Comments on: Top GOP Contenders for 2012 All Creationists

By: What future might the Political "Right" have? - Science Forums

What future might the Political "Right" have? - Science Forums — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 09:48:58 +0000

[...] the Constitution of the United States with his trying to push religion into government… …oh *all* of the Pubican candidates for 2012 are creationists… and just try Googling "America is a Christian Nation"…. Who’s expecting any [...]

By: DrBadger

DrBadger — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 05:26:23 +0000

Louise, they're actually a level below retarded .

By: Louise

Louise — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 20:13:20 +0000

Creationists are RETARDED.

By: Gotchaye

Gotchaye — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:55:46 +0000

Conservatism is a useful impulse. The general population is, by definition, more or less centrist, and progressives have a tendency to underestimate the traditionalist/authoritarian elements of the population. When progressives are unchecked, they tend to overreach and create a popular backlash or power vacuum which often puts their own cause back quite a ways as traditionalist impulses are strengthened by rapid change. It’s good for progressive causes to meet steady opposition rather than to risk a backlash.

As well, it’s occasionally the case that progressives are simply dead wrong, but this often isn’t realized for some time. In general, progressives tend to be too confident in new theories of science and politics, leading to historically strong progressive support for coercive eugenics and Soviet-style government. We’re just now shaking off blank slate psychology. I also think that the US is better off than many European countries with respect to race relations largely because conservative reactionaries forced the country to always be aware of the issue – take France, where the government has, on ideological grounds, refused to recognize that race is something worth thinking about and where racism is clearly a bigger problem. There was a good ‘Talk of the Nation’ on this a few days back – it’s apparently illegal in France for a questionnaire to ask about the respondent’s race. Color-blindness is the conservative viewpoint in the US -now-, but only because it was the progressive viewpoint for so long that it became traditional.

By: woody

woody — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:24:11 +0000

We DON’T need a working conservative party.

We have one: the Dims.

What we NEED is a Socialist/Labor Party.

Chuy!

By: Ames

Ames — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 16:51:16 +0000

@Kata, I certainly don’t think the GOP should start winning :). But vitality is good in the two-party system, if only for a robust exchange of ideas, before the Democrats win..

@Mag, I really miss her. Now that she’s lost so horribly and not threatening any more, I realize just how much laughter she brought into my life…

By: Mag7

Mag7 — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 16:38:39 +0000

I know we should refrain from Sarah-Bashing, but it’s such a ripe target. Though, maybe her exorcism cleared the demons if not just her tax responsibilities. I’m guessing there’s an allowable deduction for killing the demonic polar bears.

By: KataVideo

KataVideo — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 16:23:12 +0000

..”the country needs a meaningful, intelligent conservative party.”

Why? What good has ever come from any form of conservatism? Even with the smart ones, all you ever hear is “tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts”.

By: Ames

Ames — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:08:47 +0000

I saw that on Digg: that’s awesome. Patrick’s point is really good, that the crazy birthers can’t simultaneously argue against Obama and for Jindal, at least without a considerable and uncomfortable amount of cognitive dissonance.

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:02:28 +0000

Jindal’s speech was horrible, and there is a lot of commentary on the part of pundits–even really conservative pundits–about how bad it was.