I am not left wing
Yes, you are.
and neither are most of the people you repeatedly label as such.
Yes, they are.
You only think that you are centrist. See China's perception of itself as the Middle Kingdom for more on this egocentric stance.
I was quite interested in conservative ideas in the 90s but have seen that most of them don't work, or create unappealing consequences.
Hmmm welfare reform? not a success? the fiscal success of reining in the deficit under Clinton Gingrich? The fact that Clinton, himself, argued that the era of Big Government is over? Compared with states like California where it isn't and which is now bankrupt?
I was and am appalled by the anti-science bias in American conservatism. So I am liberal by trial and error.
Interesting new delusion.
I have little interest in debate with Fcom's republicans because I watched them all sell out their principles during the bush years
Which principles do you think we set aside?
and then try to do a 180 once O got in power. There is no debate with partisans who care only for their party to be in power and not their values realized.
No. That is what you have done with your wonderful silence on the ongoing extrajudicial killings when you were incensed to spend hours and hours of your time attack Bush for waterboarding three individuals, admittedly repeatedly.
Have not conservatives explained here with some agreeing and others not why they can stomach the two Supreme Court justices appointed by Obama?
Can one attack Obama for engaging and continuing W. Bush's policies to a very large degree in many different sectors? Those who had a problem with Bush for his spending and Big Government programs are not the ones who are attacking Obama for big spending. They want all politicians and leaders to stop the big spending. And really given that Obama is to a large degree supporting and continuing Bush policies, why would the conservatives be inconsistent to continue to support those positions? Is it not the case that those who support positions regardless of the politician or party that advocates them is in fact the one who is acting with true consistency? While those who hated people with irrational passion and took up a cause to cudgel that politician and his party but put the cudgel away to shrink away like a crying little girl who had lost her dollie are the ones who are not really very consistent and thus would have their principles (cough cough) questioned?
There are plenty of conservatives who see what a reactionary obstructionary near fanatical party the Republicans have become. I can debate with such people.
As long as they agree with you. No difference there between the far left or the far right. You are two sides of the same coin.
But if you think global warming is a hoax,
I do to the extent that I think that its politicization is far more about making money and taking control or engaging in fruitless ultimately meaningless but very expensive onanistic actions, then yes.
universal health care is incompatable with conservatism,
I and others have written extensively about how the individual mandate is and was a Heritage Foundation and thus conservative idea and how I personally do not understand the ins and outs of health care policy and thus have questioned how others could be so sure in their denunciations of the other side's position BUT I do tend to remain suspicious of government involvement in any sector. It leads to bureaucratic atrophying and unresponsive process-driven conditions that lead to ever increasing sums of money being spent on ever decreasing or no returns... remind me again why I have a problem with turning over vast sectors of control on the environment to such groups?
lower taxes always leads to growth
not always but we do have a number of comparisons between highly taxed countries and states and lower taxes in others and how it affects growth. It is not always the key and only ingredient in the mix but it is often a very important one and one that you seem to be dismissing as irrelevant.
union's are scum,
Would you like to engage in a debate here where you defend the stance taken by public sector unions with regard to pensions and retirement and health care in contrast to the "working man?" If there are any 1 percenters, they are those with guaranteed jobs and pensions. Unfortunately the costs of the same have bankrupted governments from California to Greece. Do you really not see that? is that really a fanatically right position that has no merit?
government is always the problem,
Explain how government involved in public sector education and in public housing and in running the post office or any other business or ... has been a success. I am open to any and all examples that you can provide.
and liberals by definition are incapable of honest debate then I have no time for you.
What you do not have time for is those who challenge your precious postures. You don't want honest debate. You want everyone to applaud you and agree with you for your "brave" stances on issues of marginal relevance. It is easy to sanctimoniously pontificate but then when larger problems occur within the very sector where one has chosen to make one's mark as a "person of principle" (see I can speak liberalese, too) then you go deadly silent but we are supposed to take your word for it that you have just suddenly tired of the useless debates? The very ones you engaged in most passionately for years only to suddenly stop with the arbitrary date of a presidential election and its results?