Liberals are selfish to the freaking core and yet they cry about others selfishness. Every thought in their head revolves around them and their needs and desires.

They race to jobs in education or government – and if they must work for a corporation they seek out one with a union – so it’s hard to be fired for being a screw up. They cry like bitches in heat when anyone dares to suggest they be judged or paid on their performance. How dare someone threatens the gravy train they are entitled to! They spit on capitalism and corporations at every opportunity, yet every dollar of their salary had to be looted from someone smart enough to actually create wealth and provide some *product* people need or want. Because, most often, no one wants what they have to offer they need bureaucrats/politicians who are also grade A fuck-ups that also want to feed on that *tax* gravy train.

“All in favor of looting these rich bastards and taking our fair share of their money raise your hands and vote for me! We’re worth as much as them! We’re all equal! Really! We are! We deserve their money!”

I liked it better when you could prove, with scoops of sand and geometric logic, that there were WMDs in Iraq, that the polls showed Obama would lose by a landslide, that there was no voter suppression, and that the icecap wasn’t really melting. At least, those things could be verified objectively, and now we don’t talk about them any more.

Tom, you’re the one who’s desperately trying to prove something. Arguing with you about politics is like trying to convince a 5 year old there is no Santa Claus. Even if I should win, what’s in it for me?

Your positions are all over the map, and self-contradictory. You even provide several more examples.

You’re a “fiscal conservative?” The one who recently declared that a spreadsheet said we could print and borrow money forever?

You don’t believe in nationalizing industries? My wife, who works in the health industry, will be glad to hear that.

That’s just one paragraph.

Poetry…

“Compromise” is a word that really sounds nice. The only way I’ve seen it used in Washington is to discuss Republicans moving toward Democratic positions. In the same vein, “reasonable” and “moderate” Republicans are those that support Democratic ideas. It’s amazing how much less shit Marco Rubio’s been getting from the Left lately.

“New Deal Democrat” sounds a lot nicer than “socialist,” too. If you actually look at both viewpoints in detail, you might be able to shove a playing card between them edgewise if you put your back into it.

As far as evolving political movements go, if people who want smaller government and lower taxes are now considered “fascists,” I don’t think it’s my side that’s shifted.

You can admire Reagan now because he’s safely dead. I watched Democrats try to tear his throat out for eight solid years. The people alive now who believe what Reagan believed are still getting this treatment. Nobody’s kidding anyone.

And as for “drooling cretins,” you’ve been happy with Biden a heartbeat away from the presidency for five years. But then as I recall, your theory is that he just pretends to be an idiot to throw people off. Gotta admit, he’s good at it.

But something very ugly has been happening to the GOP since the Goldwater days, and it ramped up significantly after Reagan. I respect the former, and have started to develop a grudging admiration for the latter. Bush I was not my man, but he knew what he was doing, In the 21st century, Bush II was pathetic joke.

Just look at the clowns the GOP ran for President last year. Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum…And waiting in the wings, Huckabee, Palin, and Trump. What could you people have possibly been thinking? Only Pawlenty, Huntsman and Romney even qualified as human beings. And the only complaint I heard from the Republican side was that ‘X isn’t conservative enough’. No one had the nerve to speak out and yell “my party is being taken over by jackasses”. It’s not like there aren’t reasonable intelligent Republicans, like Jindal and Christy and Jeb Bush and a host of others. But they were either considered “too moderate” by the base, or they themselves simply did not want to get tainted by even being seen climbing in the hard Right’s Klown Kar.

These people are laughable. This is the party of Eisenhower, for Chrissakes. At the very least, Nixon was competent and Reagan could inspire his people.

I am a fiscal conservative. I may not agree with Republicans on strategies or priorities, or percentages, but just because I don’t doesn’t mean we should run the country bankrupt. Likewise, I believe in a strong national defense, but it doesn’t mean we should bomb everybody who pisses us off. I believe business should be regulated and taxed, not nationalized. I suspect our differences, Rob, are a question of degree, not of kind.

Now TB, I don’t know. He BELIEVES!

Your side, on the other hand, dismisses everything you find objectionable as socialist, whether it actually is or not. You have already made up your mind by forcing every problem or solution to pass your own prearranged litmus test, and somehow it always fails it.

I may disagree with conservatives on methods, policies, and on how far they should be carried out. Hell, I even publicly praised Bush I for his Desert Storm policy, much to Bowser’s consternation. But you guys attack anything liberal on principle, right out of the chute. We can’t say or do anything to your liking, and if we do, you change your mind and attack us. It’s happening in the congress and it happens here. You reject ideas based solely on who proposes them, reject analyses unless you come up with them first, and reject sources of data because you find them politically incorrect or commercially inconvenient, or you arbitrarily cast them that way so you can reject them.

I’ve stressed over and over again that public administration can be guided by a theoretical political philosophy, but in practice, its what works that matters and good ideas can come from either side of the aisle. The middle way is what works, compromise and negotiation, not adherence to some phony principle that only seems obvious to one side.

This is what infuriates you about my arguments, I don’t fall into the trap of conveniently choosing some doctrinaire liberal position (that you can easily point out as being foolish and short sighted or tainted by leftist fantasy and avarice), and then insist on pushing it to its ultimate and absurd conclusion. It gives you fits when I point out that is exactly what you are doing all the time. And it drives you into a stuttering rage when I point out that some libersl policies even make sense from a conservative point of view, or were derived from one. I suppose it brings to question your preconceived idea of liberals as being kumbayah-singing, unrealistic, subjective, flower child cowards, weaklings. Remember the battles we had about the Bush-Cheney Iraq invasion? I didn’t argue they violated my principles, I demonstrated they even violated yours.

The deliberate contrast between my first paragrah to Bowser and the rest of my post is not a contradiction. It’s the ability to see both sides of an issue. I have yet to see you give any liberal policy or leader an even break, ever, for any reason.

I’ll rephrase my keystone comment again, so there is no confusion as to where I stand. Although I consider so-called liberal positions as being generally more realistic, effective and humane than conservative ones, I am not in complete agreement with the former or total opposition to the latter. I still consider myself a New Deal Democrat, not a Socialist. The Republican/Conservative view has not remained static, it has moved further right since the days of Goldwater or even Reagan (who I can see now wasn’t all that bad compared to some of the drooling cretins your side has lately been considering for high office)

Thanks for the kind words about my writing. I do appreciate them. And I agree, I am probably more of a poet than I am a scientist. But I am not ignorant or uneducated in the sciences, either. And there’s no reason a well-balanced human being can’t be both. In fact, I kind of think its essential.