"Conservative values"??

G

Grumpy Ol' Man

Senior Member
Location
Kansas, U.S.
We hear the Republicans and Tea Party groups espousing "conservative values". On Hannity's radio show, yesterday, he wants a candidate that has "conservative values and is not afraid to stand up for them". My feeble old mind got to working, wondering if there actually is a definition of conservative values. Or, does the definition change depending on who you are listening to and who they are trying to recite that definition to.
Some who read my posts would suggest I am about as far removed from "conservative" as possible. I would debate that. So, what are YOUR conservative values? Or, what do you feel conservative values should include? I'll take a stab at mine....

1.) Integrity. I believe that if you give your word on something, you strive to uphold that promise.
2.) Instilling of work ethic and value of family in your children so they can reap some of the blessings we have.
3.) Living within your means.
4.) Assisting those who fall on difficult times. If this means some of my paycheck is deducted by the government to care for those in need, so be it.
5.) Practicing my own choice in religion and not attempting to force that specific religion on others.
6.) Supporting a military to maintain the freedoms and liberties we enjoy. That does NOT mean gifting large corporations with billions of tax dollars in the name of "defense", simply because they pad the pockets of politicians.
7.) Doing my best to champion America and not denigrating her based on what is put forth by political pundits, biased media, etc. Understanding that I can't keep America the Country I love by running her down. I can only do that at the voting booth. And, if officials are elected that I disagree with, work harder in the next election cycle to bring in those with solutions.

Your "conservative values"?????
 

Those are pretty much MY values... In case you haven't guessed... I'm not a Conservative..
 

The meaning of the word conservative suggests to me a reluctance (not necessarily a refusal) to deviate from a status quo and initiate changes that might make matters worse. I'll go along with that to a degree. Many consequential changes do come with unintended consequences that make things worse. An example of a consequential change took place when our energy hungry industrial world started pumping ever larger amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Not too many years ago we reached and then went way past the highest CO2 concentration that had occurred in the past million years. For years scientists have warned that this "radical" change we were imposing on the environment would have devastating consequences and it would be prudent not to continue this chancy experiment. One would think that the people who call themselves conservatives would take seriously these warnings, but alas, they are the ones who wish to accelerate (drill baby drill) our reckless rush to environmental catastrophe.
 
I hear that term also on conservative/republican talk shows, including Hannity's radio show. I wonder who took those universal values and coined them as "conservative" to begin with? I'm not a conservative/republican, nor am I a liberal/democrat. Politically I'm an Independent, and I also hold all of those values.
 
The convolution of topics, economics, social, religious, and transposing of social systems into economic and vice versa negates any real definition of either liberal or conservative.
I will have to agree with the guy who said, "if they had called it liberalism( progressive) to begin with Americans would have adopted socialism"

defining clear cut lines that seperate each into sets is a fools errand, and makes up the bulk of straw man arguements in the media.
 
Usually the hooting and hollering results when rights are stepped on/liberals suffer the same charge of toe stepping as everybody. The term liberal as s noun does not mean someone letting everyone do there own thing. That term is anarchy.
 
It appears most on here agree with what "conservative values" is in its common sense definition. What we hear so much, though, is a totally political ideology that has stolen the phrase and molded it to fit their own goals. What I feel the term "conservative values" now means in the minds of most who sit glued to Faux Noise, etc.

1.) True conservatives favor wealth over all else. The 'Citizens United' decision was correct in their minds. Elected officials should be required to repeal any regulations that might affect the bottom line of corporation balance sheets. Elected officials should pay homage to those who "buy" their support.
2.) People who have fallen on hard times have done so due to their own poor decisions. If the wealthy need an additional tax write-off, they can give something to charities who will install bronze plaques naming the donor. No tax dollars should go to the less fortunate. If the government wasn't so restrictive, we'd have our 'help' take them our left-overs.
3.) All governmental decisions should be based on our specific interpretation of the Scriptures.
4.) If the ownership of firearms is restricted such that the mentally ill, convicted felons, etc. cannot get them the government will soon come after law-abiding citizens guns.
5.) The definition of "women's health care" should be legislated by Christian white males.
6.) Access to health care should be prioritized as to who can best afford it.
7.) Legally hiding our fortunes in off-shore bank accounts so we don't pay taxes is preferential to seeing tax dollars go towards assisting those of the "lesser class".
8.) The Founding Fathers of the United States were wealthy landowners and most owned slaves. Any interpretation of the Constitution should be viewed as if it were from that perspective.
 
This list of qualifiers is partial, when the root of both sides is about control. Allowing or restricting human behavior either thru legislative action or criminalization of an act. Affecting people is one thing, affecting money flow is another. Controlling people through money flow is yet another.
 
As I see it, the true conservatives are gone since we lost Barry Goldwater the father of the term. He would be raising hell with republicans today. Today, the party that labels itself conservative is all about recruiting the evangelists, gun nuts, anti-abortionists and big money. They have, through their actions decimated the middle class of America.
 
The term comes from the French Revolution in its socio-philosophical use, but is predated by Adam Smith in economics. Some writers view socialism purpose is to remove the class structure. Any definition of middle class depends on just that. It can be middle earnings or as used in previous history the aristocracy. Goldwater used it to contrast so called liberal policies of LBJ.
 
Here is a Barry M Goldwater quote:

[h=1]“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”[/h]
 
The current iteration of the GOP may be right-wing, but does not embrace a conservative value system. Greed and hatred and the 'us vs. them" mentality is not a value system, more like a career criminal organization.
 
Reading this thread is disgusting to say the least. If we could just do away with this party nonsense and just work with the Senators and Representatives we could forget all this party political nonsense and work for a better country.

Both parties are doing this country harm as neither is following the Constitution and allowing the people to actually help make decisions for their and their neighbors needs. Democrats should not be choosing who should lead our country nor should the Republicans do so either. We should go back to the way our Constitution was set up to operate. We can use parties to help candidates get elected, but nothing more. We could have multiple parties helping candidates get elected but not in running our Congress. We don't need a two party Congress at all. There could be several ways the Congress can run and without party groups they could get together and debate situations and vote for winners.

We do not need a Democrat controlled or Republican controlled Congress at all. What we need are Representatives and Senators willing to work together to make sure their area people are getting what they need for security and safety and other daily needs. Parties are not good for uniting the people of the US. Our government was designed to run from the bottom up and that is what we should go back to. This current setup of the President being able to ignore Congress for many things is not working well at all. If we don't go back to the Constitution we will end up just like far too many of the European and other places governments have done. Broke, alone, failing to correct, going down.
 
BobF said:
Reading this thread is disgusting to say the least. If we could just do away with this party nonsense and just work with the Senators and Representatives we could forget all this party political nonsense and work for a better country.

Both parties are doing this country harm as neither is following the Constitution and allowing the people to actually help make decisions for their and their neighbors needs. Democrats should not be choosing who should lead our country nor should the Republicans do so either.
Click to expand...

What is disgusting is the polarization of the political scene here in the U.S., and I know that this will be a bitter pill to swallow, but the initiators of this condition happen to be the right-wing media(eg:Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, the FOX News crew). By 2004 I found the GOP way too toxic, and renounced my 20+ year affiliation with the Republican party.

BobF said:
We should go back to the way our Constitution was set up to operate. We can use parties to help candidates get elected, but nothing more. We could have multiple parties helping candidates get elected but not in running our Congress. We don't need a two party Congress at all. There could be several ways the Congress can run and without party groups they could get together and debate situations and vote for winners.
Click to expand...

The two party system has always been flawed, but I don't see a benefit in the political systems where much time and energy goes into building political coalitions in a parliamentary type government. I suppose such works for some countries, but we already seem to have more chaos than necessary.



BobF said:
We do not need a Democrat controlled or Republican controlled Congress at all. What we need are Representatives and Senators willing to work together to make sure their area people are getting what they need for security and safety and other daily needs. Parties are not good for uniting the people of the US. Our government was designed to run from the bottom up and that is what we should go back to. This current setup of the President being able to ignore Congress for many things is not working well at all. If we don't go back to the Constitution we will end up just like far too many of the European and other places governments have done. Broke, alone, failing to correct, going down.
Click to expand...

The highlighted statement is a bit humorous as the reverse is actually the case- the Republican controlled Congress has done their level best to ignore the president, and attempt to derail the President's efforts at every turn.

I guess it's perfectly acceptable if it's a Republican president stonewalling a democratic congress, eh?
 
tnthomas said:
What is disgusting is the polarization of the political scene here in the U.S., and I know that this will be a bitter pill to swallow, but the initiators of this condition happen to be the right-wing media(eg:Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, the FOX News crew). By 2004 I found the GOP way too toxic, and renounced my 20+ year affiliation with the Republican party.



The two party system has always been flawed, but I don't see a benefit in the political systems where much time and energy goes into building political coalitions in a parliamentary type government. I suppose such works for some countries, but we already seem to have more chaos than necessary.





The highlighted statement is a bit humorous as the reverse is actually the case- the Republican controlled Congress has done their level best to ignore the president, and attempt to derail the President's efforts at every turn.

I guess it's perfectly acceptable if it's a Republican president stonewalling a democratic congress, eh?
Click to expand...

......................

What has been ignored here is the 6+ years passed where the House had no powers at all as Senate Reid would basically just table any inputs from the Republican House. Then when Obama needed some Congressional help Reid would put the bill to the House and expect the Republicans to OK it. Much that should be done in the Congress was done by Obama in his isolated special groups that he had developed to make it possible to ignore the Congress debates etc. Lots of finagling going on that the people of the US should not have to live with as we do have Representatives and Senators who are supposed to make sure things are proper.

Only now, in the last two years of Obama, do the Republicans have both House and Senate to attempt to control much at all. Problem now would be that Obama has already shown that he is willing to let the government be shut down till it goes his way. Not much good at debating some solution at all, just shut down and point the finger at the Republicans. So I hope the Republicans will not get trapped in that mess any more. Just try to keep the country going till after the election and then see where we can go with a new government and lots of new House and Senate folks working together.
 
BobF said:
......................

What has been ignored here is the 6+ years passed where the House had no powers at all as Senate Reid would basically just table any inputs from the Republican House. Then when Obama needed some Congressional help Reid would put the bill to the House and expect the Republicans to OK it. Much that should be done in the Congress was done by Obama in his isolated special groups that he had developed to make it possible to ignore the Congress debates etc. Lots of finagling going on that the people of the US should not have to live with as we do have Representatives and Senators who are supposed to make sure things are proper.
Click to expand...

Who are the isolated special groups mentioned here?

BobF said:
Only now, in the last two years of Obama, do the Republicans have both House and Senate to attempt to control much at all. Problem now would be that Obama has already shown that he is willing to let the government be shut down till it goes his way. Not much good at debating some solution at all, just shut down and point the finger at the Republicans. So I hope the Republicans will not get trapped in that mess any more. Just try to keep the country going till after the election and then see where we can go with a new government and lots of new House and Senate folks working together.
Click to expand...

Perhaps there are people who have a poor memory, but the government shutdown incidents were in fact the work of the Republicans, in their attempt to derail the Affordable Care Act. See this article.

More -->>>
government shutdown 2014
==================
Government shutdown 2015
 
Those would be the ones that have doubled the government size, don't need to take their programs through the Congress to get them accepted even when they take control of how people live and work. Lots of Obama's work is done outside the protections of the Congress. Expect me to list these groups? I should have taken notes in Obama's first year as he set these things up. He has greatly increased the size of our government, which is a big increase in our expenses. Likely a part of the big debt built by Obama in his administration.

The government shut downs were the Republican efforts? Likely so but not to just shut down the government. Rather it should have been a note to the government that lots of folks don't like what is going on and are speaking out. Unfortunately the government just allowed this to happen. There could have been some effort to resolve the issues but the government sat and refused to discuss. It seems like part of a two way street that never got used.
 
GOP..........Can we burn your house down?

Obama..........NO!!

GOP............ok........ then can we just burn the 2nd story?


OBAMA....... NO!!


GOP..........oh all right... can we just burn down your garage??

OBAMA...........NO!!

GOP............ You NEVER want to compromise!!!!
 
QuickSilver said:
GOP..........Can we burn your house down?

Obama..........NO!!

GOP............ok........ then can we just burn the 2nd story?


OBAMA....... NO!!


GOP..........oh all right... can we just burn down your garage??

OBAMA...........NO!!

GOP............ You NEVER want to compromise!!!!
Click to expand...


That's it in a nutshell. ;)
 
QuickSilver said:
GOP..........Can we burn your house down?

Obama..........NO!!

GOP............ok........ then can we just burn the 2nd story?


OBAMA....... NO!!


GOP..........oh all right... can we just burn down your garage??

OBAMA...........NO!!

GOP............ You NEVER want to compromise!!!!
Click to expand...

None of this post is true so what is your problem. Our government is supposed to be a debating group and not just some stupid party, either side or new, to answer too. They are supposed to meet, discuss projects, accept, amend, or delete item in discussion. As long as it is run by some with closed minds we will never have a good government. Best we got rid of all party type operation in the government. Parties should be allowed to help determine who gets voted but at the voting place and within the government parties should be ignored and we go by the Constitution and its way of describing the functions of Congress, President, Supreme Court.
 
tnthomas said:
That's it in a nutshell. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes... it certainly does. The President gets accused of not being willing to compromise, but what he is asked to compromise on is so odious and so harmful to the country and to the middle class that there IS no room for compromise. Thankfully he has stood strong against this constant assault and that our next President... Clinton, Sanders, or even Biden will continue to protect us from the disgusting and relentless attacks..
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top