This is an amplification of a previous post, hoping to make the concept clear to Conservatives. I realize this will not yield agreement and the argument may not even be understood. At least I'll know I tried.

If over the course of a few years my neighbor tells me he will return my lawnmower tomorrow and it never comes, tells me he'll pay back money I've loaned him on payday, tells me he's going to take care of his sick mother for a couple of weeks and really heads off to Paris, says he quit his job for a better opportunity when I know he was fired, and explained the cop at his door who handed him a piece of paper was just looking for someone else I'd start to not believe the guy no matter what. I'd have to be nuts to believe him. And so would you. So when his car is towed off, never comes back and he explains it's in the shop, I'm gonna have my doubts.

How does this apply to our extremist Conservatives? Those folks ain't been right yet. A person would have to be nuts, completely stark, raving mad, to start believing them now. Trust is accuracy over time. One needs to be reasonable accurate in order to have credibility, their interpretations of events must match reality, and their predictions become outcomes. Doesn't happen with these people, and yet they come back over and over with the next round of ideology instead of reality and are incensed with folks don't believe them.

Some suggestions for them. Go drag out some Iraqi nukes, or WMDs, maybe explain how Enron wasn't manipulating energy prices and come back. Demonstrate al-Qaeda had a larger presence in Iraq than Saudi Arabia and how Saddam was funding them instead of the Saudi royal family. Explain how 15 of 19 hijackers on 9-11 were Saudi, none Iraqi, and money from the wife of the Saudi Ambassador to the US found it's way to al-Qaeda and yet Saddam was the problem. When you can do that in a manner which doesn't require a belief in the supernatural you'll have a start at it.

You know what the real capper was? Let me tell you. When there was a surplus, immediately after Bill Clinton left office, the wingers wanted a tax break for the wealthy. It was their money, give it back. This was during what Conservatives call "war time", when traditionally the country has tried go into as little debt as possible. When taxes are raised.

And then under Bush the economy tanked. Now the tax cut for the wealthy is needed to create jobs. Either way, under any factual condition the wealthy needed a tax cut. That's ideology over reality. That's a predetermined explanation of any event based upon what one wants to believe rather than an examination of the evidence.

Find some Iraqi WMDs, you know where they are. And a nuke or two, maybe a ship with cropdusters off the North Carolina coast. Show us how all was going according to plan in 2003, 2004, 2005, etc. as you claimed. Explain how MISSION ACCOMPLISHED didn't mean 'mission accomplished", the Taliban hae been driven out of Afghanistan, the economy is basically sound and make it convincing. Or stop being surprised when I suggest the next round of explanations you have which don't match reality are also, like the rest, bullshit.

That's why you'll have to come up with some accurate answers over the next 6 or 8 years in order to have any credibility of the good kind. Right now you can be trusted, to be wrong, all of the time. Don't act so surprised.

And, by the way, check the jobs reports. They look real grim. Get it?"

Arf