Bush remains an enigma. I never considered him a doctrinaire conservative (compared to Reagan or Jesse Helms). And, I believe he hurt our party with faith based initiatives—ceding ground to the left that the national government has a legitimate role (which is Constitutionally specious) in wealth redistribution, and his talk of compassionate conservatism. Conservatism is compassionate by definition and his interpretation was insulting and patronizing of a philosophy that seeks to free men to make their own choice and live by their own wits—free from government coercion. Bush was no conservative; he was a mainstream traditional pragmatist—a pragmatist with a spine and the morality to respect Life. I appreciate his leadership and keeping us safe, but any thought of him being mentioned in the same sentence as conservatism evaporated with TARP I—which was unconstitutional and unprecedented in our history and established the precedent for the thug messiah…

Plus, he has avoided Kos-level blabbering.

Kudos to him.

After all, we have to understand that he hails from a country that has abandoned a history that has made the western world what it is today…..legal rights, constitutional democracy, free speech, free markets, innovation, courage.

His country has become a land of frightened women, unable or unwilling to bring more children into the world, flailing their little fists at barbarians who openly brag about annihilating them, but afraid to say a word.

As for coming into the war late, it’s true.

Liberals in America were just as nuts then as they are now, and blocked our entry. There were plenty of ankle-grabbers around then, just as there are now.

Churchill is the one who got it right. Roosevelt is more questionable. Could he have done more earlier? His position was that he did what he could, consdering the substantial Lindbergh contingent in the US at the time.

9-11, a one day event, took over 3,000 American lives. Muslim riots over cartoons typically take several lives to several hundred lives per incident. Secular folks (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) typically don’t start to get interesting until they hit 1,000,000 deaths.

I now see your point, I’m ashamed to call myself a “Christian” (NOT!).

On the American indian thing, you got me. We screwed up by following a hold over “British” policy of trade combined with forced relocations and genocide. You SOBs taught us well.

It was a British general who tried to infect indigineous populations with small pox via providing blankets from small pox victims to indian tribes in winter. It didn’t work very well for the general, but US scholars have since tried to rewrite history presenting this an American policy and initiative to malign the early American government and military – don’t get me started on the traitorous academics in the US.

While the US was late to the war with military formations, there was some actual thought and colusion with Britain behind the issue. The US manufacturing capacity was the primary capability “we” brought to the table throughout the war, and that was a huge strategic capability for Britian (Hitler couldn’t attack it effectively). The calculation for max production capacity vs. max military contribition allowed the US could provide ~100 Divisions for the war without detriment to the production capacity of war materiel (if memory serves, we feilded ~98 divisions of which ~88 were deployed to theaters of war, but my numbers may be off slightly). Britain on the other hand had trained and ready forces, but a significantly more limited production capacity, so initially they supplied the Army, we supplied the materiel while we ramped up full war time mobilization.

You need both manufacturing and military formations to prosecute a war, and full mobilization of the US took ~ 3-4 years, hence the “British” veiw that we were late to the war.

Poland, Austria and France would be justified (by your logic) to accuse Britain of being “late” to the war by the way.

Stop assuming CNN and other main stream network news sources present an accurate vision of America (they don’t) and that the BBC is providing you accurate information about wold events (it isn’t).

As an aside, Teddy Kennedy would be somewhat on the right to middle right compared to most European political leaders. That doesn’t make Teddy a conservative, it just means Europeans (in general) are so far to left that they don’t have a balanced perspective on world politics – they have a European perspective with its own limitations and problems. Their political veiws (most Europeans) typically run the gammit from communism to socialism – a very narrow range indeed, and missing a wide range of other, (and in my opinion) significantly better, more effecient, and more just options for government operations.

But to cut to the chase, let’s talk about the time we know best–Today: Where are people doing things in the name of Christianity like this today? (As an aside, do you really know what the found people were doing back then? Do you know they, just like in Britain, were the driving force to eradicate many abuses? Throughout the centuries, some of them were being persecuted by the lost–in the name of their church or Christianity!)

Here in America, there is a renegade pastor who spends his time demonstrating at American soldier’s funerals(!), picketing and saying the soldier’s death is due to America’s allowing homosexuality to come out of the closet. All Christians I know of condemn his behavior, both publically and privately.
My point is, it is very hard to find things done in the name of Christianity similar to this; and when it happens, it is justifiably condemned. And today is what you and I really know, isn’t it?

Where are these Moslems who should be condemning terroristic acts?

No, on the other hand, a very sizeable percentage endorse such behavior. Some pollsters after 9/11 found that in some predominately Moslem countries, over 50% agreed with the attacks. And the ones who were under 50%, and I think they were the minority, were still very large percentages.

As a side note, how can we avoid another world war when you have that many people who are rabid?

So you see, the point is, you are comparing apples to oranges. I could go on and on, but please do your homework and think.

Photo’s of them burning policeman’s hat.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....ondon.html