No, not fickle, rather conditional--there are always qualifications and contingencies.

He is one of the best!

heh, not gays... they have homosexuals in russia, but they are depressed drunks like everyone else

Is it implicit that we should encourage gays to become addicted to vodka?

well, they would not longer be "gay" (happy) if we do... but the only effect only their sexuality is that they will have a lot more of it.

Maybe they'll forget their orientation and go straight.

its not going straight / gay if you were too drunk to register the gender of the partner.

The rich got richer and the poor got richer too. 

ANY SYSTEM of independent units that is unregulated will, over time, show increasing differences between the min and max.

If you have 2 people running and one is faster than the other, over time, there will be a huge gulf.

Calling tax cuts redistribution is offensive beyond belief. Our earnings are not property of the government in which the government decides how much we keep.  We are not ruled by kings and emperors. It has no inherent right to what we produce.

Granted, this country when compared with the emerging nations, but we have different standards and the wealth gap makes the perception virtually embarrassing. Nor can it be denied that millions of the ostensibly lowlife are barely subsisting and are not open to normal opportunities. It is unfortunate that as wealthy grow to the point that it perceives itself as a blesséd aristocracy, they become callous to the realities of the nether world without ever considering that the disadvantage of DNA deserve some sense of kindness. 

ANY SYSTEM of independent units that is unregulated will, over time, show increasing differences between the min and max.
If you have 2 people running and one is faster than the other, over time, there will be a huge gulf. I agree; so why not some rational regulation?

In a utopia free of crime, no need for schools, traffic control or transportation, no wars, no defense...

Only in absolute/nominal terms, not in proportionate terms. You would expect the $ gap between the top 25% and bottom 25% to widen, for example, but not for the % of income or wealth held by the two to always change in one direction. Hence if you have increasing inequality (by say the rich benefittnig from pretty well all the proceeds of growth, and the poor showing little real change) then it's something you (as a government) will want to look at.

Take your runners example - if person A can run 1 meter in the time that B can run 2 meters, then after A has run 100 meters you'd expect B to have covered 100% more than that (200 meters). The gap has widened by 99 meters, but proportionately is still the same, hence the 'inequality' in their speeds is unchanged - B is still twice as fast as A.

What is rational about it? any type of regulation can only hurt both, at BEST it will only hurt the faster runner and not the slower runner, and for what? their absolute status will not change or will change for the worst, just to make the gap smaller? you call this rational?

What is the virtue of making the gap smaller?

 

A belief of fairness

Why is that particular interpretation of fairness good?

YOu did not ask for reality, just what they saw as the virtue of it. 

Many people like to point to the last episode of Star Wars as a condemnation of Bush.  However, for anyone that is actually thinking, it is a condemnation of people with good intentions.  That is what the emperor and Anakin had, but to make their intentions real, they had to obtain absolute power, and of course in the end, it corrupted them. 

So it is with the modern day do-gooder.  They dont care how they make things "fair" only that it is so (in their view). And go to any lengths to achieve their ends.