[DirkFTW]

The modern conservatism movement teaches anything but tolerance. I wonder if you see the hypocrisy in your speaking about Liberals/Democrats trying to dictate how to live your life, and tolerate your views, while you've also mentioned many times how "Pro-Straight Marriage" you are, which I assume means you are Anti-Gay Marriage (because you otherwise wouldn't bring it up)?

I think you missed his point. Tolerance is the argument that is used to make us shut up by branding us as bigots. The very act of believing something as truly right or wrong requires intolerance. 92bdad's point is that tolerance presumes that it is even possible for everyone to accept everyone else's viewpoints. Theoretical tolerance must be tolerant of even intolerance. But the tolerance that is often used as a political weapon is anything but tolerant of such opposing views.

Unfortunately, history shows us that liberals win. They won when they freed slaves, they won when they established workers' rights, and they won with the Civil Rights movement. Conservatives lost all of those debates... The definition of conservatism gets more and more liberal throughout history, while the definition of liberal gets more and more, well, liberal.

That presumes a starting point of human civilization which includes the utmost pinnacle in tyranny, bondage, and servitude. Then, from there, mankind has endeavored to slowly cast off the shackles and chains to embrace freedom. Yet, obviously, history did not start in such a state. Likely, mankind had to have started in some very lawless, chaotic state with total freedom, ie the state of nature. Thus, history would strongly suggest some sort of wax and wane, tug-of-war between complete freedom and complete control, with mankind searching for some Utopian balance 'twixt the two.

Furthermore, my understanding is that Ancient Greece/Rome was far more liberal in terms of sexuality than the rest of the world for quite a long time. And our own national history shows that we have gone more conservative by restricting both the drink and the prostitute.

Creationism cannot be taught in schools because there is no evidence for it. If you want to teach your children creationism you can do it at home, and nobody will ever stop you from it. Schools can focus on what there is evidence for. If you teach Creationism, you must also teach every other viewpoint that exists. That cannot be done, so I'll gladly stick to what there is evidence for, kthx.

This is a touchy subject because some people hold that science must by definition exclude any solution that includes God or the supernatural. I think this needs to be defined first before we can meaningfully talk about the existence or non-existence of evidence for Creationism.

Regardless, check out Michael Behe's arguments regarding irreducible complexity. Also, my personal view is that the latest views on the Big Bang are WAY over the deep end. Finally, there are compelling philosophical arguments, such as the problem of getting something from nothing, that suggest a Creator rather than a Nothing as the root origin.

What the heck leads you to trust the Republicans, after this administration abashedly lied its people into supporting a war which has killed 4000 of our young men and women?

I think what the Congressional inquiries and media have discovered and concluded is that the war was based on faulty intelligence. Lying presumes intent to deceive, and from what I know, the Senators and reporters seeking such culpability for impeachment reasons have failed to find evidence of such.