Perhaps so, but soundly based on easily observable fact.

Maxprop wrote:
As is mine. Works both ways, Doug.

Oh? How come you don't seem to be able to supply any references to your
facts? My posts are well documented. You have yet to back up anything
you've claimed.


... When you **** into the wind you quite
often get wet.

Practicing your potty-mouth so you can be like Vice President Cheney?

... Several of my closest friends are staunch liberals.

I bet.


It's not a
derogatory term. But my discussions of issues political are clearly more
fair and balanced than your own,

That's why you haven't been able to quote a single post of mine which
backs up your claim that I am a liberal. Nor have you been able to state
any principles of either liberalism or conservatism.



not to mention the fact that I don't find
it necessary to engage in derogatory name-calling.

Have I called you any derogatory names, other than fascist caveman
(which is demonstrably what your political leanings are)?

.. I defend my
positions--you become shrill and insulting.

When?



But that's okay, really. I've
come to expect it of you. Have for years, actually.

When?

... I suppose I'd be
disappointed if you actually became logical, cogent, and dispassionate in
your arguments.

Well, I gave you the facts. Now it's your turn.

As I said, put up or shut up. So far you have not supported or
documented a single one of your claims.



... I disagree with your knee-jerk assessment.

Of course you do, as well as feeling it necessary to call my statements
"knee-jerk" when in fact they are (sorry to repeat myself again) based
on some rather easily observable fact.


I've seen nothing whatever that might indicate you are anything other than a
parrotting liberal.

You haven't seen anything to show that I'm a liberal, other than your
wanting to be like Rush Limbaugh.

. ... You love to cite references to conservative rhetoric,
but those references never support your point of view or your arguments.

Yes, they do. Buckley doesn't contradict himself. He is in favor of
fiscal conservatism and he has scorn for hypocrits. If you'd read any
Heinlein you'd know his opinion of torturers & drug addicts.


More than likely they contradict what you've been spouting.

When?

The easily
observable facts support that you are a liberal.

Well, in that case, why haven't you stated some of these easily
observable facts?



I'm unaware of any speech or document in which he referred to welfare
recipients strictly as black to the exclusion of other minorities and
non-minorities. This sounds like a classic liberal distortion or outright
lie. But I'm open to any evidence you care to provide.

You said yourself that Reagan claimed welfare was a trap for inner city
blacks. Which is it? Or is blatant self-contradiction such a standard
for you that you don't even see it any more?



... It was a fiscal issue.

If that is true, then why didn't Reagan undertake any significant reform
of the system?


I explained that, but obviously you've chosen to ignore it.

No, you made some unsupported (because they're unsupportable) claims.

Show the facts. What legislation did Reagan introduce to reform the
welfare system that was shot down by Congress?


Welfare cuts were in several of his annual budgets.

Really? Can you cite any data at all on this?

... He attempted to trim
the fat from that bloated, overly bureaucratic program.

Is that why his budgets always included perpetually rising deficits?

... But during his 8
years in office he was faced with a predominantly democrat congress. Very
difficult to enact welfare reform of any sort with that.

In other words, it's always somebody elses fault?


... His budgets were
rejected out of hand by the democrats who pander to the have-nots for voter
support.

If that were true, then how come Reagan's military spending always got
through?

Really? Why did you ignore my comment that the main beneficiary of the
welfare system is the administrators & employees of the welfare
department(s)?


I don't recall such a comment.

Of course not. Odd how your memory has these conveninet little lapses.


... Supply-side or Reaganomics or voodoo economics is just as
much a matter of misapplied ideology as is Marxism.


Perhaps, but William F. Buckley didn't discard the idea as nonsense. He
does favor alternative systems, however, stating that there were too many
uncontrolled variables in supply-side economics to be effective.

In other words, he didn't support it. Does this mean that Buckley
"contradicts" my stated views? Wait a minute, it seems to support what I
said... oops, you've been caught contraicting yourself again.



... conservatives believe in limiting gov't intervention in the
marketplace.

LOL. Conservatives employ corporate welfare toward the same goal as
democrats utilize public welfa getting votes.

Yes it is funny isn't it... you seem unable to grasp an abstract idea
and apply it as principle. I stated a principle of conservative
ideology, you can't see beyond line-item partisanship.



... Heinlein is in favor of drug addiction (Limbaugh)?


I offer this comment (above) as clear cut evidence that Doug is a liberal.
Only a liberal would conclude that Limbaugh favored drug addiction.

Well, he is a drug addict. The fact that he rails & whines about how
awful drug addicts are, and how they all should be locked up, makes him
a hypocrit & buffoon as well.

... Thanks,
Doug. You made my point better than I've been able to so far.

You're welcome. And your point is....

DSK