Maxprop wrote:
Your point of view.

Perhaps so, but soundly based on easily observable fact.

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

That's because your point of view is ignorant and incomplete. You have
been schooled to accuse people who disagree with you as liberals, as
though that were an insult rather than a rather plain descriptor.


... 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.

.... He was
appealing to that part of his constituency that had grown tired of funding
the lives of those able to fund themselves.

In that case, why was it that he portrayed welfare recipients as black?

... It was a fiscal issue.

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


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

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


He tried.

Oh, really? Any references?

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 thought of as nonsense by people with any education in economic
prinicples. Supply-side or Reaganomics or voodoo economics is just as
much a matter of misapplied ideology as is Marxism.


And corporate welfare is NOT a conservative belief?

No, conservatives believe in limiting gov't intervention in the marketplace.



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.

Really? Heinlein is in favor of drug addiction (Limbaugh)? Is Buckley in
favor of starting wars of aggression and carelessly slaughtering anybody
& everybody in the other country (Hannity)? In all of Heinlein's books,
did he ever express approval of a regime that tortured it's critics
(Savage)?




I'm puzzled by your hatred of Limbaugh and his ilk. By and large they
express commonly-held conservative views

No, by and large they are raging hypocrits and liars.


... are generally non-racist,

That's why Limbaugh stated just a few days ago that blacks are less
intelligent, and should stick to sports & music.


.... and do
their best to dispel liberal myths.

Which is why they simply make up stuff.

... I'm guessing you've never really
listened to any of them.

Well, this is another one of your wrong assumptions. Several of my
co-workers are Rush Limbaugh fans and play his show much of the day. I
hear several hours of his whining & lying every week.



.... 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.

Since you're wrong about everything else so far, it won't surprise
anybody to learn that this is also incorrect. But one of the first rules
of being a caveman fascist whacko is the you must arrogantly insist that
everybody else is wrong, no matter how obvious the facts against you.

DSK