A bit late, and going back a bit, a few comments I want to make:

The failure of all of those far end progressive movements to achieve their ideological goals is precisely what I was referring to. I would, potentially, argue that the extremes of either conservative or progressive ideology, when put into practice in an imperfect world, wind up looking quite similar.

I disagree.

I'm not particularly good at debating with any sort of sources of evidence to back up my theories or opinions. I tend to
make statements based on general observation, not backed up by any sort of rigorous study, but that make sense to me. That may or may not be totally bogus, making me an easy target for more rigorous debaters.

But it's still fun.

Also, Conservapedia. Having learned more about it (mostly from the Daily Show interview with its founder) since the last thread we had on it, I have to change my opinion. I had thought the more insane articles were generally vandalism, as the site is a big fat easy target, and a source of much hilarity. But they do keep a pretty tight rein on the edits, so I have to think the people running it are crazy, and that sadly it reflects more of the mindset of mainstream conservatives than I'm comfortable with.

It seems that while I agree with many ideological tenets of conservatism, I can't stand conservatives.

The problem with pretty much all those "progressive" revolutions was they ended up in charge of people I would label "conservatives". I don't think it is an inherent problem with the movement itself but more with the people behind it and the specific conditions involved.
Though my biggest problem is single country revolutions which are completely untenable to me- so I will agree with you that an extreme leftwing revolution will always fail in a single country. I just think if it is properly extreme it will transcend countries- as nations are a pretty nonsense rightwing idea.

As for your other comment, I really can't believe that Conservapedia represents anything but the most radicalised rightwingers. I make fun of right-wingers a lot but even I give them more credit than most of the things tha t are on that page. Like there is no moderation to it- no concessions- everything is either liberal and evil or conservative and good.
Like I mean hoshit- A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.[1] Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly statist, and in Europe even socialistic.

See, I'm torn. Is this the fringe right? Some terrible joke? Or is this what conservatism has/will become? I don't know if I can even associate with the word anymore, what with this and Pat Robertson.

I know this isn't the majority opinion, but I can't...fuck it call me a moderate. I can't take this shit.

There's nothing inherently wrong with conservatism, really. I mean I disagree with several aspects of it utterly but the way the neocons bat around blame and ack-basswards racism and prejudice you can more or less spot the apeshit bananas ones in a crowd. There really isn't much distinction anymore in the public eye, tragically, and these insane statements and cries the neocons make only further alienate both sides of the winged fence, as the republicans grudgingly rally behind it with no real alternative as the bible-whipped carry the voting power, and the democrats rally on the other side letting their monkey shit-flinging displays speak for themselves.

It's really gotten totally out of hand. I might just be naiively fond of nostalgic memories but I don't think things have always been this awful.

EDIT: RANT GET

Why don't we just agree that sadly, "conservatives" died out around the 1990s. They have now been replaced by "dicks".

Because while I guess I am more liberal, I agree that conservatism isn't absolutely horrible. Unlike the current Republican ideology, which is. Thus, current Republicans cannot possibly be conservatives. What else are they? Why, dicks, of course.

That would make Ronald Reagan a conservative and not a planet murdering asshole.
Conservatism died in 1929.
Or if it lived on it defineatly didn't survive the 80s. Or the 70s. Reagen murdered its corpse anyway.

If Conservatism died in 1929 I'm not sure when it was ever a good thing since we can basically assume that the robber barons giving away to the rampant and unrestrained capitalism leading up to Calvin Coolidge and the stock market crash wasn't a good thing either, especially when the "balance" was conservative and extremely racist Democrats in the south.

Republicans here being the US party, not others.
 

I do have to wonder why more traditional (non-Neocon) conservatives aren't distancing themselves Rush Limbaugh's awfulness.

Also, go Roger Ebert.

Why don't you guys stop beating around the bush and just say conservatism has never done anything good for anyone ever and is concentrated evil?

See, I've gone my whole life being taught that Reagan was liek teh best guy evar. Please enlighten me. And I'm also interested in how the allies were the bad guys in WWII. You seem to be a fountain of untapped knowledge, though I hesitate to drink of it.