>> Show me someone who thinks that one or the other is all right (i.e. correct) or all wrong, I'll show you a big baby-a$$ed narcissist.
>
>Right here. I firmly believe that is completely unnecessary for individual citizens to be conservative. There 2 big conservative influences in society already: big business, organized religion.
Unnecessary? Agreed. But easy for you to say living in Vancouver. Note my city. Here it's all about beer, baseball & bibles.
About 'big business', it would seem that there's been ample time since the industrial revolution began to rid ourselves of the lack and poverty that exists. Must be some other factors involved, ya think?
About 'organized religion', it's not really too organized. :-) But there was a time when it was, and it ruled! We call these times "the dark ages". Haha!
>In fact, conservatism has been on the wrong side of modern history.
Well, with a 90-degree turn on the above, I'd agree. Not the 'wrong' side but impirically it can be shown as on the 'back' side. IOW, we move in a certain direction. Forward. Bork lamented that his failed Supreme Court nomination was the fault of only those that were to the left of him. Gee, for Bork that would be like 99.9999 percent of the population. (So what was his point anyway?) That is nowadays though. Strap him in a time machine, let him go back to live with our Fuedal ancestors, or try to survive on the north coast of France when the Vikings were kicking up, or anywhere in Europe during the 2nd Endo-Euporean envasion. We know Attila would think him to be a tree-hugging idealistic wuss. There's where our traditions spring from. When I hear talk about "traditional values" as some moral trump card, I know the speaker is an idiot. And I mean 'idiot' in the most sincere way: genesis of the word is from "idios", meaning one who loves only their own ideas.
You know of this guy? You might like his stuff, I'm certain you'd understand it readily:
http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html#MORALPATHThanks Evan,
Steven-
