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.

I smart whenever I hear the "Howard Dean has no foreign policy experience"
argument. My question is: what foreign policy experience did the ex-governor
of Texas have? Disregarding his trips to Canada to play the Montreal Expos
or Toronto Blue Jays, of course.

"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.

I smart whenever I hear the "Howard Dean has no foreign policy
experience" argument. My question is: what foreign policy experience
did the ex-governor of Texas have? Disregarding his trips to Canada
to play the Montreal Expos or Toronto Blue Jays, of course.


This begs the question:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...00/foreign.pol
icy/

"Just how much do new presidents need to know about international affairs?

"Franklin Roosevelt had experience and led successfully during World War II.
But when he died, the presidency passed to Harry Truman, who was so out of
things Roosevelt had never even told him about the atomic bomb. But Truman
had many foreign policy successes: the end of World War II; the Marshall
Plan to rebuild Western Europe; the policy of containing the Soviet Union;
the Berlin airlift when the Soviets tried to cut the city off; the United
Nations; and so on.

"He couldn't end the Korean War, but in foreign policy, he had many more
pluses than minuses. Dwight Eisenhower had lots of experience. He was the
allied commander in World War II; ended the Korean War; demanded,
successfully that Britain, France and Israel abandon their seizure of the
Suez Canal. Successes.

"John Kennedy grew up on foreign policy. His father was ambassador to
Britain. And JFK wrote a study of British policy between world wars called
"While England Slept."

"As president, he had one big failu the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of
Cuba. But it was followed by a big success: resolving the Cuban missile
crisis by getting Nikita Khrushchev to remove Soviet Missiles from Cuba in
exchange for withdrawing U.S. missiles from Turkey.

"Lyndon Johnson had no direct experience aside from Senate debates. His
administration passed historic domestic legislation: the civil rights and
voting rights acts. But the unresolved war in Vietnam destroyed his
presidency.
Richard Nixon had experience as Eisenhower's vice president and had solid
success: detente with the Soviet Union, opening relations with China after
decades of silence.

"Jimmy Carter had no experience, failed to free American hostages held in
Iran, and said he was surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

"Ronald Reagan was completely inexperienced and had great success:
negotiated arms reduction with the Soviets, urged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear
down the Berlin wall, which actually happened during George Bush's
presidency.
Does experience matter? Yes, if you look at Johnson or Carter; no, if you
look at Truman or Reagan.
Foreign policy experience of past presidents

"Just how much do new presidents need to know about international affairs?

"Franklin Roosevelt had experience and led successfully during World War II.
But when he died, the presidency passed to Harry Truman, who was so out of
things Roosevelt had never even told him about the atomic bomb. But Truman
had many foreign policy successes: the end of World War II; the Marshall
Plan to rebuild Western Europe; the policy of containing the Soviet Union;
the Berlin airlift when the Soviets tried to cut the city off; the United
Nations; and so on.

"Former President Harry S Truman

"He couldn't end the Korean War, but in foreign policy, he had many more
pluses than minuses. Dwight Eisenhower had lots of experience. He was the
allied commander in World War II; ended the Korean War; demanded,
successfully that Britain, France and Israel abandon their seizure of the
Suez Canal. Successes.

John Kennedy grew up on foreign policy. His father was ambassador to
Britain. And JFK wrote a study of British policy between world wars called
"While England Slept."

"As president, he had one big failu the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of
Cuba. But it was followed by a big success: resolving the Cuban missile
crisis by getting Nikita Khrushchev to remove Soviet Missiles from Cuba in
exchange for withdrawing U.S. missiles from Turkey.

"Lyndon Johnson had no direct experience aside from Senate debates. His
administration passed historic domestic legislation: the civil rights and
voting rights acts. But the unresolved war in Vietnam destroyed his
presidency.
Richard Nixon had experience as Eisenhower's vice president and had solid
success: detente with the Soviet Union, opening relations with China after
decades of silence.

"Former President Jimmy Carter

"Jimmy Carter had no experience, failed to free American hostages held in
Iran, and said he was surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

"Ronald Reagan was completely inexperienced and had great success:
negotiated arms reduction with the Soviets, urged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear
down the Berlin wall, which actually happened during George Bush's
presidency.

"Does experience matter? Yes, if you look at Johnson or Carter; no, if you
look at Truman or Reagan.

I think that in the case of the country's chief executive, hand-on
experience might not be as important as his philosophies or his ability to
delegate much of his foreign policy work to the right people.

"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?


I smart whenever I hear the "Howard Dean has no foreign policy experience"
argument. My question is: what foreign policy experience did the ex-governor
of Texas have? Disregarding his trips to Canada to play the Montreal Expos
or Toronto Blue Jays, of course.

"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?

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.

And then you claim to have the sagacity and definitely the audacity to tell
me that contemporary conservatism is based on history and precedent? What
precedent was set in Iraq? Did they attack us? Did they aid and abet Osama
and 9/11 perpetrators?

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.

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.

Schizoid Man said:

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.

pajamaborg and the other ravening Usenet idiots are also too
blindered by their religious beliefs.

Wow...I've learned so much about audio from reading this.....

Here's the big difference between the two

Liberals: They want BIG government because they believe people can't think
for themselves, so they have to do the thinking for us, therefore, invading
every facet of our lives, and de-moralizing our country.

Conservatives: They want smaller government, and believe the power should be
in the people's hands. They still believe in the morals that this country
was founded upon.


Both: Lie, cheat, and steal....

"Dave" wrote in message

Wow...I've learned so much about audio from reading this.....

Here's the big difference between the two

Liberals: They want BIG government because they believe people can't think
for themselves, so they have to do the thinking for us, therefore,
invading
every facet of our lives, and de-moralizing our country.

Conservatives: They want smaller government, and believe the power should
be
in the people's hands. They still believe in the morals that this country
was founded upon.


Both: Lie, cheat, and steal....

True. But there is a difference between believing in the morals that this
country was founded on and thinking that one is the custodian of the
country's morals. Who the hell are Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Coulter to tell us
what to do and how to behave?

At least the so-called Liberals like Molly Ivins, Michael Moore and Al
Franken don't pontificate.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message


At least the so-called Liberals like Molly Ivins, Michael Moore and Al
Franken don't pontificate.

Self-nomination for a retitle from "Schizoid Man" to "Delusional Man".

Schizoid Man wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message

Wow...I've learned so much about audio from reading this.....

Here's the big difference between the two

Liberals: They want BIG government because they believe people can't
think
for themselves, so they have to do the thinking for us, therefore,
invading
every facet of our lives, and de-moralizing our country.

Conservatives: They want smaller government, and believe the power
should
be
in the people's hands. They still believe in the morals that this
country
was founded upon.


Both: Lie, cheat, and steal....

True. But there is a difference between believing in the morals that this
country was founded on and thinking that one is the custodian of the
country's morals. Who the hell are Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Coulter to tell
us
what to do and how to behave?

At least the so-called Liberals like Molly Ivins, Michael Moore and Al
Franken don't pontificate.

Well, those people lack something very important.......brains.

Limbaugh....well....ok, I'll give you that one. I used to really respect him
up until this little drug incident of his...I bet Donovan McNabb was behind
outing Rush's drug problem. But, O'Reilly has a good head on his shoulders,
and I think more people should listen to him. If you don't like him then get
your own tv show, and spout off your own opinions.

Dave said:

Conservatives: They want smaller government, and believe the power should be
in the people's hands. They still believe in the morals that this country
was founded upon.

You mean "morals" like fanatical puritanism, debtors' prison,
"witchcraft" trials, only white male landowners able to vote, no
restrictions on child labor, and "the only good Indian is a dead
Indian"?

Ah yes, the good old days.......

oh my GOD man....come on. get a grip.

Did you ever actually READ the constitution?



George M. Middius wrote in message
...


Dave said:

Conservatives: They want smaller government, and believe the power
should be
in the people's hands. They still believe in the morals that this
country
was founded upon.

You mean "morals" like fanatical puritanism, debtors' prison,
"witchcraft" trials, only white male landowners able to vote, no
restrictions on child labor, and "the only good Indian is a dead
Indian"?

Ah yes, the good old days.......

Dave Shelleyd:

Conservatives: They want smaller government, and believe the power should be
in the people's hands. They still believe in the morals that this country
was founded upon.

You mean "morals" like fanatical puritanism, debtors' prison,
"witchcraft" trials, only white male landowners able to vote, no
restrictions on child labor, and "the only good Indian is a dead
Indian"?

Ah yes, the good old days.......

oh my GOD man....come on. get a grip.

So you're denying reality? Those weren't the prevalent social and
legal mores of the 17th century?

I hate trying to have an exchange with a Kroopologist. Whatever you
are, you seem just as dumb. You say "the morals that this country
was founded upon" but then you deny that's what you meant. You
butcher the line breaks in people's posts because you're too
ignorant to use a news client correctly and too lazy to learn. You
top-post like a dog piddling on the nearest fire hydrant.

Did you ever actually READ the constitution?

Why are you suddenly bringing in "the constitution[sic]"? Aside from
disrespecting that hallowed document, you seem to be acknowledging
the vapidity of your previous contention about "morals". The tribe
of contemporary pinheads who call themselves "conservatives" have a
peculiar idea of "morals" anyway. They (and you, I presume) would
incarcerate others who do things that scare these "conservatives"
but that have no ill effect on any living person. On the other hand,
they support the notions that the government can barge into people's
bedrooms, that Americans have the "right" to use Uzis to hunt down
God's creatures in the wilds, that being married to a person of the
opposite sex is intrinsically superior to not being so married, and
many other arbitrary and discriminatory notions.

You're too ignorant to know what you're talking about. You're too
stupid to say what you mean the first time you open your mouth. And
you're too egotistical to realize how hateful you are. You must be a
"conservative".






Krooborg (n): Member of hive-based collecive lifeform,
species Cyborgus Idioticus, thought to been introduced into
human society recently. No known commonality with human
beings. Obviously alien thought processes, devoid of any
ethics, honor, or integrity. Masquerades as human being
trained in electronics. Recognizable by continuous stream of
falsehoods propagated in written form. Can simulate many
human reactions with the notable exception of humor.

I hate trying to have an exchange with a Kroopologist. Whatever you
are, you seem just as dumb. You say "the morals that this country
was founded upon" but then you deny that's what you meant. You
butcher the line breaks in people's posts because you're too
ignorant to use a news client correctly and too lazy to learn. You
top-post like a dog piddling on the nearest fire hydrant.


Wow, dude, you're really angry. I can see I'm upsetting you. Just breathe...


That's it. Breathe.


Now, go outside, and get some fresh air. You've been staring at your
computer monitor for far too long.

Now repeat to yourself

"I can be normal. I can be normal. Girls WILL like me. I'll move out of my
parents' basement someday."


There now. Is that better?


And here's the funny part. Now you're REALLY mad, and going to post some
long winded reply telling me and everyone else here how stupid and ignorant
I am, and that I hate people, and don't know what I'm talking about....which
is fine. I get amusement out of it, and rather enjoy these types of spats,
especially in the cyber world, where everyone is anonymous.

:P

"Dave" wrote in message
ink.net...

And here's the funny part. Now you're REALLY mad, and going to post some
long winded reply telling me and everyone else here how stupid and
ignorant
I am, and that I hate people, and don't know what I'm talking
about....which
is fine. I get amusement out of it, and rather enjoy these types of
spats,
especially in the cyber world, where everyone is anonymous.

:P

Uh oh. Now you've done it.

You're going to earn a nickname if you don't be careful.

ScottW

LoL!

I'm scared now!

Uh oh. Now you've done it.

You're going to earn a nickname if you don't be careful.

ScottW

"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.

George M. Middius wrote in message . ..
Schizoid Man said:

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.

pajamaborg and the other ravening Usenet idiots are also too
blindered by their religious beliefs.

What ARE my religious beliefs, you mind-reading mutt?

tic toc, tic toc, tic toc....

On 16 Dec 2003 19:26:09 -0800, (pyjamarama)
wrote:

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....

What in the heck are you doing quoting the Times? Doesn't this destroy
your argument o rsomething?

On 16 Dec 2003 19:26:09 -0800, (pyjamarama)
wrote:

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.

What do you care about the UN?

Just curious...

(PS, in case you haven't guessed, this is all simply rhortorical)

dave weil wrote:

pyjamarama wrote:

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.

What do you care about the UN?

Just curious...

(PS, in case you haven't guessed, this is all simply rhortorical)

Been hitting the rhetorical sauce o rsomething?
Perhaps arguing with Mikey a lttle too much?


GeoSynch

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:14:45 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

pyjamarama wrote:

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.

What do you care about the UN?

Just curious...

(PS, in case you haven't guessed, this is all simply rhortorical)

Been hitting the rhetorical sauce o rsomething?

O r u right? I dunno.

Perhaps arguing with Mikey a lttle too much?

Or much too little...

dave weil wrote:

(PS, in case you haven't guessed, this is all simply rhortorical)

Been hitting the rhetorical sauce o rsomething?

O r u right? I dunno.

Or as something the titular one from across the pond would say:
"Twaht you say? I kunt hear you. I have an ear infukhtion!
Tit's OK, I'll finger it out later."
T.D.'d spell it differently, though.

Perhaps arguing with Mikey a lttle too much?

Or much too little...

In some instances, less is mercifully less.


GeoSynch

"pyjamarama" wrote in message

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

Less intrusive? Nicaragua, Iran, Iraq, Chile, Cambodia. Need I go on?

Equating liberals with communists and socialists just further exemplifies
your feeble grasp of reality.

Yes, communists were butchers. And yes, I lament all those who weere sent to
the Gulag, shot and persecuted for voicing their ideas. Though the latter is
kind of like what all the right-wingers did to the anti-war crowd this time
round, right?

Not for nuthin' but, ya got any idea who used to write and produce Dan
Rather's radio commentary in the early 80s?

dave weil wrote in message . ..
On 16 Dec 2003 19:26:09 -0800, (pyjamarama)
wrote:

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....

What in the heck are you doing quoting the Times? Doesn't this destroy
your argument o rsomething?

You're really not very good at this, are you?

On 17 Dec 2003 10:54:59 -0800, (pyjamarama)
wrote:

dave weil wrote in message . ..
On 16 Dec 2003 19:26:09 -0800, (pyjamarama)
wrote:

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....

What in the heck are you doing quoting the Times? Doesn't this destroy
your argument or something?

You're really not very good at this, are you?

Sure I am.

But I'm glad to see you quoting liberal sources. I guess they're back
in style.

dave weil wrote:

Not for nuthin' but, ya got any idea who used to write and produce Dan
Rather's radio commentary in the early 80s?

A wild guess: Bernard Goldberg?


GeoSynch

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:53:14 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

Not for nuthin' but, ya got any idea who used to write and produce Dan
Rather's radio commentary in the early 80s?

A wild guess: Bernard Goldberg?

Nice try, but wrong.

Try Peggy Noonan.

dave weil wrote:

Not for nuthin' but, ya got any idea who used to write and produce Dan
Rather's radio commentary in the early 80s?

A wild guess: Bernard Goldberg?

Nice try, but wrong.

Try Peggy Noonan.

So, Peggy had successfully infiltrated the enemy camp? Bravo!!!


GeoSynch

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:25:38 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

Not for nuthin' but, ya got any idea who used to write and produce Dan
Rather's radio commentary in the early 80s?

A wild guess: Bernard Goldberg?

Nice try, but wrong.

Try Peggy Noonan.

So, Peggy had successfully infiltrated the enemy camp? Bravo!!!

She's also been a consultant for The West Wing.

She must be a real sell-out...

dave weil wrote:

Not for nuthin' but, ya got any idea who used to write and produce Dan
Rather's radio commentary in the early 80s?

A wild guess: Bernard Goldberg?

Nice try, but wrong.

Try Peggy Noonan.

So, Peggy had successfully infiltrated the enemy camp? Bravo!!!

She's also been a consultant for The West Wing.

She must be a real sell-out...

Peggy is so likable that she can win over even the most hardcore leftists.


GeoSynch

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

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



Yes, communists were butchers. And yes, I lament all those who weere sent to
the Gulag, shot and persecuted for voicing their ideas. Though the latter is
kind of like what all the right-wingers did to the anti-war crowd this time
round, right?

Care you give a single example of right-wing persecution of any
anti-war "voice?" Let alone "shooting" anyone?

And please spare us the plight of the Dixie Chicks -- they expressed
an opinion and opinions were expressed back.

You do realize, incidentally that most of the anti-war activities were
organized and fundeD by ANSWER -- a well-known communist advocacy
group who supports the regime in North Korea?

Tell me you do know this?

If you did perhaps you'd stop bleating on about the notion that
current-day liberalism has nothing in common with communism or
socialism...

Of course it does.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:25:31 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

Not for nuthin' but, ya got any idea who used to write and produce Dan
Rather's radio commentary in the early 80s?

A wild guess: Bernard Goldberg?

Nice try, but wrong.

Try Peggy Noonan.

So, Peggy had successfully infiltrated the enemy camp? Bravo!!!

She's also been a consultant for The West Wing.

She must be a real sell-out...

Peggy is so likable that she can win over even the most hardcore leftists.

You're missing the point. I know it's deliberately, but I just wanted
to point that out.

"Dave" wrote in message
Schizoid Man wrote in message

True. But there is a difference between believing in the morals that
this
country was founded on and thinking that one is the custodian of the
country's morals. Who the hell are Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Coulter to
tell
us
what to do and how to behave?

At least the so-called Liberals like Molly Ivins, Michael Moore and Al
Franken don't pontificate.

Well, those people lack something very important.......brains.

Limbaugh....well....ok, I'll give you that one. I used to really respect
him
up until this little drug incident of his...I bet Donovan McNabb was
behind
outing Rush's drug problem. But, O'Reilly has a good head on his
shoulders,
and I think more people should listen to him. If you don't like him then
get
your own tv show, and spout off your own opinions.


O'Reilly has a good head on his shoulders???? Hahahaha.

HOST UNHINGED AFTER SALES FIGURES REVEALED; CALLS DRUDGE 'THREAT TO
DEMOCRACY'

TalkerAuthor Bill O'Reilly lashed out against this space during his popular
FOXNEWS O'REILLY FACTOR Wednesday night -- just hours after closely guarded
book sales figures were splashed over the internet.

Responding to an exclusive yearender DRUDGE dispatch, which presented
NIELSEN's Top 20 BOOKSCAN list of 2003 sales, O'Reilly called the DRUDGE
REPORT a "threat to democracy."

"I mean you can't believe a word Matt Drudge says," O'Reilly told the
cameras. "Now you've got the Matt Drudges of the world and these other
people, Michael Moore and all of these crazies, all right, no
responsibility... that is a threat to democracy, I think." O'Reilly warned:
"They'll just spin it and twist it and take it out of proportion every which
way."

"There is no other cure than to kill Matt Drudge," O'Reilly charged on the
IMUS in the MORNING radio show.

"I just want to tell everybody that Matt Drudge is smoking crack - right
now, in South Miami Beach on Washington Avenue... And the authorities should
know it."

FOXNEWS's top-rated host Bill O'Reilly recently claimed that he is "running
against Hillary for most copies of nonfiction books sold this year!"

But numbers obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT show a dramatically different
sales scene for 2003.

NIELSEN, the same company that ranks O'Reilly #1 on Cable TV, currently
places O'Reilly at #6 for the year on the nonfiction charts -- trailing
rival Al Franken by nearly 30%!

"We've outsold that guy [Franken] all over the place," O'Reilly claimed
Monday on NBC's TODAY show. "We're running against Hillary for most copies
of non-fiction books sold this year!"

Hahaha.

Dude,
How can you call a guy who calls Matt Drudge a "threat to democracy" someone
with a good head?

I apologize for calling you a moron, Dave. My vernacular was a little too
caustic.

It's just that I find Bill O'Reilly the king of spin, as the article below
exemplifies, and I am usually aghast that educated people actually buy into
his (liberal or conservative) nonsense.


"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

"Dave" wrote in message
Schizoid Man wrote in message

True. But there is a difference between believing in the morals that
this
country was founded on and thinking that one is the custodian of the
country's morals. Who the hell are Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Coulter to
tell
us
what to do and how to behave?

At least the so-called Liberals like Molly Ivins, Michael Moore and Al
Franken don't pontificate.

Well, those people lack something very important.......brains.

Limbaugh....well....ok, I'll give you that one. I used to really respect
him
up until this little drug incident of his...I bet Donovan McNabb was
behind
outing Rush's drug problem. But, O'Reilly has a good head on his
shoulders,
and I think more people should listen to him. If you don't like him then
get
your own tv show, and spout off your own opinions.


O'Reilly has a good head on his shoulders???? Hahahaha.

HOST UNHINGED AFTER SALES FIGURES REVEALED; CALLS DRUDGE 'THREAT TO
DEMOCRACY'

TalkerAuthor Bill O'Reilly lashed out against this space during his
popular
FOXNEWS O'REILLY FACTOR Wednesday night -- just hours after closely
guarded
book sales figures were splashed over the internet.

Responding to an exclusive yearender DRUDGE dispatch, which presented
NIELSEN's Top 20 BOOKSCAN list of 2003 sales, O'Reilly called the DRUDGE
REPORT a "threat to democracy."

"I mean you can't believe a word Matt Drudge says," O'Reilly told the
cameras. "Now you've got the Matt Drudges of the world and these other
people, Michael Moore and all of these crazies, all right, no
responsibility... that is a threat to democracy, I think." O'Reilly
warned:
"They'll just spin it and twist it and take it out of proportion every
which
way."

"There is no other cure than to kill Matt Drudge," O'Reilly charged on the
IMUS in the MORNING radio show.

"I just want to tell everybody that Matt Drudge is smoking crack - right
now, in South Miami Beach on Washington Avenue... And the authorities
should
know it."

FOXNEWS's top-rated host Bill O'Reilly recently claimed that he is
"running
against Hillary for most copies of nonfiction books sold this year!"

But numbers obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT show a dramatically different
sales scene for 2003.

NIELSEN, the same company that ranks O'Reilly #1 on Cable TV, currently
places O'Reilly at #6 for the year on the nonfiction charts -- trailing
rival Al Franken by nearly 30%!

"We've outsold that guy [Franken] all over the place," O'Reilly claimed
Monday on NBC's TODAY show. "We're running against Hillary for most copies
of non-fiction books sold this year!"

Hahaha.

Dude,
How can you call a guy who calls Matt Drudge a "threat to democracy"
someone
with a good head?

Schizoid Man said:

I apologize for calling you a moron, Dave. My vernacular was a little too
caustic.

Not inaccurate, though. "Dave" thinks Krooger is admirable.

Schizoid Man wrote in message
...
I apologize for calling you a moron, Dave. My vernacular was a little too
caustic.



Thanks.


I like O'Reilly. Bottom line. You may think he's an idiot, and that's fine.
We all of our opinions. You're not the only one who doesn't like him.




We all bicker, and yell at each other on here, but what does that
accomplish? I'm not going to change your opinions, and you're not going to
change mine.

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

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



Yes, communists were butchers. And yes, I lament all those who weere
sent to
the Gulag, shot and persecuted for voicing their ideas. Though the
latter is
kind of like what all the right-wingers did to the anti-war crowd this
time
round, right?

Care you give a single example of right-wing persecution of any
anti-war "voice?" Let alone "shooting" anyone?

And please spare us the plight of the Dixie Chicks -- they expressed
an opinion and opinions were expressed back.

You do realize, incidentally that most of the anti-war activities were
organized and fundeD by ANSWER -- a well-known communist advocacy
group who supports the regime in North Korea?

Tell me you do know this?

If you did perhaps you'd stop bleating on about the notion that
current-day liberalism has nothing in common with communism or
socialism...

Of course it does.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What he said.

"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.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
I apologize for calling you a moron, Dave. My vernacular was a little too
caustic.

It's just that I find Bill O'Reilly the king of spin, as the article
below
exemplifies, and I am usually aghast that educated people actually buy
into
his (liberal or conservative) nonsense.

FWIW, Michael Savage is claiming Drudge's numbers for his book
are incorrect.

ScottW