[quote=MooooMoo;176651]"If an intelligent designer[/quote]MooooMoo, as I wrote in post #83:
[quote=cheesehead;174272][B]Please leave evolution/ID out of this thread.[/B] I tried carefully to avoid mentioning evolution/ID in my comments on anti-science, because that particular argument tends to take over the discussion when it comes up. Note that none of the examples of science suppression I cited from the UCS website concerns evolution/ID. My accusations of Republican anti-science do not depend upon referring to the evolution/ID controversy -- there are plenty of examples completely outside that area.

[B]There is another thread already established for arguing about the scientific aspects of evolution vs. ID argument[/B]: [URL]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=6326[/URL] ("Evolution: The Scientific Evidence")

Please take the evolution/ID discussions (including about Ida) there.[/quote]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;176870]MooooMoo, as I wrote in post #83:
"Please leave evolution/ID out of this thread."[/QUOTE]
Oops! I browsed through the thread a bit too fast and didn't read that post. Sorry about that.

"For Republicans, The Ice Age Cometh"

[URL]http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904136,00.html?iid=tsmodule[/URL]

[quote=Mike Murphy]... I've made a career out of counting votes, and the numbers tell a clear story; the demographics of America are changing in a way that is deadly for the Republican Party as it exists today. A GOP ice age is on the way.

. . .

... we hear a lot about going back to "the winning ways of Ronald Reagan." Well, I love Reagan too. But demographics no longer do. In 1980, Reagan beat Jimmy Carter by 10 points. If that contest were held again today, under the current demographics of the electorate per exit polls, the election would be much closer, with Reagan probably winning by about 3 points.

. . .

Young voters need to see a GOP that is more socially libertarian, particularly toward gay rights. With changing demographics come changing attitudes, and aping the grim town elders from Footloose is not the path back to a Republican White House.

. . .

Latinos need to see a quick end to the Republican congressional jihad on immigration. ... Instead, the GOP should support practical immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship. Republicans should differentiate themselves from the left by heating up the lukewarm American melting pot with a firm insistence on learning English and a rejection of the silly excesses of identity politics. A smart GOP would be deeply in the microloan and free-English-lessons business in immigrant communities. Illegal immigrants can't vote. Their children will.

... Saving the GOP is not about diluting conservatism but about modernizing it to reflect the country it inhabits instead of an America that no longer exists.

[I]Murphy is a GOP political consultant and writer.[/I][/quote]

[QUOTE]Young voters need to see a GOP that is more socially libertarian...[/QUOTE]

Hmmm... The problem is, young voters are few in number, do not represent the base, and often become more conservative as they grow older, get a family of their own, etc...

While I would like to see the GOP become a little more libertarian (not with regards to hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc...--we are [from my experience with Republicans] *already* open to those civil rights aspect-- but with abortion in special circumstances so we can get to the heart of the issue) I primarily want is a group of politicians I can trust to actually do what they say they will and represent the conservative standard. Speaking from my personal experience, the GOP lost so soundly because they failed to vote conservative. Polls might put the GOP down, but they put conservatism up.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177752]I primarily want is a group of politicians I can trust to actually do what they say they will and represent the conservative standard.[/quote]

Pffffft...

[LIST][*][B]Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change.[/B] It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense. This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves "liberals." I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism.[/LIST] [LIST][*]Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. [B]The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments.[/B][/LIST][LIST][*]The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly."[/LIST] [LIST][*]Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal.[/LIST] [LIST][*]In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule — not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. [B]Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.[/B][/LIST] [LIST][*]When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. [B]There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them.[/B][/LIST][LIST][*]In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. [B]The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people — he is not an egalitarian — but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are.[/B][/LIST] [LIST][*][B]That the conservative opposition to too much government control is not a matter of principle but is concerned with the particular aims of government is clearly shown in the economic sphere.[/B] Conservatives usually oppose collectivist and directivist measures in the industrial field, and here the liberals will often find allies in them. But at the same time conservatives are usually protectionists and have frequently supported socialist measures in agriculture.[/LIST] [LIST][*]Conservatives feel instinctively that it is new ideas more than anything else that cause change. But, from its point of view rightly, conservatism fears new ideas because it has no distinctive principles of its own to oppose them; and, by its distrust of theory and its lack of imagination concerning anything except that which experience has already proved, it deprives itself of the weapons needed in the struggle of ideas. Unlike liberalism, with its fundamental belief in the long-range power of ideas, conservatism is bound by the stock of ideas inherited at a given time. And since it does not really believe in the power of argument, its last resort is generally a claim to superior wisdom, based on some self-arrogated superior quality.[/LIST] [LIST][*]Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it — or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called "mechanistic" explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. [B]Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.[/B][/LIST] [LIST][*][B]What I have described as the liberal position shares with conservatism a distrust of reason to the extent that the liberal is very much aware that we do not know all the answers and that he is not sure that the answers he has are certainly the rights ones or even that we can find all the answers. He also does not disdain to seek assistance from whatever non-rational institutions or habits have proved their worth.[/B] The liberal differs from the conservative in his willingness to face this ignorance and to admit how little we know, without claiming the authority of supernatural forces of knowledge where his reason fails him. It has to be admitted that in some respects the liberal is fundamentally a skeptic — but it seems to require a certain degree of diffidence to let others seek their happiness in their own fashion and to adhere consistently to that tolerance which is an essential characteristic of liberalism.[/LIST][LIST][*]In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the sense in which I have used it, the term "libertarian" has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself.[/LIST] [LIST][*]The conservatives have already accepted a large part of the collectivist creed — a creed that has governed policy for so long that many of its institutions have come to be accepted as a matter of course and have become a source of pride to "conservative" parties who created them. Here the believer in freedom cannot but conflict with the conservative and take an essentially radical position, directed against popular prejudices, entrenched positions, and firmly established privileges. Follies and abuses are no better for having long been established principles of folly.[/LIST]

HRB,

[QUOTE]Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such.[/QUOTE]They are just names. Is it improper to call a line in hyperbolic space a "circle"?

That said, my experience seems to be quite different than yours. For example, I can think of quite a few "conservative principles" off the top of my head. [Unfortunately, none of which the politicians seem to follow.] Small government; a balanced budget; strong military; etc... Your characterization of the conservative position resting "on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others" seems a bit...over the top. But maybe that's how the conservatives behave in your part of the country. It seems kind of funny that, at least from my point of view, it always seems to be the liberals who are the ones who make "protected classes".

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177760]That said, my experience seems to be quite different than yours.[/quote]

Actually it's F.A. Hayek's explanation, "Why I'm not a conservative".

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177760]For example, I can think of quite a few "conservative principles" off the top of my head. [Unfortunately, none of which the politicians seem to follow.] Small government; a balanced budget; strong military; etc...[/quote]

Small government is a classical liberal (libertarian) position, [I]not[/I] a conservative position. Small government and strong military are mutually exclusive: the larger the portion of the GDP is socialized by allocating it to public defense,the bigger the government is [I]ceteris paribus[/I].

[quote=__HRB__;177758][...][LIST][*][B][...]Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.[/B][/LIST][LIST][*][B]That the conservative opposition to too much government control is not a matter of principle but is concerned with the particular aims of government is clearly shown in the economic sphere.[/B] [...][/LIST][/quote]

See? You like big armies so you feel entitled to force that value on others and redistribute wealth by threat of force to the public sector. Some people buy bigger cars to compensate. Some people feel superior if they can say "My country has a [strike]bigger penis[/strike] more F22s than your country. We're so cool! The only reason we let your country exist, is because we like to feel generous. Kneel before Zod!"

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177760][...]It seems kind of funny that, at least from my point of view, it always seems to be the liberals who are the ones who make "protected classes".[/quote]

Hayek uses the term [I]liberal[/I] in the classical sense. Whom you call a liberals, he calls socialists, which is exactly what they are: promoters of an [I]Aristocracy of Pull[/I].

[QUOTE=__HRB__;177769]Actually it's F.A. Hayek's explanation, "Why I'm not a conservative".[/quote]Plagiarism is a crime. It is also bad manners to quote someone without reference. I'd recommend you quote your sources next time.

[quote]Small government is a classical liberal (libertarian) position, [I]not[/I] a conservative position.[/quote]I disagree. Firstly, with equating liberal with libertarian (they are quite different, at least here in America, I don't know where you are from). Secondly, because the claim is contradicted by the liberal position on universal healthcare, for one example.

[quote]Small government and strong military are mutually exclusive...[/quote]I again disagree (although it can be the case sometimes).

[quote]See? You like big armies...[/quote]No, I like strong armies. [quote]... so you feel entitled to force that value on others and redistribute wealth by threat of force to the public sector.[/quote]LOL! Um...if democratically voting in favor of those things you favor is "forcing values" I guess the only way to avoid it is not to vote.

[quote]Hayek uses the term [I]liberal[/I] in the classical sense. Whom you call a liberals, he calls socialists, which is exactly what they are: promoters of an [I]Aristocracy of Pull[/I].[/QUOTE]This thread is about American politics and American Republicans. I thought that was clear... :confused:

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177780]Plagiarism is a crime. It is also bad manners to quote someone without reference. I'd recommend you quote your sources next time.[/quote]

Ideas cannot be owned. It is also a sign of bad manners not to recognize 100% Hayekian text. I recommend you start reading and remembering things that are worth [URL="http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46"]knowing.[/URL]

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177780]I disagree. Firstly, with equating liberal with libertarian (they are quite different, at least here in America, I don't know where you are from). Secondly, because the claim is contradicted by the liberal position on universal healthcare, for one example.[/quote]

What you call 'liberal' is 100% socialist. Universal healthcare e.g. is in word and deed 100% [U][B][I]illiberal[/I][/B][/U]. If you think this is a liberal position, then you have yet to figure out that words have a meaning.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177780]No, I like strong armies. LOL! Um...if democratically voting in favor of those things you favor is "forcing values" I guess the only way to avoid it is not to vote.[/quote]

No. You could, e.g. vote against the ones willing to use force, but unfortunately you seem to see things from a zero-sum point of view: the only way you think you can get something is by taking it away from someone else. But actual wealth is made by someone, because it doesn't fall like manna from the heavens. So, I'm sorry to hear that you are convinced that the only way you can live is as a parasite or thief.

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. If your position is that it is OK to murder 49% of the population if 51% support this policy, the system is beyond repair and I'll go directly to box Nr. 4:

Four boxes in defense of Liberty:

1. Soap
2. Ballot
3. Jury
4. Ammo

Note connection of [I]liberty[/I] and [I]liberal[/I].

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177780]This thread is about American politics and American Republicans. I thought that was clear... :confused:[/quote]

I thought it was clear that I'm all in favor for euthanizing the Republican Party. As soon as you have people like Rush Limpboor (note spelling) identifying themselves with something, then that something has become eternally stained.

So, good riddance. One stupid set of ideals down. One stupid set of ideals to go.

But of course you wouldn't be a good conservative, if you weren't trying to trying to keep stuff alive that doesn't serve a purpose, so good luck in conservationinging the [strike]GOP[/strike] FUBARP!

[QUOTE=__HRB__;177808]Ideas cannot be owned.[/quote]That doesn't justify plagiarism.

[quote]It is also a sign of bad manners not to recognize 100% Hayekian text. I recommend you start reading and remembering things that are worth [URL="http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46"]knowing.[/URL][/quote]I have a feeling that your idea of something worth knowing, and mine, might not overlap very much.

[quote]What you call 'liberal' is 100% socialist. Universal healthcare e.g. is in word and deed 100% [U][B][I]illiberal[/I][/B][/U]. If you think this is a liberal position, then you have yet to figure out that words have a meaning.[/quote]Tell that to American liberals. ;)

[quote]No. You could, e.g. vote against the ones willing to use force, but unfortunately you seem to see things from a zero-sum point of view: the only way you think you can get something is by taking it away from someone else. But actual wealth is made by someone, because it doesn't fall like manna from the heavens. So, I'm sorry to hear that you are convinced that the only way you can live is as a parasite or thief.[/quote]I'm sorry you feel the need to misread what I wrote to such an egregious level.

[quote]Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.[/quote]LOL! The watch-cry of those who want to be tyrants but can't get the support they need.

Anyway, I'm done here. You aren't entertaining enough to continue dialoguing with. ;)

[quote=Zeta-Flux;177818]Anyway, I'm done here. You aren't entertaining enough to continue dialoguing with. ;)[/quote]

You'd be the first person who ends sentences with prepositions, I have heard interesting argumentizationings from.