Conservative values/principles

[Cow Poke]

But...but...he HUGGED the American flag. He must be a patriot.

That was a choke hold - illegal in most jurisdictions.

[JimL]

I'm reminded of Chesterton who refused to call himself conservative or progressive.

Source: G.K Chesterton

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types -- the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.

© Copyright Original Source

If we followed Chestertons view, we'd still be living in the stone age. The business of progressives is to progress, to make things better, not to make mistakes, the business of conservatives is to stop progress, to check progressives from going too far to fast. That's the balance, or the mutual check, as he puts it.

[whag]

I think, in general, conservatives believe their ideals rest on a fixed foundation that is independent of culture, society, or any one person's opinion. They are resistant to change only because the foundation does not change.

Liberals, on the other hand, hold to a more flexible standard that accounts for societal whims. They welcome and embrace change and in fact consider it a virtue when a long held belief is discarded in favor of the latest vogue.

At least that's how I see it. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me that I'm wrong.

You’re wrong.

[JimL]

The GOP platform is here:

https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/medi...DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf

Too long to quote here. But as a conservative party, it's platform encompasses many conservative values, such as liberty, respect for life, law and order and the constitution.

If republicans truely valued the law, they wouldn't be supporting a lawless president. Words are cheap!

[rogue06]

If republicans truely valued the law, they wouldn't be supporting a lawless president. Words are cheap!

Lawless: refusal to bow and scrape to increasingly insane leftist demands.

[JimL]

Lawless: refusal to bow and scrape to increasingly insane leftist demands.

That doesn't even make sense.

[Mountain Man]

If republicans truely valued the law, they wouldn't be supporting a lawless president. Words are cheap!

That's false. I never supported Obama.

[Cow Poke]

If republicans truely valued the law, they wouldn't be supporting a lawless president. Words are cheap!

If liberals truley [sic] valued the law, they wouldn't support lawless anarchy, rioting, burning, looting... and make excuses for "statue topplers".

[JimL]

If liberals truley [sic] valued the law, they wouldn't support lawless anarchy, rioting, burning, looting... and make excuses for "statue topplers".

Right, and I don't. That's just a canard, another excuse for yourself in defense of your support for a lawless treasonous president.

[carpedm9587]

I think, in general, conservatives believe their ideals rest on a fixed foundation that is independent of culture, society, or any one person's opinion. They are resistant to change only because the foundation does not change.

Liberals, on the other hand, hold to a more flexible standard that accounts for societal whims. They welcome and embrace change and in fact consider it a virtue when a long held belief is discarded in favor of the latest vogue.

At least that's how I see it. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me that I'm wrong.

In general, conservatives tend to fear change for any reason. Liberals generally do not. A few liberals embrace change just for the sake of change - but most liberals embrace change when they see a reason for a change to occur, always asking "wouldn't it be better if things were this way?" For the liberal, "that's the way it's always been done" is an invitation to mindless existence as sheep and marries us to any and all ills of the past.

Usually, the two forces counter-balance one another. The conservative keeps the liberal from running pell mell into the future with experimentation that has little thought to consequences, and the liberal constantly nudges the conservative out of their complacent, backward looking fixations. But that relationship is now (probably irrevocably) broken, and the two sides see one another not as complements to be embraced but as enemies to be defeated.

Some of the most "liberal" minds in our history were the Founding Fathers. They had the vision to look at some of the most revolutionary philosophers of their day and embrace the changes those philosophies embodied, designing an entire nation around them. There is an irony to the fact that conservatives cling to them as bastions of conservatism and liberals do not see them for the liberals they were.

[carpedm9587]

If liberals truley [sic] valued the law, they wouldn't support lawless anarchy, rioting, burning, looting... and make excuses for "statue topplers".

I find myself wondering if the early Americans who dumped English tea into Boston Harbor, or the Sons of Freedom who pulled down the statue of George III in 1776 after hearing the reading of the Declaration of Independence, were described in similar terms by colonists who sided with England...

And I seem to recall a fair amount of rioting, burning, and even looting...


ETA: BTW, I am not defending the looting or the burning. But I do understand it. I suspect if any of us had to live in a black person's skin for more than a few weeks, we might find ourselves tempted to act out as well.

[Cow Poke]

Right, and I don't. That's just a canard, another excuse for yourself in defense of your support for a lawless treasonous president.

Stop Saying Stupid Stuff.gif

[Cow Poke]

I find myself wondering if the early Americans who dumped English tea into Boston Harbor, or the Sons of Freedom who pulled down the statue of George III in 1776 after hearing the reading of the Declaration of Independence, were described in similar terms by colonists who sided with England...

That argument's already been tried. (JimL thought it was brilliant) They didn't steal the tea, burn the ships, and haul the tea home. Not even close.

And I seem to recall a fair amount of rioting, burning, and even looting...

I'll have to take your word for it - I wasn't there.

ETA: BTW, I am not defending the looting or the burning. But I do understand it.

Ya know, that sentiment sounds noble, but it amounts to pretty much tacit approval and dismissal.

I suspect if any of us had to live in a black person's skin for more than a few weeks, we might find ourselves tempted to act out as well.

My black friends, including my black "boss", is pretty hacked that BLM has clothed themselves in "black skin" to carry out their Marxist anarchy.

[JimL]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46565[/ATTACH]

Truth hurts does it? Hope so.

[Cow Poke]

Truth hurts doe it? Hope so.

It doe?

Jim, once again, there's FAR more evidence on this board that you support NAMBLA than that I support Trump.