NoMyths, I was not attacking your viewpoint. I was speaking in generalities about those taking stalwart conservative or liberal positions and arguing from one side or the other. I did not reference in my last post anything about your personal positions and did not deserve to get dumped on in the same manner that you accuse me of. We were talking about "reality's liberal bias", "stalwart holdouts of conservative positions" and "batshit crazy" positions from A or B.
But to your specific charges, for those that do not fall into stalwart positions in red or blue, I do not see very much independent or moderate arguments, me included. It's just the nature of the way discussions go here. In order to make ones point clear, one typically state an opposition position to keep the discussion going. A lot of it comes from downright dislike of certain aspects of the opposition - regardless if the position one is arguing from is any better or defendable. I do that because I see very little solutions at that level. The reality is that our sphere of incluence does not include anything at that level, so one just give to Caesar what is his and go on with our lives in making a tangible difference in what we can realistically accomplish.
I realize that "reserving fire for liberal positions, never conservative" is a hyperbolic perception but I understand where that can come from. First, as you said, there are very few stalwarts of the neo-con positions here and I don't argue with Jon (not worth it) and so, the opportunities arise less. Second, the opposite of libertarianism (as I understand it) is socialism. Many of the "changes", "hope" and "fixes" people are advocating are more socialistic in nature and I have to speak up against those, just like I have against nation-building.
As far as consistency, I do argue from several angles that may be in conflict. The reason is that I mostly likely to argue as a historian, providing historical perspective (esp. for those hyperbolic statements like "unprecendented" or "worse of all time"). Those arguements have little to do with personal beliefs, like bringing up Lincoln and FDR. It's just a way of providing some perspective. Also, I view politics as a game, esp. the election campaigns, from a spectator point of view. Heckling seems to be the fun part of it.
I realize that you and I are alike in more ways than not (just like I have argued in the past there really is not that much different between any of the political parties, esp. making fun of those using the "far-" labels). But I have noticed one distinct difference in which I have reacted to - I don't take politics personally, nor what goes on or doesn't go on at the higher levels. It goes back to my nature of not having a favorite team I get emotional about. Nothing in politics upsets or excites me. I read too much history to get bothered much by current events. That's why I argue that in the end, while it becomes great topics to argue and discuss, we go on with our lives as best we can and find opportunities to help those we can affect.