"Schizoid Man" wrote in message ...
"pyjamarama" wrote in message

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

Setting aside differences on social and economic issues between liberals
and
conservatives, I believe there is a fundamental difference in their
respective styles of governance.

It seems to me that conservatives govern using instinct, belief and
faith in
one's own actions. Liberals govern using history, precedent and usually
have
a better comprehension of geopolitical affairs.


Any evidence to butress your rather ill-informed claim? "Liberals
govern using history and precedent?" Uh, son, those are the two
guiding principles of modern day conservatism -- the very two things
we often get accused of relying too heavily upon.

How's the weather in Bizzaro world, btw?

Que?

Extending my argument, doesn't it worry you that the most powerful man in
the world, albeit the one who quite literally has his finger on the button,
is a person who has denounced evolution is favor of creationism?

Bush has never "denounced" evolution (See NYT quote below) -- he HAS
said he believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution in
schools...

From the New York Times - Oct 29, 00 " Mr. Bush... does not believe in
evolution. He says the jury is still out but he does not actively
disbelieve in it either....

So no, it doesn't "worry" me -- better someone God-fearing with their
finger on the button -- we sure as hell know the horrrors atheistic
communism unleashed.


And then he calls Rush Limbaugh 'a great American'. A man, steeped in his
own hypocrisy about treating drug offenders, but someone who offers blurs
the lines between conservatism and hate. Here's a man who once said that
United States should convert all the jihad fighters. Yep, I'm sure
converting these terrorists to Christianity will magically make them good
people with warm hearts.

Your insipid fears of Rush Limbaugh can hardly be laid at Bush's feet.


And then you claim to have the sagacity and definitely the audacity to tell
me that contemporary conservatism is based on history and precedent?

Of course it is -- we're CONSERVING the ideals and institutions
established at the founding.

You actually think the two lame and irrelevant examples you've
presented above make your case? Christ, it's no wonder you leftists
are so marginalized.

What
precedent was set in Iraq?

The precedent of pre-emptive National Security and the enforcement of
17 unheeded UN resolutions.

Did they attack us?

Did Nazi Germany attack us? Did Bosnia attack us? Did North Korea
(circa 1950) attack us? Did the Kaiser attack us?

Did they aid and abet Osama
and 9/11 perpetrators?

Evidence uncovered by the new Iraqi government puts Mohammed Atta in
Baghdad in July 2001. Doesn't matter though -- they violated 17 UN
resolutions in addition to the cease-fire agreement post-Gulf War.

That's plenty.


If your compassionate conservatives were really that altrusitic, then we
would not have heard of the likes of Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Pol
Pot, Noriega, Osama Bin Laden or the Shah of Iran. Ever heard of the Savak?
Read up about it sometime, jimjams. It was the Shah of Iran's secret police.
But you never read about their torture chambers or rape rooms. Why? Well, I
suppose the fact that he had American support might have something to do
with it.

In the fight to bring down expansionist international communism, a
movement that was responsible for over 100 million dead, we dealt with
who we had to deal with -- that's often the price of freedom...

By the by, I haven't yet seen the left lament those 100 million dead.
Hmmmm.


Look, I'm the last one to say that all Democrats are good. As far as I'm
concerned, politics is a dirty business and politicians are a dirty lot. But
Republicans are certainly no saints. It's just a shame that most
conservatives are too egotistical to ever concede that.

Never said Republicans were saints -- only that their basic
ideological premise is less intrusive and hence less harmful.