@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
Dave, I agree that conservatives are consistent.
But they are consistently wrong, vote consistently with the likes of Bush, et al.;
care more for the rich than anyone else, etc.
Your interpretation is a little out-of-kilter with what I said,
and mixed with some
ad hominem invective.
I use the word conservative as meaning non-deviant,
relevant to a pre-existing agreement. Politically,
that refers to the US Constitution. Liberalism refers to
deviation
from something; for instance if someone claims to have a flush
with 4 spades n a club, he is taking a liberal vu of the rules of poker.
If his life is threatened by his intended victims,
he screeches the liberal motto: "that 's close enuf."
If he claims the same flush with 3 spades a club and a heart,
then he is being
MORE liberal.
If he claims that flush with no cards at all,
then he is being
radical.
I have always denied that the Bushes were conservatives.
I voted for them in an effort at damage control, to minimize the evil,
because the alternatives woud have been horribly worse.
I 'd have preferred a candidate with Barry Goldwater 's philosophy.
As to caring for the rich, please note that the Kennedys
were rich and I certainly held them
in abhorence.
I am aversive to Mayor Bloomberg 's liberal ideology.
Is he rich ?
I joined in the creation of NY 's Conservative Party
in an effort to reject Nelson Rockefeller 's liberal ideology.
Was he rich ?
I care that the rich
not get mugged by the poor,
who use government as a weapon, instead of a knife or gun.
I support
laissez faire free enterprize.
David
