"DSK" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:
Your point of view.

Perhaps so, but soundly based on easily observable fact.

As is mine. Works both ways, Doug. When you **** into the wind you quite
often get wet.


... 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.

No. Others have disagreed with me, and I've not "accused" them of being
liberals. Several of my closest friends are staunch liberals. It's not a
derogatory term. But my discussions of issues political are clearly more
fair and balanced than your own, not to mention the fact that I don't find
it necessary to engage in derogatory name-calling. I defend my
positions--you become shrill and insulting. But that's okay, really. I've
come to expect it of you. Have for years, actually. I suppose I'd be
disappointed if you actually became logical, cogent, and dispassionate in
your arguments.

... 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 love to cite references to conservative rhetoric,
but those references never support your point of view or your arguments.
More than likely they contradict what you've been spouting. The easily
observable facts support that you are a liberal.


.... 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?

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.


... 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. He did.
Welfare cuts were in several of his annual budgets. He attempted to trim
the fat from that bloated, overly bureaucratic program. 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. His budgets were
rejected out of hand by the democrats who pander to the have-nots for voter
support. You might note that Clinton signed the welfare reform bill as a
compromise to enable other legislation he was attempting to get through a
predominantly republican congress. Which is, by the way, the way our system
of government works, like it or not.

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 don't recall such a comment. But I completely agree.

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


He tried.

Oh, really? Any references?

Check out his *proposed* budgets during almost any year. IIRC he finally
abandoned any hope of doing so during his last two or three years in office
and omitted any reference to welfare reform.

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.

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. I recall a
TV interview he did at the time in which he mentioned that the
"trickle-down" effect would take too long to show any substantive
improvement during Reagan's term in office (he was referring to his first
four years). I don't recall him referring to supply-side as "nonsense."


And corporate welfare is NOT a conservative belief?

No, 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. Corporate welfare is just
another means of paying back political debts. To be fair, democrats have
engaged in it as well, but less so. Check out the record of LBJ.

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)?

I offer this comment (above) as clear cut evidence that Doug is a liberal.
Only a liberal would conclude that Limbaugh favored drug addiction. Thanks,
Doug. You made my point better than I've been able to so far.

Is Buckley in
favor of starting wars of aggression and carelessly slaughtering anybody
& everybody in the other country (Hannity)?

More regurgitated liberal dogma. Thanks. You really are making this all
too easy. Actually Buckley spoke in favor of ousting Saddam, in '91 and
more recently on Fox News. He is supportive of the current administration's
intent in Iraq, if disappointed in the execution. I agree with him.

In all of Heinlein's books,
did he ever express approval of a regime that tortured it's critics
(Savage)?

Doubtful. Who is Savage? I've never heard any support from Hannity,
Limbaugh, Snow, or other conservative pundits for torture. Nor have I heard
of support from Bush for same. Another liberal concocted lie.


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.

My, but you are of a liberal mindset this evening, aren't you. You've never
listened to them, have you?

... 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.

More liberal bull****. You really should check your sources for this crap
before you defecate it here.

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

Which is why they simply make up stuff.

No, they don't. They mostly quote other political pundits, either in the
printed media or from TV. And the data they give is soundly backed up by
references. Limbaugh almost always tells who said what and where you can
read/see it for yourself. It's the liberals who make stuff up--like your
comment above.

... 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.

I'm going to call your bluff on this. I doubt if you've listened to
anything he's said beyond sound bites and periodic quips. No rational,
conservative individual could have listened to him and levelled the
accusations you've made.

.... 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.

That's amusing. You call me arrogant, while you claim that your typed word
(opinion, no matter how distorted by a liberal mentality) is obviously
factual. Thanks for the entertainment, Doug. I've enjoyed it, but this is
going nowhere. You won't convince me or anyone else that you aren't a
liberal. And I'm not about to change your mind about me. But I must say
you've been a disappointment. I've read your posts w/r/t sailing and other
topics, and have found you to be bright and well-spoken. Your left-wing
vitriol, however, is knee-jerk and not worthy of your intellect. And your
proclivity to engage in derisive name-calling should be beneath you. But
I'm not here to tell you how to live your life. Grovel in the gutter of
pseudo-intellectualism if you so desire.

Have the final volley, if you will.

Max