but here goes.  In response to a liberal named "Cityinterest", who posted to one of my other blogs and apparently considers himself a moderate, I have the following definitive rebuttal.

"The conservative movement took this nation so far to the right over the last three (3) decades that people do not recognize was [sic] is moderate, what is liberal and what is far left.  The conservative movement seems to reject the skill of discernent [sic] and the concepts that we are a nation and society made up of many different views."

How on earth could the conservative movement take the nation to the right, where Cityinterest obviously thinks they don't or shouldn't want to be?  The fact is, America is a moderate right country, moderated only by the fact that many individuals, while recognizing the historical and logical correctness of conservative principles, nevertheless feel that the government owes them something, in the face of all logic.  They therefore frequently vote for individual legislators who will "bring home the bacon", a source of fiscal woe for this country.  Even so, the voters are the ones who have taken the country to the right.  It couldn't be otherwise.

As far as the "skill of discernment" goes, conservatives are the discerning ones.  While it is true, as Cityinterest says, that there are many "different views" in our society, I for one am able to discern that not all views are equally correct, which is where Cityinterest goes badly wrong.  In fact, conservative views represent a time-tested philosophy of national success. Liberal views are a product of leftists who believe that the world works or should work a certain way, regardless of the reality.  Why should conservatives want to compromise with people who are so wrong at the expense of national prosperity and security?

"In 2002 [sic], the conservatives finally got their wish and took full control of all three (3) branches of our federal government, as well as many state governments.  The results have been a predictable national and international disaster.  The leaders of the conservative movement and its many foot soldiers have no concept of what is really means to effectively govern.  Their policies and practices taught the world of nations one (1) overall lesson.  They should not count on the Americans anymore to lead the world, as they just mighht [sic]elect and re-elect  such ill-qualified people to again govern some day."

Actually, I believe Cityinterest means 2000, although I also believe he is talking about George W. Bush, who implemented some decidedly un-conservative policies such as No Child Left Behind.  Interestingly and tellingly, his greatest failures as President was in policies such as these that in fact abandoned conservative principles.  But it's far from true that his other "policies and practices taught the world of nations...[that] they should not count on the Americans anymore to lead the world."  Actually, it was liberal disasters such as Viet Nam, where we bailed on the South Vietnamese and left them to be conquered by communists, that taught the world that lesson.  I'm quite sure that the Iraqis knew they could count on George W. Bush to stay the course, which he did, to a so far successful conclusion.  On the other hand, Barack Obama is now cutting and running, which has told insurgents they only need to wait another year to come out of their holes.  When they do, Iraq may well go the same way South Vietnam or Iran did, but it won't be the fault of conservatives.  Oh, and by the way, I see no national or international disasters, only opportunities to excel that Barack Obama will fail to rise to.

"Now, other nations devote more to relations with other large powers, building them up while shrinking down U.S. power and prestige.  Now, other nations feel free to ignore U.S suggestions, policies and demands, as they see us weakened by the conservative grip of power."

Don't be a baby, Cityinterest.  This was always going to happen as other countries gain economic, political, and military power, and even when the U.S. was dominant, most countries felt "free to ignore U.S suggestions, policies and demands."  It's been going on for years, and it has nothing to do with conservatism.

"Self-serving, short-term business thinkers -- who have come to dominate the U.S. business community -- constantly got their way, which included getting governments to do what business thought was best.  Of course, this overlooked that these same business leaders were not looking past their own self-interests around the globe."

This statement contains the first grains of truth I've found in this post, but bear in mind that these corporations wield power with the Democrats as well as the Republicans and always have.  The best way to punish short-sighted corporations in the free market is to let them go bankrupt in the long run, but the Obama administration has elected to instead pump a couple of trillion taxpayer dollars into failed business in an attempt to prop them up, a strategy which will wreck the economy in the long run if Obama continues to pursue it.  John McCain isn't my favorite conservative, but it's hard to picture him doing that.

"Conservative agendas have used social fear to scare people to give them power and then self-interest when power was gotten.  It seems that so many of the conservatives see no real consequence if millions are without work,  if the sick are denied real medical care and if the poor just stay that way.  So long as they are not taxed and an elite few can do just as they please, that is al that seems to matter."

This is such a ridiculous statement, it's hard to know where to begin.  I'll address it fully in future posts.  Suffice it to say for now that no one want people unemployed or sick, and it's just stupid to suggest otherwise.  On the other hand, to the extent that people are failing due to poor decision making, it's not smart to bail them out, because that would be subsidizing bad decisions, and all intelligent people know what happens when you subsidize something - you get more of it.  If Cityinterest is looking for rich people who don't pay taxes, he need look no farther that John Kerry or Ted Kennedy, both of whom pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the average taxpayer.  On the other hand, the top 50% of taxpayers pay 97% of all income tax, and the top 5% pay about 2/3, so that last statement is just another ridiculous piece of nonsense in a nonsensical post.

"A functioning government should not even be an issue, but the right seems afraid to have a government that just might function efficiently.  They reject regulation despite's histrory [sic] showing regulation to some degree is needed when a few can determine the outcome of the well-being of the many.   They have become as dogmaic [sic] as a marxist, believing their montras [sic] without bothering to notice that their ideas do not work in practical application."

The most ridiculous statement yet.  Everyone wants government to function, but some think that such functioning should be limited to what the Constitution, which is supposed to be the overarching blueprint for what the American government does, says it should be.  The capitalist free market system has made this country the most prosperous in the history of the world, despite the occasional downturn.  If Cityinterest is looking for policies that "do not work in practical application", he/she need look no farther than either the 1930s, when liberal/socialist big tax-and-spending sent the unemployment rate to 25%, or the 1970s, when similar policies sent the inflation rate to 13% while unemployment topped 10%.  We even coined a term for the results of these failed liberal policies: stagflation.  And we're about to see them again, thanks to Cityinterest's savior, Barack Obama.

"The argumenst and paranioa [sic] of the conservative agenda has come to remind me of the Soviet Communist Party, when it use to come out with ludicrous statements and claims to justify their own ineptness and try to hide their real motives and objectoves [sic].  It became silly and that movement collapsed.   The same is happening with U.S. conservative movement."

I think I've demonstrated clearly who's making the ludicrous statements.  As for collapsing, just wait for 2012, when Obama's failures help us retake congress and elect this generation's Ronald Reagan.

"Those who tout that we should again let this brand of phobia rule our nation seems to be asking us all to pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.  It was the conservatives that set in motion policy after policy that is now costing taxpayers around the world their jobs and fiscal secuirty.  Their policies have damages the brand name quality of the very term " the U.S.A."   It is because they cannot discern that there are degrees of diffferences [sic], but instead insist anyone who disagreees [sic] with them must be totally wrong, if not evil or weak or socialist or some other ugly label."

You liberals are totally wrong.  See my above paragraphs for the proof.

"The Obama administration will be imperfect beacuse [sic] it is run by human beings.  But at least we are being governed by folks who will take into account the ideas, needs and points of view of others.  At least they will let rational judgment and not just the thirst for total control determine their course.  That is what we have been missing in government for a long time as conservatives besmirched the very idea of America with what has become a poisioned [sic] brand in the political landscape."

The Obama administration is far more than imperfect; it will be the second coming of Jimmy Carter's administration.  They've already made a great start.  And as I've said above, I won't compromise with people who are wrong and who, whether it be through ignorance or malice, attempt to implement policies that will undermine this great country of ours.  Have a nice day, "Cityinterest."