Values in America

[lynn]

Can any or all of you folks that claims to be conservative and holds dear the cherished conservative values we are all supposed to embrace in order to be real americans please tell me in detail what they are and explain how they will make this country better. I am interested after hearing a commentary by a linguist who has studied the shifting meaning of the term.

I don't think I have ever heard any conservative actually explain what they are..

[Captain Hate]

Originally Posted by lynn

Can any or all of you folks that claims to be conservative and holds dear the cherished conservative values we are all supposed to embrace in order to be real americans please tell me in detail what they are and explain how they will make this country better

http://webster.commnet.edu/cgi-shl/q...n-ons_add1.htm

[Dr Dave]

That was cruel and unnecessary, Captain.

As best I can figure it, conservative "values" go like this:

1. If God loves you, you'll be rich. If God doesn't love you, you'll be poor. In short, poverty is your just reward for failing to win God's love.

2. Bearing children is the punishment for having indulged in sex. "If you play, you gotta pay," is the way it was put to me.

That's about it, really.

[pollo loco]

It certainly is NOT the Constitution. The folks who call themselves Conservatives don't 'conserve' anything, nor do they pretend to do so!
PL

[al j]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

That was cruel and unnecessary, Captain.

As best I can figure it, conservative "values" go like this:

1. If God loves you, you'll be rich. If God doesn't love you, you'll be poor. In short, poverty is your just reward for failing to win God's love.

2. Bearing children is the punishment for having indulged in sex. "If you play, you gotta pay," is the way it was put to me.

That's about it, really.

Dave, equally unnecessary.

[Captain Hate]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

That was cruel and unnecessary, Captain.

If she hadn't asked for a response from a "linguist" in the following sentence (which wasn't a run-on) I'd have let it slide.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Originally Posted by Joe Christmas

Dave, equally unnecessary.

I don't know man, that's what I hear from the Right...

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

1. If God loves you, you'll be rich. If God doesn't love you, you'll be poor. In short, poverty is your just reward for failing to win God's love.

Isn't that calvinism?

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

Isn't that calvinism?

Go to the head of the class!

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Captain Hate

If she hadn't asked for a response from a "linguist" in the following sentence (which wasn't a run-on) I'd have let it slide.

Okay. I still think it was mean.

[lynn]

Originally Posted by Captain Hate

If she hadn't asked for a response from a "linguist" in the following sentence (which wasn't a run-on) I'd have let it slide.

I didn't ask for a response from a linguist but I can plainly see that no conservative is willing to put their ass on the line to define their positions when it comes to values. Since that seems to be the benchmark for their party's campaign I would at least like to know what they are.

I absolutely love run-on sentences. I have a knack for the perfectly crafted run-on sentence and rather enjoy writing them but I see that you are not amused so I'll try to keep them to a minimum in the future if I find myself becoming overindulgent in my quest for the perfectly constructed run-on sentence.

Now who has values they would care to share?

[patricia]

The "values" I could live with would probably involve doing no harm, listening to other people's views and controlling anger and greed.
I would add that there is no virtue in holding views which are based on one's own morality and applying them to other people's lives. The only life to which one can properly apply absolutes is one's own.

Values being defined as ideals of human behaviour evolve over time, so what is the norm for one generation of human beings is most likely inapplicable for another.

[Gary Sisco]

Wal-Mart.

[Gary Sisco]

Buzzwords aren't meant to be explained, and Americans don't have the attention span to listen, anyway, if anyone tried. No one cares, anyway.

Like individuals, a society's values can best be judged by its actions. Words mean next to nothing, 'specially in DC, where they mean nothing at all, even to the people who say them. Indeed, especially to the people who say them.

[Dr Dave]

Sisco shoots! He scores!

[Al in NYC]

Do unto others, quickly.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Buzzwords aren't meant to be explained, and Americans don't have the attention span to listen, anyway, if anyone tried. No one cares, anyway.

Like individuals, a society's values can best be judged by its actions. Words mean next to nothing, 'specially in DC, where they mean nothing at all, even to the people who say them. Indeed, especially to the people who say them.

When the present administration uses the word "values", I can't help thinking of the days of "Ozzie and Harriette".
Evidence of their simplistic thinking is the allocation of the funds for fighting AIDS in Africa. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that 30% of the money is to be used to teach abstinance. Also, unless they've changed their minds, funds are to be withheld from clinics which also give abortion counselling and perform abortions. Sounds very moral, from Bush's standpoint as a so-called "Pro-Life" advocate, until you realize that there are no separate clinics for general health care and abortion. The same clinic delivers all healthcare, including abortions. So, the Bush Administration can say that they are helping fight AIDS, but if they are withholding help from those clinics which perform abortions, that's a substantial saving. Also, the clinics which do end up being funded MUST distribute brand-name drugs. They may not use generic substitutes, even if they are the same products, but cheaper. So, "values" seem to be more akin to doing business than any compassionate concerns. This is the last administration to talk about moral values if they are puttting profit ahead of people's lives.

Values??? Pshaw!!!!

[lynn]

This is a little sad. I thought we were all about instilling positive values in ourselves and children.

Why don't we start with kindness and concern for the less fortunate in our society and around the world.

How about humility and grace.

How about honor, and not the military kind.

Is unconditional love and acceptance values we could live by?

It would be nice to see a world with genuine moral values and less business ethics.

But if toads had wings and pigs could fly....

[RBS]

I believe that Chaucer, Henry James, James Joyce and William Shakespeare were exceptional run-on sentence artists!

You go, Lynn!

[stonemonkts]

This thread needs a major dose of Dolan.

[Jazzzoline]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

That was cruel and unnecessary, Captain.

As best I can figure it, conservative "values" go like this:

1. If God loves you, you'll be rich. If God doesn't love you, you'll be poor. In short, poverty is your just reward for failing to win God's love.

2. Bearing children is the punishment for having indulged in sex. "If you play, you gotta pay," is the way it was put to me.

That's about it, really.

Now I'm puzzled...
Thought God and Money were actually synonyme in an American's mind...

[Al in NYC]

Lynn, you need to consult with Gordon about those values. As our resident economic policy guru, I think he'd tell you that they're not cost effective nor do they promote optimal economic efficiency, which makes them very silly values indeed.

[clinthopson]

Simply said, contemporary conservative values are to give the wealthy anything they want, do not have any restrictions on monopolistic actions by large corporations, use all natural resources today and let tomorrow take care of itself, let fundamental religious beliefs govern any action, go to war when necessary as long as any of us don't get shot at and, oh yes, screw those not as well off as we are.

For the life of me, I can't understand how Joe Lunchbox buys into this.

[pollo loco]

Clint, I don't get it either. All the time (literally) I pass cars w/ raggedy vinyl tops and rusty pick-ups sporting old Bush/Cheney stickers. By their actions, neither Bush nor Cheney cares a lick about such folks. However, the lemmings keep on jumping into that ocean of support.

[RBS]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

Simply said, contemporary conservative values are to give the wealthy anything they want, do not have any restrictions on monopolistic actions by large corporations, use all natural resources today and let tomorrow take care of itself, let fundamental religious beliefs govern any action, go to war when necessary as long as any of us don't get shot at and, oh yes, screw those not as well off as we are.

For the life of me, I can't understand how Joe Lunchbox buys into this.

What Bush does very well is tap into an underclass in America -- the angry white man who has an "us against them" attitude. The guys with the run-down Chevys are exactly who he's trying to reach.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I saw an interview with the author of "What's The Matter With Kansas?". He's a liberal who wonders why the Republican Party has become so popular with the "less than rich folks" who haven't been the chief beneficiaries of Republican economics. In otherwords, why they aren't voting their pocketbooks and wallets.

Basically it goes like this: The Republicans have turned the idea of "class warfare" upside down. Before this warfare was based on economics, now it's based on cultural values. They've convinced many people that there is a "liberal elite" out there who are trying to force their values down the common man's throat. Abortion, affirmative action, feminism, etc.

Meanwhile, the so-called party of the "little man" has abandoned it's role as the champion of the downtrodden. Who gave us NAFTA? Who promised that the age of big government is over? Who ended welfare as we know it? So with the Democratic Party rushing to the center to become "Republican Lite" what's left for the blue-collar cats? If you're not going to fight for me on the economic level what good are you?

Everytime some Democrat bitches about the disparity between worker pay and CEO pay some Republican cries "class warfare" and the Democrat backs down. But when some republican bitches about the "liberal elite" aren't they practicing the same thing?

[Rob C]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

I saw an interview with the author of "What's The Matter With Kansas?".

Thomas Frank. I haven't read that book yet, but I have read his "One Market Under God" and a couple of essays. He's great. He made a similar argument about the Federal Marriage Amendment last week in the NY Times that I thought was pretty on-target.

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Meanwhile, the so-called party of the "little man" has abandoned it's role as the champion of the downtrodden. Who gave us NAFTA? Who promised that the age of big government is over? Who ended welfare as we know it? So with the Democratic Party rushing to the center to become "Republican Lite" what's left for the blue-collar cats? If you're not going to fight for me on the economic level what good are you?

Everytime some Democrat bitches about the disparity between worker pay and CEO pay some Republican cries "class warfare" and the Democrat backs down.

Man, I know that it's not the point of your post, but I could write no better synopsis of the reasons why I abandoned all hope for the Democratic Party.

[crawjo]

Beauty
Courage
Forgiveness
Empathy
Humility
Honesty
Charity
Love (regardless of race, class, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation)
Freedom
Responsibility

I cringe whenever I hear someone on the right talk about values, because 99 percent of the time there is nothing behind the word.

[lynn]

Where are our resident right wing pundits? I asked an honest question.