Honestly, I don't have you guys all figured out. For one thing, why on earth would anyone read everything Huxley ever wrote? Didn't you even consider what I said about predictions as opposed to prophecy? You shouldn't be reading junk, b/c you'll dream about it. Then you'll get it hardwired into your mind during the REM cycle of sleep, and then it is, wa la, part of you. Think of the day's thoughts are tons of unwinding balls of yarn. By the end of the day, you have a tangled mass in your head. REM serves to detangle all of it, and then in addition, weaves all of it into the reference map for thinking...
No wonder you are not a golfer - to you, golf doesn't make sense, does it? It is not something to be experienced, but endured, maybe ... like bowling perhaps. rwp, the key to mutual demystification is golf. I'm sure of this.
And I don't wonder at all the contempuousness and arrogance - recall I have walked many halls of academia, listened thoughtfully to guest seminars, and sipped white wine and munched cheese. It is a familiar tune, first off, and second off, there is definitely a basic wisdom reason as well. You guys are not merciful. In general, a proper reaction to a 'lost conservative' should be mercy. Even more so if one or more of them are deliberately deceptive. Such people, in truth, can only be bad for the Republican Party, in that a narrow group of noncommited voters is their only audience. But they are certainly not going to vote for Hillary. They are indeed on the 'right' side of the fence, and thus merit mercy. Their religious beliefs are definitely NOT going to create more democrats. But, somehow, such people earn, here at the premier conservative forum, not mercy. But contempt. So, what does this do? Whose interests are served as a wedge is so thoroughly driven between 'rational conservatives' and 'social conservatives', esp if the latter get demoralized ... by an 'ally'?
And as for never learning, if someone would link to one mainstream conservative magazine which denounces I.D. as harmful for repbulicans, maybe that would make a difference. But it is the ubiquitousness of that view here, and its absence out there, which convinces me of what should be 'learned'.
No wonder you are not a golfer - to you, golf doesn't make sense, does it? It is not something to be experienced, but endured, maybe ... like bowling perhaps. rwp, the key to mutual demystification is golf. I'm sure of this.
You've gotten my attention. I am an avid golf addict. But I missed something. How does this fit into this thread? I'd be fascinated to read your thoughts on this.
I liked his writing. And I tend to read authors like that. If I find something I like, I look at the other things he's written. I read 20 Patrick O Brian novels in sequence one summer.
Their religious beliefs are definitely NOT going to create more democrats. But, somehow, such people earn, here at the premier conservative forum, not mercy. But contempt. So, what does this do? Whose interests are served as a wedge is so thoroughly driven between 'rational conservatives' and 'social conservatives', esp if the latter get demoralized ... by an 'ally'?
You argue as if the Dems winning is the only bad thing that could happen. It isn't. In a two party system, we choose between the lesser of two evils, and the relative evil can always change. A total theocratic takeover of the GOP might not make me vote Dem (I can't think offhand of anything that would do that), but it would certainly cause me to vote Libertarian.
Also, there are other values, like truth. I expect Dems to lie, so it doesn't bother me at all when they do. I don't like it when conservatives do it. I expect better from conservatives. (Though this was never any consolation to me when my Dad said it to me to explain why I wasn't allowed to do what the other kids all did)
And as for never learning, if someone would link to one mainstream conservative magazine which denounces I.D. as harmful for repbulicans, maybe that would make a difference.
I can link to columns by John Derbyshire and George Will that argue this. NR tends to present both sides of the issue (as long as they're both conservative), so they're not going to denounce ID monolithically.