"I would like to think that there are some ideals that are timeless and universal, such as the desire for freedom, and a society that does not instill in its people a love of country, and a sense of loyalty, duty, and honor is a society that will be incapable of preserving itself."

- I have no real argument with this. Perhaps, though, some of the ideals that we Americans have come to take for granted are really the products of us having tremendous amounts of resources per capita, and are less the products of our high-mindedness. I think a lot of people conflate Freedom and Luxury.

"It was the reference to putting the past behind us and “moving on “that I find troubling. Moving on to what? Change to what? I am sure that most Obama supporters were hoping to arrive at some sort of European-style soft socialism efficiently run by legions of caring bureaucrats (as if that were ever possible), but what if that doesn’t happen?"

- One of my big problems with conservatism, as you seem to describe it, is that its core ideals were forged at a time when America indeed was a land of limitless opportunities. When our Founding Fathers were hashing out the details of the Constitution, nobody really knew what lay west of the Mississippi River. If one was dissatisfied with life in Boston or New York or Philadelphia, one could (and many did) simply "go west" and start anew. One could simply go and "stake a claim." Our culture still clings to this image of itself as a bunch of hardy pioneers who made thier own way out west. That's fantastic and all, but it isn't reality any more. There is no more free land just for the taking.

Conservatism seems to be beholden to ways that perhaps were appropriate at a given point, but conservatism seems unable or unwilling to adapt as the landscape changes.

There are many benefits to the capitalist system, but it is going to have to make some adjustments if it is going to survive. If creative destruction is a necessary cog in the machinery of capitalism, and those displaced by said destruction no longer have a place to go (the proverbial "west"), then you have a population for whom capitalism is not working. If that population becomes large enough, it will threaten capitalism itself, as that population will turn by necessity toward another system to provide the basics. European socialism has its problems, but we may simply not have a choice but to adopt some of their models.

To that end, I would argue that a degree of wealth redistribution would actually be a necessary investment on the part of the capitalist system. Think of it this way: The game of "Monopoly" is the conservative capitalist system in a micorcosm, no? Everybody starts out with an equal opportunity to make it big. Over the next five hours, with a combination of good luck, bad luck, risk-taking, money managment, etc., one player emerges as the victor with all of the money and all of the property and everybody else ends up with nothing. At that point, the game ends. Perhaps that bears repeating: The Game Ends. Capital stops flowing and the "free" market closes shop. Then what?

- What if it turns out to be far more intrusive and repressive?

You seem to conflate totalitarianism with socialism. They are not one and the same. It is our responsibility as citizens to ensure that our government doesn't become too intrusive and/or repressive.

"And using Europe as a model may not be a very wise choice because in less than fifty years the EU will become the ISE (Islamic States of Europe), at which point Europeans will re-learn once again what true repression feels like."

- I'm sorry, but that's just insane.

"What if nuclear devices were set off in several American cities simultaneously?"

- What if? Don't you mean, "When?" With the relative portability of loose nukes, dirty bomb materials, etc., it is just a matter of time. It's a numbers game, and we lose. We have to bat 1.000, they only need to get a base hit once. No amount of love for Ronald Reagan is gonna stop it. But maybe you'll get lucky and it will be Chicago that gets nuked, as John Bolton joked to the CPAC crowd the other day.

"This is not such an unlikely possibility the way things are going."

- See above.

"We are after all considered to be the "Great Satan"."

- Why do you suppose that is?

"It will not be the effete, perfumed metrosexual males who will volunteer to defend the country because they will be too busy trying to leave it – it will be conservatives who will step up, just as we always have."

- This is an utterly stupid statement and is speaks to the very core of your arrogance. Are these the same conservatives who hope that Obama's Presidency is a failure? Or are these the conservatives who are plotting a violent revolution? How many metrosexual men do you know, anyway? (I didn't think so...)

Every man who doesn't share your views is effete? Fuck you.