"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?


Anytime somebody believes nonsense it bothers me. I don't think this belief
will cause him to launch any missiles though.

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.

You are incorrect. Rush only spoke of people who use drugs for the sole
purpose of getting high, he never condemned anyone for getting hooked on
pain meds.

The blurring is a conbstruct of your mind.

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.

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

Yep.

What
precedent was set in Iraq?

The same one as Milosevec set.

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

Probably. Does it matter, an evil SOB is gone from power.

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.

Ask the average Iranian and they would most likely pray to have someone like
the Shah back.

How about the Democrats blocking aid the Nicaraguans who wanted their
country to have elections. There's blood on both party's hands. Do try to
remember the Democrats were formed as a pro-slavery party.

Why? Well, I
suppose the fact that he had American support might have something to do
with it.

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.

I don't recall anyone saying they were, only that they are not the Devil
either.

It's just a shame that most
conservatives are too egotistical to ever concede that.


Can't speak for them, they wouldn't have me.