Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Pre-emptive War, it seems more or less common sense to protect one's people against attack not after the attack has already been committed, but rather before it is committed. Does it not??? Government's job is to protect the people, yet if they wait until someone attacks the people, they have in fact not fulfilled their mandate, now have they? In terms of liberal and conservative, it comes out pretty much equal does it not. Conservatives have always held that government should be limited doing what only it can do, i.e. defending the nation. Liberals believe in big government allowing the government to provide solutions for all the ills of the nation. So in truth this is a liberal and a conservative ideal, by definition.

Running up huge debts, is this not Keynesian economics at it best??? Has this not always been the case? Spend, Spend and Spend. When Republicans controlled the Congress they favored tax cuts, but increased spending anyway. When Democrats control the Congress they increase spending and taxes together. History has shown that no matter what a President of the people do, Congress will continue to spend. If you cut off their funding they incur debts, because no one wants to offend a group of supporters. This is a purely liberal idea, of allowing government to grow larger to provide more services for the people. Yet liberals hate Bush, go figure.

Protecting Terrorists, how??? By the assinine rules imposed by the TVA in who they scrutinize? THis is to appease the PC crowd. A true liberal idea of not offending and being open-minded if I ever saw one.

Committing treason. Clearly a liberal tendency. Support for Hiss over Chambers, supporting Castro over the US, being apologist for Saddam Hussein.

dmk