No, just call them “Democrats”.
And I’m remembering something from my nine years of Catholic school about this being the very definition of miracle, yes? Something that violates the laws of nature that we mortals are constrained by and that has no rational explanation. If Jesus could make crippled legs whole again, and violate the natural laws that constrain normal doctors, then why couldn’t his healing power also travel faster than the speed of light, and violate the natural laws that constrain physical objects?
These people need to spend some time mentally sparring with Jesuits. That’ll sharpen their wits.
Here’s a longish reference-bearing essay on why debating denialists, including creationists such as ‘intelligent design’ proponents, is a bad idea. In summary, it plays into their hands by helping them maintain the lie they’re after honest debate instead of the destruction of a whole field of science because it isn’t politically correct.
And you’ll never win because to win a debate requires the other party be intellectually honest enough to play by some reasonable rules and admit defeat if they lose by those rules.
While I currently (as a “fiscal conservative”) vote for mostly Democrats, the idea that the Democract party as a group is fiscally conservative is somewhat to very laughable.
You’ll have seen this already.
(Although I will concede that no political party is really fiscally conservative - it’s just a difference in what they spend the money on.)
That all depends on who you think owns the tent. Andy Schlafly regular purges Conservapedia contributors on the grounds that they are in some way “liberal”, which is very evidently defined in that instance as “disagreeing in any way with Andy Schlafly”. He would chuck Rand out of his tent just as quickly as Rand has done to him. Hence the “No True Conservative” crack I made. It’s not a judgment on which one (if either) is correct, just an observation of behavior.
The Left seem to be generally less worried about ideological purity except for those on the far (or at least farther) left who never get elected to any office or, really, get taken seriously in any way. Mostly the Left just say “Liberal or not, that dude is crazy.”
Sorry, but Schlafly put himself in the righty camp (the “Conservapedia” name is a bit of a giveaway). But don’t worry - if the rest of us genuinely thought you all were like him, the Republicans would be in serious trouble.
Maybe they keep their phylacteries where their heads usually are.
I already said I currently vote for Democrats. =P
Democrat does not even equal “fiscally sane”, let alone “fiscally conservative”. Who’s your dealer, I need some of the dope you’re smoking.
You are still going to need at least two shots. First you destroy the phylactry, then you destroy the monster. Otherwise they just regrow a new body elsewhere.
And how many trillions have been spent in Iraq/Afghanistan?
It bears mentioning that the Oh-so-enlightened non-religious conservatives in this thread are the oddballs in the tent, not the religious types. The Republican party is a religious party that is incidentally conservative.
Not that the non-religious conservative is necessarily any more sane. Off the top of my head, there are a panoply of beliefs that equal 21st century conservative: Global Warming is a lie, Universal Healthcare is less efficient, stimulus during a recession is bad, gay marriage is somehow bad, draconian immigration steps are necessary (fence, mass deportation, etc.), evolution is a lie, cutting taxes is always the right answer and something incoherent about tyranny.
So don’t feel too superior non-religious conservatives. You’re fucking wackos too.
Remember, comrades, true Conservatism has never been tried.
This is roughly my entire problem with basically every conservative movement since the original Progressives. I don’t think you have any idea how annoying it is on a near-constant basis to some of us that all these idiotic, anti-scientific, pro-regulation, pro-irresponsibility fuckholes somehow managed to wrangle themselves into the public eye as “conservative”.
I actually am one of those people that wants debate. But the trouble is that American politics doesn’t agree on the factual issues. Take Global Warming. Most scientists believe it’s happening. Instead of dealing with the “what should we do” question, on which there is a good debate to be had, we’ve got people popularizing pseudo-scientists pretending they’ve proven Global Warming a lie.
It’s perfectly reasonable to argue that we don’t need to change anything because of the costs or whatever, but instead the right just pretends there isn’t a problem, short circuiting the debate before step one.
I’m not saying the left is blameless, but right now, the conservative side is ruled by angry ignorant people and it’s a fucking shame.
Well, there ya go. That’s why us fiscal conservatives have always denied that W was one of us. I can give you many more reasons to deny that W was “conservative” in any meaningful sense at all, except “social”, because he was a dipshit fundie.
I think you meant pro-deregulation.
I’m pretty sure “evolution is a lie” would be a religious conservative belief.
Well, he was a heavy supporter of the neoconservative foreign-policy agenda.
You called? 