Changes

::Yes, I see.  It's rather a shame there is no discussion topic along the lines of "Who was the more liberal:  Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun" as I imagine you could profitably contribute. I'm surprised that I've not seen you on the Flat Earth Society article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, I see.  It's rather a shame there is no discussion topic along the lines of "Who was the more liberal:  Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun" as I imagine you could profitably contribute. I'm surprised that I've not seen you on the Flat Earth Society article.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Easy answer, Cons.  Atilla was significantly more liberal (or anti-conservative, as the case may be) because he ran his organization on a communist model (significant redistribution of income, etc.) and also actively worked to destroy the Roman empire through pillaging and sexual immorality.  Khan was a proud general and father of millions (literally) who ushered in a new age of prosperity for his citizens/subjects.[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Easy answer, Cons.  Atilla was significantly more liberal (or anti-conservative, as the case may be) because he ran his organization on a communist model (significant redistribution of income, etc.) and also actively worked to destroy the Roman empire through pillaging and sexual immorality.  Khan was a proud general and father of millions (literally) who ushered in a new age of prosperity for his citizens/subjects.[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)