"DSK" wrote in message

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.

Your point of view. I think you babble like a liberal whacko. My point of
view.


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?

Of course not. And I disagree with your knee-jerk assessment. He was
appealing to that part of his constituency that had grown tired of funding
the lives of those able to fund themselves. It was a fiscal issue. He also
believed that welfare was a trap for many who might otherwise become
productive. That was a humanitarian concern. He also stated unequivocally
that there were those who had no other options beyond welfare, and believed
the program to be justified for them. Another humanitarian point. How that
appeals to racists is beyond me. But this does demonstrate that you've
chosen to look for the worst in the man, rather than any possible good.

I've also noted that by omission you've ignored my question about the racial
nature of welfare. Predictable.

... 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.

He tried. But with a largely democrat congress--whose very political
careers depend upon the perpetuation of social programs such as welfare--any
attempt at welfare reform was doomed from the get-go. He faced major
battles with every single budget he proposed, and had to compromise
ultimately.


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.

I don't recall which Reagan cabinet member coined the term "voodoo
economics, but Bush 41 also criticized it in principle. Depite that, it's
generally thought of as a conservative appeal, certainly not that of
liberals.

... 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.

And corporate welfare is NOT a conservative belief? One I happen to take
issue with, but conservative nonetheless. Liberals favor welfare for the
poor in order to garner votes. Conservatives favor welfare for the rich in
order to garner votes. I oppose welfare of any kind, except for those with
no other options. I suppose that makes me heartless and racist in your
liberal mindset.

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.

Don't ask me to quote your posts of weeks ago. I have no stomach for the
pedantry that generally pervades these NGs.


... 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.

Or perhaps it shows that I hear them voice my own opinions on their
programs. Of course you've never considered that. You only accuse me of
parrotting the talk show hosts. That shows your very myopic view of others.
Flash for ya, Doug: two individuals may arrive at the same conclusions
independently.

But keep trying. I'd suggest reading instead of listening to sleazy
demagogues. Try sampling the writings of William F. Buckley and Robert
Heinlein.

I'm a fan of both, and have four of Buckley's books, albeit two are novels.
And I find it particularly interesting that both Heinlein's and Buckley's
views coincide about 80% of the time with those "sleazy demagogues" you so
despise.

I'm puzzled by your hatred of Limbaugh and his ilk. By and large they
express commonly-held conservative views, are generally non-racist, and do
their best to dispel liberal myths. I'm guessing you've never really
listened to any of them. Your venom toward them is same typical liberal
brand of dogma expressed by those who've never heard their programs, but
adopt the knee-jerk mindset of their detractors.

Max