute your insanities and lies

what next; liberals eat babies! liberals have HORNS! liberals worship the devil!

well
it is obvious you are just quoting from the deranged conservative lunatics handbook of lies and misinformation (is that one of newts?)

so
yes
I could keep responding to your lunacies

but life calls...

Actually, you haven't responded at all, simply engaged in a spittle-punctuated rant.

The style may, in fact, be another determining charactertistic of liberals...or simply a proof of my #10.

 

[Oddball]

Not all human ills. But providing a level playing field for real justice. Some corporations act with impunity ravishing the environment, creating unhealthy conditions in and around their facilities or pulling out of agreements negotiated in good faith with their workers and devastating the communities. In those cases, yes citizens are incapable of securing justice without Federal over site.

The citizens interests are forgotten in the rush to profit and exploitation. We must cede power to the federal government so that the collective power of that government may render a real effect on the monied interests of the faceless, unaccountable corporation.

Some idyllic Jeffersonian vision of a free nation populated by farmer citizens all free to act in their own best interest is grand for the nineteenth century mindset. But in a world where power, real power is leveraged by an unaccountable company which dodges its responsibilities to the workers serving it and the neighborhood in which it produces, some greater power accountable to the voters is a necessary thing.

There's that strawman again!

Corporation this, corporation that, corporation the other thing.

How 'bout you replace the term "corporation" with "*******" or "spicks" and see how that rant shakes out.

 

[Nosmo King]

Not all human ills. But providing a level playing field for real justice. Some corporations act with impunity ravishing the environment, creating unhealthy conditions in and around their facilities or pulling out of agreements negotiated in good faith with their workers and devastating the communities. In those cases, yes citizens are incapable of securing justice without Federal over site.

The citizens interests are forgotten in the rush to profit and exploitation. We must cede power to the federal government so that the collective power of that government may render a real effect on the monied interests of the faceless, unaccountable corporation.

Some idyllic Jeffersonian vision of a free nation populated by farmer citizens all free to act in their own best interest is grand for the nineteenth century mindset. But in a world where power, real power is leveraged by an unaccountable company which dodges its responsibilities to the workers serving it and the neighborhood in which it produces, some greater power accountable to the voters is a necessary thing.

There's that strawman again!

Corporation this, corporation that, corporation the other thing.

How 'bout you replace the term "corporation" with "*******" or "spicks" and see how that rant shakes out.

what on earth do you mean? I've seen corporations plunder my neck of the woods. Are you baiting me by being a bogot? It won't wash.

 

[Oddball]

What I'm saying is that your rant is bigoted. Maybe not by design, but by inference.

You're painting with the broad brush again, as is SOP for most who delve into bigotry.

Besides that, a "corporation"cannot do anything at all, in and of itself, as it is a fictitious entity.

Therefore you have a strawman argument against a legal fiction that, by its very definition, cannot defend itself.

 

[The T]

Limited government, lower taxes, individual responsibility, and accountability, liberty, and honoring the traditions of our constitutional republic are supposed to be cornerstones of conservatives but are any of these things really conservative? Lets take individual responsibility, how many conservatives take responsibility for the mishandling of 911? They don't, they blame Democrats. What about the most recent recession and the housing and car industry crisis? They don't take any responsibility, they blame Democrats, its a pattern that repeats itself, blame the Democrats. Limited government, for what, to pocket more money from the people that have them paid off? Traditions of the constitution? They can't even rightfully interpret the constitution, they misuse the constitution to suit their dirt and hide behind it with distortions to protect their dirt and uneven distribution of wealth and power.

The other values all Americans hold dearly, liberals stress personal accountability and responsibility and hold themselves to the same standards they hold others, unlike conservatives. We want only as much government that is needed to solve problems and believe that since Americans pay taxes into the government to pay for politicians the government should help the people that pay taxes into it and not desert the people in times of need after taking our money. We believe in lower taxes also, for the poor who work multiple jobs to feed their families.


Where are the truly conservative values? I'll tell you, their values are more money, more power and more control of the country and its resources to the ones with the most money who's willing to pay for it.

Since you say that you're a soldier [which I do NOT discount]...Mayhaps thou project too much...Have you looked at what your CiNC is doing? What the Statists in the Congress are doing?And unlawfully I might add?

The first tenant of any Conservative is not to blame others for your troubles of your own making, and demand others PAY FOR your mistakes in life.

Got it ACE?

 

[The T]

It's a little thing called being responsible for yourself FailLOW...Try it some time.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In what manner do you suggest a corporation is a "legal fiction"?
And it appears that whatever a corporation maybe, they usually have a band of lawyers ready to defend the legal fiction all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

[Foxfyre]

As a Liberal, I would qualify my belief in government as the one universal institution. That is to say, we all have a stake in our government. Government is the one and only institution in modern American life that each and every American has in common.

Corporations, the church, the media all have tendrils reaching into American society. But government is the only institution that covers each citizen. It covers them with hopefully equal justice. It covers them with hopefully an equal say in the course it should take.

Government, therefore stands in a unique position to do right by its citizens. Corporations, the church and the media can't make that claim.

Ceding power to corporations to do as they want without the regulatory enforcement of government is a path to destruction. the vested interest of corporations is to make money. When something like environmental catastrophe gets in the way of corporate interests, it is not in the interest of corporations to correct the problem they caused. It's just too damn expensive. government can rectify those wrongs. The same paradigm can be drawn for consumer protection, worker health and safety, price gouging and all the other ills wrought by corporations wearing 'profit blinders'.

It must fall to government, therefore, to act in the interest of the citizens of this country.

But you see, that's where you, as a liberal, differ from me, a conservative.

You, the liberal, see the proper role of government acting in the interests of the citizens as being proactive in correcting all human ills.

I, the conservative, see the proper role of government acting in the interests of the citizens as securing the rights of the citizens and then leaving the citizens to look to their own interests.

You think government is necessary to save the citizens from themselves. You see people as incapable or unwilling to order a just society without intervention by the federal government.

I think the citizens, once our rights are secured, are better able to look to our own interests than government will ever be able to do on our behalf and that the more power we give to the federal government, the less ability we will have to do that.

Not all human ills. But providing a level playing field for real justice. Some corporations act with impunity ravishing the environment, creating unhealthy conditions in and around their facilities or pulling out of agreements negotiated in good faith with their workers and devastating the communities. In those cases, yes citizens are incapable of securing justice without Federal over site.

The citizens interests are forgotten in the rush to profit and exploitation. We must cede power to the federal government so that the collective power of that government may render a real effect on the monied interests of the faceless, unaccountable corporation.

Some idyllic Jeffersonian vision of a free nation populated by farmer citizens all free to act in their own best interest is grand for the nineteenth century mindset. But in a world where power, real power is leveraged by an unaccountable company which dodges its responsibilities to the workers serving it and the neighborhood in which it produces, some greater power accountable to the voters is a necessary thing.

So, as a good liberal, you trust government to be the authority re what is just and unjust. The Founders did not. The Founders wisely knew, from history and personal experience, that those elected to government, given power to do so, like all people will too often look to their own interests more than they look to the interests of those who elect them. Those given power to order the lives of others have power to order whatever they want. And the temptation to use that power to increase one's own fame, fortune, power, and prestige is too much for most to resist.

That is why the Founders looked to a new bold brave experiment, one never before tried in the recorded history of the world. The envisioned a nation in which the people would govern themselves and be governed by nobody. The people will look to their own interests far better than the government will do that for them.

The role of the government was to establish and enforce a social contract establishing rules by which the rights of the people could not be violated and those rights were enumerated.

It would not be the business of the federal government to determine what was or was not moral or ethical in business or personal conduct, but, so long as nobody's rights were violated, the people themselves would decide that state by state, city by city, community by community. The federal government would be the watchdog to ensure that nobody's right were infringed in the process of doing business or personal conduct.

Those corporations who pollute your land or who pollute air or water that all must share are sbsolutely violating the rights of others, and laws prohibiting that are an appropriate function of government. Knowingly endangering others without their consent is also a violation of rights and laws prohibiting that are also an appropriate function of government. In the interest of promoting the general welfare, it would be appropriate for the federal government to advise all of information of pollutants or dangers of which the people might not otherwise be aware.

It is an appropriate function of government to deny big business or big states the right to create alliances for the purpose of shutting out small business or small states and to regulate shared waterways, air space, sea ports etc. necessary for free trade and the national security.

You can go right on down the line, and as long as government is securing the rights of all impartially and without prejudice, it is doing the job is was created to do.

The minute government presumes to order the activities of any individual or group, however, or presumes to disadvantage or benefit any group or favor any group in the interest of 'fairness' or 'leveling the playing field' or whatever, the government has overstepped the boundaries the Founders set. And you have immediate corruption both in government and in the beneficiaries of government.

And once such is set into motion, it will inevitably snowball until we are all again in the kind of bondage that the Constitution was designed to free us from.

 

[Oddball]

In what manner do you suggest a corporation is a "legal fiction"?
And it appears that whatever a corporation maybe, they usually have a band of lawyers ready to defend the legal fiction all the way to the Supreme Court.

Got a bucket of "corporation" that I can borrow?

Promise I'll pay you back with a barrel of it at the end of the month.

 

[Vel]

Have you considered the possibility that the Democrats are the problem?

We can't be the problem because liberals advocate an equal and all inclusive America and an evening of the laying field. We don't believe in stacking the deck against nor in favor of anyone to make life easier for a few people.

Now, a tutorial for your edification:
1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

Conseravtives believe in shifting goalposts, not fixed permanent truths and morality, they don't understand the significance of being a doer and not just a sayer of what is right. If they were morally in their right state of mind they would not filibuster policies to help the poor.

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

What traditions and customs of peace did they follow? The men who founded this country did not believe in having meddlesome foreign policies and engaging in wars overseas for profit, they were isolationists, not opportunistic, warring ultra capitalists.

You do understand don't you that the two statements of yours that I've bolded above contradict one another?