Maxprop wrote:

This is pointless, because you'll accuse me of "fascist whackoism" no matter
what I say.

That's not true at all. If you didn't babble like a fascist whacko, I
wouldn't accuse of it.

But I'm a glutton for liberal punishment, so here goes.

1) You vilified Reagan for his stance against welfare.

No, I did not. I said that Reagan made an appeal to racism with his
stance against welfare recipients. A rather different thing. Is it your
belief that conservatives must also be racists?

... I would like you to
show me where in the US Constitution it provides for taking money from some
and giving it to others.

I would like you to show me what Reagan did to reform the situation.

2) You branded so-called "Reaganomics" as absurd.

As do most economists. Even the more intelligent of Reagan's & Bush Sr's
cabinets thought it was a lot of malarkey.


... It's called supply-side economics, and it has been around for
centuries. I found an obscure reference to it in a yellowed book on early
economics of the Continent (that would be Europe for those of you who
graduated from public schools). The book was copywritten in the early
1900s, but dealt with the period beginning with the signing of the Magna
Charta. Supply-side economics is generally a conservative mantra.

No, it is generally the mantra of those who believe in corporate welfare.


3) You've made reference to other topics--too many to enumerate here--that
seem to imply a belief in larger, more expansive government.

Really? Please quote them.

... Despite your belief to the
contrary, Rush Limbaugh, Ollie North, and Sean Hannity have a far better
grasp of conservatism than you.

The fact that you think so shows that you really can't think very well.
But keep trying. I'd suggest reading instead of listening to sleazy
demagogues. Try sampling the writings of William F. Buckley and Robert
Heinlein.

DSK