Well put. We can--we must--show ourselves different than the opposition in one key regard: we respect and encourage individual freedom, including those with whom we disagree.

There's nothing wrong with a response in kind. If you were present when the McCain supporter was physically attacked, would you have stood by and chastised the attacker? Rushed home to make sure the attack showed up prominently in a blog search? I think physical force is warranted there.
That doesn't mean beating up Olbermann. But trumpeting news of his tax problems, looking for dissatisfied ex-girlfriends, staff at ESPN he treated poorly - why not? The guy who announced "Americans are tired of seeing us shouting at each other" is down 6 to the guy whose fundraiser was shouting at the time. He won't stoop to attacking his opponent's character, relationships, or policies, so he'll get the same moral victory you're after. That and eight dollars will get you a gallon of gasoline under the Obama regime. I'd rather avoid that fate.
"We're no better than they are" - and Roosevelt was no better than Tojo.

Sorry, but the hackneyed old cautionary adage that "we're no better than they are" is not only untrue; it has never been true -- not in any circumstance in which it has ever been used.

Someone punches you in the face; but, if you punch back: "you're no better than they are".

This kind of moral equivalence is usually reserved for leftists who make no distinction between agressor and defender. It's crap, and has always been crap!

That's like going to a fistfight where everyone has agree to play by the Queensbury Rules, and your opponent brings out a knife, then a gun. Your nobility will leave you bleeding. There is a difference between destroying a private citizen who dared to ask a question, and exposing the character assassins for what they are by employing some - not all - of their tactics. There is a difference between belting a middle-aged McCain supporter, and chasing down and if necessary restraining her assailant. Actions have context.

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 10/20/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Not to offend anyone but it has come down to either fighting back or just sitting back and letting this kind of thing happen to us. If we don't fight back it is only going to get worse.
Growing up there were two kids who picked on me in school. It started out as just verbal harrassment, but over time it developed into full blown beatings.
Long story short I made a point to find each of them when they were by themselves and returned the favor with interest (I kicked them in the head a few times after I had them on the floor)after that we never had a problem with each other again.
I'm sorry if that isn't nice but it is what we need to do.

I am Joe...

I am your neighbor that lives across the street
I am a hockey mom, or the coach of your son's Little League team
I serve our country in uniform, leaving my family behind to protect our freedoms
I am a police officer, fireman or paramedic, putting my life on the line to protect you
I work at the local hospital, caring for your family in times of need
I am the builder, plumber, shopkeeper or the owner of the small store down the street
I am the cowboy and farmer, providing food for not just your table but for those around the world
I am the teacher who gives long hours to educating your children
I am the veteran that answered my nation's call to duty
I am the stranger that comes to your aid when disaster strikes, and you need a hand
I work hard to provide for my family, pay my taxes and do my duty as a citizen and vote
I am proud of what my country stands for, and all of the good it does throughout the world
I want to be successful, to enjoy the freedoms granted to me and to give to others in need on my own accord, not have it taken from me

I am Joe the Plumber

"extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!" It has come down to that. We could have an all out Civil War, but lets not, lets use the Smart Bomb of the Internet to target those who actively use their positions of trust and power to destroy freedom. Joe the Plumber was a warning, don't question us or we will do this to you, that cannot be allowed to stand. These people need to be taken down, one at a time if need be.

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

The middle class used to be able to support a family on one income but no longer can. What's wrong with policy that moves us back in this direction? You think our children should be raised in daycare? You all have used the term "wealth redistribution" many times lately, but as a matter of fact any non-flat tax policy is wealth redistribution. The rich have seen falling tax rates over the last decades. Cap gains used to be normal income, not they are 20% and that goes disproportionately to the wealthy. You could just as easily complain about policy-driven wealth redistribution towards the rich over the last 30 years. Perhaps the ugliest facet of this is that it hurts US competitiveness by keeping wealth in the hands of idiots and disallowing the able from the lower classes to rise to the limit of their abilities.

Interestingly, both McCain and Bush were born to wealthy and influential families, whereas Clinton and Obama pulled themselves up from modest circumstances. Obama was the standout in his Harvard Law class. Further, Bush's capital injection into the big banks is the most socialist event in recent US history, and a big chunk of that seems to be earmarked for executive bonuses. You could make a strong argument that the GOP is more socialist these days than are the Democrats.

"We saw an Obama supporter attack and beat up a middle-aged woman holding a McCain sign in Manhattan last week... Do we want physical intimidation and violence to be the new political discourse?"

Someone slit the tires of 30 cars outside an Obama rally:
http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=307949
and someone else hanged Obama in effigy:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=obama+effigy&search_type=&aq=f
and there are lots of clips of boorish behavior outside of Palin rallies with things such as a Curious George stuffed animal with an Obama sticker on it.

Anecdotes are not a reasonable basis for sweeping generalizations. To do so shows ignorance or dishonesty.

Luther, once Barry has been burned in effigy, including monkey effigy a few hundred times we'll be approaching par with Bush. Frankly I look forward to using my giant puppet making skills in furtherance of liberty's cause. I see a second life for the "F the President" stickers.

"once Barry has been burned in effigy, including monkey effigy a few hundred times we'll be approaching par with Bush. Frankly I look forward to using my giant puppet making skills in furtherance of liberty's cause."

I can't tell you how refreshing to listen to someone who speaks his mind, unadorned. For every one of you I see 100 tedious "I'm not a racist, but..." remarks.

I ought not to advise my political adversaries, but the Youtube clip involves a hanging in effigy, not burning. I think you will find you get much more bang for your buck this way. Your name may end up in a Secret Service database, but surely that is a small price for glory.

I honestly think it will help - help those interested (pro or con) in the proposed effort to bring the media back into a democratic society - if we start talking about hypothetical specifics - and not just one or two to trying point to some over-arching principle ---- when that principle isn't clear (yet).

I'll throw out some:

Investigation the kids: No. Off limits. Whether the son or daughter is under 18 or not.

Investigating the wife? Well, that depends on specifics.

Barney Franks significant other was running a male brothel out of an apartment they shared in DC back in the late 1980s. That was definetly something that a conservative watchdog group would have been legitimate in jumping on.

If a big media person or media executive has the same thing going on with their lover/spouse, it should now be fair game for a media watchdog group designed to expose them the way they expose other people.

Next - a partner of a media figure is a raging alcoholic. Out of bounds.

If the media figure is a raging alcoholic -- I'll have to get back to you on that one as I think it over some more.

If the media figure or spouse is found to do frequent business with a drug dealer and bring illegal drugs into the house? Fair game.

If the media figure's household is hiring illegal immigrant maids, gardeners or other household staff? Fair game.

If the media figure is cheating on their taxes? Probably fair game, but I'll get back to you after more thought.

If the media figure comes out of a bar or restaurant drunk and abusive - or just abusive - to people inside or outside? Fair game.

If a news orgs staff is overwhelmingly registered Democrat --- overwhelmingly donates to the Dem party ---- has membership overwhelmingly supporting Dem or liberal groups with time and money ---- fair game. Fair for watchdog groups to hound the leaders of the org about the ideological lack of diversity (same as it would be if they only hired white males).

These are the kinds of hypotheticals we should be kicking around to clearly define this issue - rather than just trying to sum it all up instantly.

"You could just as easily complain about policy-driven wealth redistribution towards the rich over the last 30 years. "

Again, the same old broken record.

Since 1978, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer.

It just doesn't wash. The standard of living in the society has risen since the 1970s. You guys keep trying to tell us that our lives are getting more and more and more miserable, and it just does not match reality. Some of us can remember back to the 1970s and even longer (though not me).

I do agree with you on the recent bank bailout.

I would not care whose policies let to the event, but Congress, led by the Bush administration, has just took one of the biggest socialization steps in our nations history. The government has just stepped into the banking sector and the housing sector in a major way, and I'm not thrilled about it.

And again, I honestly believe I would be saying that regardless of how that situation came about.

But, the facts are, the banks and housing sector fell apart, because of the kind of liberalism that we will see a President Obama give a massive boost if elected:

The Dems in Congress used the power of the government to tilt the housing market and credit market to favor people whose incomes could not afford the loans to buy the houses they wanted.

It is a type of socialist thinking --- everyone should be able to buy a house --- that led to one of the greatest socialization efforts by our government - the Bush administration bailout of the financial sector.

The problem with the Obama presidency, if it comes, is that it will not take the worst financial crisis since The Great Depression for further socialization to take place. It will become routine policy initiated by the White House.

usinkorea: How about supporting that instead of asserting it? In particular please address these two simple questions:

First the middle class household used to have one wage earner on average, now they can't afford that. Why? Is this desirable?

Second, over the last 30 years the rich have gotten cap gains down to 20% and slashed inheritance taxes. As a result of these changes, Warren Buffet's tax rat is lower than his secretary's. Why is this fair?

Please answer those specific questions instead of introducing some related generalities. In particular please don't tell me your life story again. As I mentioned above, anecdotes aren't generally very useful. If you don't address these simple questions directly I will be forced to conclude that you are a blowhard or worse.

"the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer."

That's the standard leftist line, but in America, it is also a demonstrable and momentous lie. As the rich get richer, they do what? Buy stuff.

Companies hire more poor people to make more stuff, and the company owners sell the stuff, make more money, which they use to but more stuff and hire more people.

This "vicious cycle" is what assures that America's poor have a standard of living equivalent of the middle class to rich of most of the rest of the world. The overwhelming majority of America's poor live in air-conditioned/heated homes and apartments where they watch television or listen to their radios or play Playstations. The poor in other countries? They die of exposure and malnutrition as a matter of course.

In America, the wealthy and resourceful continually drag the bell curve to the right, making everyone richer, and there literally is no upper limit to how high we as a society can go.

Obama, however, is an idiot, like most socialists, and wants to take from the upper end of the curve, dragging the bell curve--and society in general--in the opposite direction, making us all poorer with his wealth redistribution.

The stupid and lazy will never keep their money, and the intelligent and hard-working will always acquire more. That is a simple fact.

If the rich are allowed to keep innovating, we all benefit, even the poor, as the curve pulls us all higher. If the socialists have their way, innovators are punished for succeeding, growth stagnates or stops or ever reverses, and you want to know who gets hurt the most, and the hardest?

The poor.

If Democrats really cared about the poor, they'd do everything they can to help grow the businesses that help everyone, including the poor.

But it isn't about the disposable poor. It's about the naked pursuit of political power, something that the son of a communist mentored by a succession of socialists and marxists knows well.

That is a terrific sentiment...perfect for a more civilized time. Against an enemy willing to do anything to win you will be defeated each and every time.

Perhaps we don't adopt all of their tactics but just as we adopted some of the Germans tactics to defeat them we can also do the same with the left.

Do we delve into reporters personal lives to destroy them...absolutely. No other single class of people in this country deserves it more. What a vile and disgusting bunch of creatures they are.

Do we delve into the personal lives of the left...my gosh why not? Why is Wright off limits?

One can adopt a lot of the enemies tactics to win the strategic battle without becoming the enemy.

PATTON on using the enemies tactics.
Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!

Confederate Yankee: I feel that was long on generalities and short on particulars. Can you address the two questions I posed to usainkorea?

"The stupid and lazy will never keep their money, and the intelligent and hard-working will always acquire more. That is a simple fact."

That is becoming less and less true in this country, because of the tax policy your party espouses. Your party is dead set against the so-called "death tax", ensuring that every Mars, Walton, and Hilton is fabulously wealthy no matter how competent he or she is. Anyone who lives off investments has an advantage over any wage earner in the form of lesser taxes, thanks to cuts on capital gains. You call ending this state of fairs "wealth redistribution", whereas it's just as accurate to call the GOP tax policy of the last three decades wealth redistribution.

“These people need to be taken down, one at a time if need be.”

Ooh! I know! Maybe we could set up a web site of some kind, with a list of reporters who don't behave, and then we could draw lines through their names, as they're "taken down" - or, we could put up their pictures, then draw big red X's through them, after the deed is done. That'll keep the rest in line.

I think there's precedent for this, so we'd be in good company.

Nobody will dare call us "fascist".

"Obama, however, is an idiot, like most socialists, and wants to take from the upper end of the curve, dragging the bell curve--and society in general--in the opposite direction, making us all poorer with his wealth redistribution."

Oh noes! He'll return us to the tax levels of the horrible mid-90's!! Remember the bread lines and the soup kitchens? All those poor people in the streets? What an evil man he must be.

All you have proven is that David Horowitz was absolutely correct when he said that Republicans are too polite.

what is truly scary about the obama supporter who bear up the mccain supporter in NYC is that if the situation had been reversed, if a mccain supporter had beaten an obama supporter (especially if it occurred in a conservative area, as this occurred in liberal NYC), the media would not rest until it was front page and top story all over the country, their "righteous outrage" would be insatiable. yet, here i have heard nothing of this story other than from this blog (and the link provided therein). if obama is elected, will any dissent be met with violence, condoned by his media in the form of silence and non-coverage? the media smeared joe the plumber, but at least no one physically assaulted him (yet).

"First the middle class household used to have one wage earner on average, now they can't afford that. Why? Is this desirable?"

I lived it. I'm not going to go out looking for statistics for what I learned living.

In my opinion, you have two people working in a household, because they want to buy the luxuries that are the American way right now.

That is part of the standard of living having gone up. There were more jobs and more opportunities for women to get work like a man. And families wanted more comfort and more gadgets and better TVs and better cars ---- families were consumers - so they worked to get money to buy things they wanted.

Now, there are also a lot of single family households out there. And they manage to survive in your "poor and poorer and poorer America." Many of these single parent households do better than just get by as well.

And then there are the many households, not middle class, who are two or single parent supported - but also supported by the federal government. They are not middle class, but they are not starving to death in some nation-wide dustbowl - as America has gotten "poor and poorer and poorer" "the last 30 years" as the rich have squeezed the life-blood out of the people...

"Second, over the last 30 years the rich have gotten cap gains down to 20% and slashed inheritance taxes. As a result of these changes, Warren Buffet's tax rat is lower than his secretary's. Why is this fair?"

I don't care if its fair or not. Honestly.

I just hope Warren Buffet keeps being smart on economics and advising people to invest in corporations that are going to keep growing and supplying jobs for the masses.

And if Warren Buffet wants to give away all his money to charity (which he does), good for him.

You can conclude anything you want.

I already stated I believe you are a typical liberal type you find especially among the younger variety who fell in love with statistics that have proven in real life to be meaningless.

My life story is the same as many, many in the communities I've lived in. You can quote until you turn blue statistics on how much the Buffets and Gates have gotten so much richer and outpaced the middle class as our economy has grown and cry that that means America is overall getting more and more poor ---- I don't care.

It isn't the life I've seen in the three different states I've lived in.

And it isn't what most people have seen in their daily lives year to year for the last 30 years.

You can continue to swat down visible reality with your Microsoft-expansion stats for yourself if you like. I'll stick with the reality.

This conversation boils down to some simple things, I think, and CY hit on one of them too.

If the rich are getting richer as the economy grows and the standard of living for the whole society grows, then so be it.

The Bill Gates and Warren Buffets (and wildly successful smaller business people) are charging out ahead of the pack faster than before --- as the economy grows --- then we should cheer them rather than scoff at their wealth and tax it away from them.

The rich are getting richer.

That does not mean the poor are getting poorer.

Bill Gates' stock options are not taking money out of my working class pockets.

But, if taxing business in order to redistribute wealth cripples the economy, it will take money out of my pocket.

And the government can try to cover this by putting money directly into my pocket in the form of a check or free health care card....

...but in every society where socialism has been tried, it has led to worse chronic poverty and economic stagnation.

The more it has been tried, the worse the standard of living has been.

The rich getting richer and poor getting poorer is a false correlation...

"I lived it. I'm not going to go out looking for statistics for what I learned living... In my opinion,..."

Your life story approaches zero significance in a country of 300 million. We already discussed that. Similarly of what value are your opinions if you are unwilling or unable to find evidence to support them?

I'll provide some more facts, however tedious these are to you. The middle class has a zero savings rate and at or near record credit card debt and personal bankruptcy. You presumably don't believe this because it has not been a part of your life story, but if you do decide to pick up a newspaper you could verify this for yourself.

LT: "Second, over the last 30 years the rich have gotten cap gains down to 20% and slashed inheritance taxes. As a result of these changes, Warren Buffet's tax rat is lower than his secretary's. Why is this fair?"

usainkorea: "I don't care if its fair or not. Honestly." But your premise is that Obama's tax plan to raise income on the top 5% is socialist. In other words, any plan that does not advantage the rich is socialist. Please explain why the rich ought to have lower tax rates. I'm all ears.

If you took the time to learn about statistics you will find that there's something called a sampling error. Basically, because of your particular situation and biases, you are guaranteed not to encounter a random subset of Americans. That is one reason why your fixation on your life story is a shortcoming.

"You can quote until you turn blue statistics on how much the Buffets and Gates have gotten so much richer and outpaced the middle class as our economy has grown and cry that that means America is overall getting more and more poor"

Once again I have no problem with Buffet and Gates, what I have a problem with is the capital retained by idiots through a tax code that guarantees misallocation of capital. To be fair and competitive we need a fair tax code which allows capital to flow into the hands of young Gateses and Buffets, rather than having it passed from one meritless Walton or Mars to the next.

"My life story..." "the life I've seen in the three different states I've lived in..." What is your obsession with your life story? More important, why do you expect anyone to care? I've never seen anything like it.

"You can continue to swat down visible reality with your Microsoft-expansion stats for yourself if you like. I'll stick with the reality."

Your reality seems confined to your "life story". You will find that if you consider outside sources of information you can achieve a broader understanding. You have the same allergy to facts and knowledge as a certain president who believed he could manufacture his own reality:

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' ... 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
--As recorded by Ron Suskind

"Your reality seems confined to your "life story"."

Why can't you understand this?

I am repeating what I've seen in part because it is the same many, many readers will have seen around them and in the nation during their life times.

But, you counter this with book quoted statistics - statistics that don't match up to our shared experience - and by insisting that my one life story is so bleeping isolated it means nothing....

How about this: You keep putting out your statistics and I'll keep putting out my thoughts using what I have seen in this nation and we'll let the readers decide?

(so you can drop the condescending bullshit...)

"The middle class has a zero savings rate and at or near record credit card debt and personal bankruptcy."

And this proves the poor are getting more poor - because the rich are getting richer?

It proves people are spending beyond their means. Period.

Then you offer more of your elitist condescending snipes...

"But your premise is that Obama's tax plan to raise income on the top 5% is socialist. In other words, any plan that does not advantage the rich is socialist."

Wrong. Strawman.

I'm saying Obama talks like a socialist. His life-time associations are with people who are openly socialist. I am saying talk about wealth-distribution through taxation on the one hand and giving the money to others on the other is the same as the socialist playbook.

Then you go back to your typical condescending BS.

Your whole "a sampling error" paragraph is a hoot.

I'm sure most readers will be able to see the snot coming out your nose there....

We do get somewhere with "Once again I have no problem with Buffet and Gates, what I have a problem with is the capital retained by idiots through a tax code that guarantees misallocation of capital."

So, yes, you do have a problem with Buffet and Gates.

You believe their earnings are a "misallocation of capital" and you want a system that does not allow them to "retain" that capital.

You want a system that removes the capital from them and gives it to others who have earned it by simply living in the country and not having the same amount of wealth as others, because to you, spreading that wealth around will cause more Gates and Buffets to sprout up, at which point you can take their money and give it to others and a whole fresh crop of Gates and Buffets will grow....

...and we have historical evidence to suggest that the reality out in the real world which you don't want to look at proves ---- it doesn't work that way!!!

The reason I'm citing life experience is that it came from living in the real world, not swallowing the load of bullshit people like you have tried to sell me.

You haven't seen the likes of it? Maybe you should.

You have obviously had your nose buried in too many New York Times columns and in typical, liberal intellectual books to realize there are a whole bunch of people out there living in the real world.

For decades, the liberals controlling education and getting their mostly unread books churned out by the publishing houses --- have been telling us for decades the US economic system was doomed - that the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer - that the inherent contradictions in the fascist capitalist system were soon to bring it crashing down.

And it never happened.

But, this same group constantly preached to us that the socialist utopias were the way to go. Like the Soviet Union. And each time those great socialist utopias turned out not just more despotic than America society - but also much more full of poverty and economic misery, the intellectuals have simply chosen to ignore it.

They liked the version of reality they'd filled their pages with so much, they decided to ignore their previous false predictions, bury them as if they never existed, but maintain the same line about how wealth redistribution was the way to go.

But to you...examples and concrete history are like this: "You have the same allergy to facts and knowledge"

History isn't factual - what you read in a book is, right?

Concrete history doesn't match up to the statistics you want to believe in, so you run around insulting people, belittling their intelligence, calling them ignorant, and saying they need to read.

I'm perfectly fine with the amount of schooling I've had and the amount of reading I do and have done in my lifetime.

And I believe readers will sift through both our points and see what I see --- you don't have much of a leg to stand on. You try to cloud issues with insults and smoke screens.

You can't hide from history, however.

Objective history proves socialism cripples economies and creates worse standards of living for societies as a whole.

But, if you blinded yourself by only looking at the mountain of books written by intellectual types, the same types like you who ridicule and insult (and avoid like the plague) the very same common man they say they want to give a leg up, like perhaps a Joe the Plumber, you would have to conclude the Soviet Union should currently be the richest nation on earth with a sparkling economy and no poverty.

Over these last 30 years, one by one, the nations who tried to follow the lead of those books, the ones you like to take your defining life experience from, have collapsed into the dust heaps of history, but you and some of those intellectuals still refuse to learn from them....

usinkorea:

Me: "Your reality seems confined to your
'life story'"

You: "Why can't you understand this?"

Me: I'll give you an admittedly simplistic comparison. Suppose I have always lived in Kansas. I might say to you that there are more wheat farms than there are strip malls. You might point out to me that this simply is not the case. I reply that I don't care about what your statistics or books say, I've seen it myself.

You're using the same argument, except you've lived in not one but three states. Go to any economist of your choosing and give them the "what I've seen" spiel. Academics and professionals who work in the hard sciences all have a higher standard of evidence from what you present.

You: "... Insisting that my one life story is so bleeping isolated it means nothing."

Me: If you are talking about tax policy your situation is one 300 millionth of the picture, as is mine. I said nothing about how isolated an example you are.

Me: "The middle class has a zero savings rate and at or near record credit card debt and personal bankruptcy."

You: "And this proves the poor are getting more poor - because the rich are getting richer? It proves people are spending beyond their means. Period."

Me: I said middle class, not poor, and that's an important distinction. You believe that current tax policy is more desirable than what Obama proposes, yet the rich are thriving and the middle class struggling. The rich have lower tax rates, yet you assert nevertheless that middle class profligacy is at fault. Presumably this is what you have seen during the course of your life so it must be true, unlike what egghead economists would have us believe.

You: "I'm saying Obama talks like a socialist."

Me: That's weaker even than your "what I've personally seen" argument.

You: "I am saying talk about wealth-distribution through taxation on the one hand and giving the money to others on the other is the same as the socialist playbook."

Tax rates are lower on the wealthy, this is clear-cut wealth redistribution. Obama wants to raise taxes specifically on the wealthy, so really it makes more sense to say he's halting wealth redistribution that is underway.

You: "Then you go back to your typical condescending BS... I'm sure most readers will be able to see the snot coming out your nose there...."

Me: Yet you call me condescending.

You: "We do get somewhere with 'Once again I have no problem with Buffet and Gates, what I have a problem with is the capital retained by idiots through a tax code that guarantees misallocation of capital.' So, yes, you do have a problem with Buffet and Gates."

Me: Not at all, you misunderstand me. My problem with the tax code is twofold. First, it allows the progeny of the wealthy to be always rich no matter what their merit. Second, I believe the rich should pay at least as high a tax rate as the middle class.

I'm ignoring the part where you rant about liberals.

You: "History isn't factual - what you read in a book is, right?"

Me: How many times are you going to tell me that what you personally have observed is true whereas everything else is suspect? I don't know any field of endeavor where this would impress. Just the opposite actually.

You: "I'm perfectly fine with the amount of schooling I've had and the amount of reading I do and have done in my lifetime."

Me: You shouldn't be.

You have done nothing but try to blow smoke in this discussion by attacking and mangling my use of my personal history.

You have very telling refused altogether to address the larger historical facts I've pointed to a number of times --- the fact that in nation after nation, the more socialism has been practiced, the more economic misery it has created.

Here, you finally pause a nanosecond to speak on that by labeling it a rant against liberals. Yes, it was a rant, but your refusal to face the facts of history is what liberals like you have done for decades.

You can insult me all you want. I don't care.

I feel just fine and confident leaving future readers to judge based on what has been written and what they will have witnessed in their own lives (both in books and out in the real world).

But, this discussion has become too unless to continue. Readers can get everything from what has been written already (and what has been left unsaid).

My last input, since I've been encouraged to read at least something, I'd recommend one of the books I'm currently reading --- it is one I recommended over at Ace's blog on a different topic a couple of days ago:

Breaking Ranks - by Norman Podhoretz.

The first section, a letter to his son written in 1979, is the best short review of radicalism from the 1930s to 1950s you could hope to find.

The rest of the book is the personal memoir of a man who was part of the inner circles of the intellectual community based in New York from the 1950s thru the writing in 1979. He goes into a lot of details about the shifting thoughts and people involved primarily in the intellectual community composed of liberals and radicals and others on the left.

I think the book is a good read for anyone wanting a good refresher on the ideological and pseudo-ideological history in the intellectual community of the last 60+ years in American society.

This is the backdrop in which Obama has emerged.

Given all his clear radical associations and the affinity he shared with many for radical thought in his reading as a teen and in college, this book is well worth reading....

"You have done nothing but try to blow smoke in this discussion by attacking and mangling my use of my personal history."

I have offered far more specifics than you. You haven't even tried to rebut these, other than by saying facts which don't happen to support what you've personally encountered are wrong. I can't honestly describe that position without sounding really, really condescending so I'll again refrain.

"You have very telling refused altogether to address the larger historical facts I've pointed to a number of times --- the fact that in nation after nation, the more socialism has been practiced, the more economic misery it has created."

I deny that Obama and most of his supporters are socialists in the first place. I've asserted a couple of times at least that the rich pay lower tax rates, so raising their tax rates is nowhere near socialist. You haven't denied this.

Your other argument that Obama is a socialist is "he talks like a socialist." I can play that game. McCain talks like a one-legged artichoke picker. How about them apples? You might try and deny this with facts, but I've lived in three states and I've seen many things along the way. Is it not aggravating and unfair to be put in the position I just put you in?

There's nothing to sink my teeth into in the rest of your post. If you like I can tell you about a book by a leading liberal about McCain.

The media has no ethics, they fully know what they're doing.
So just exposing that lack of ethics isn't going to do a thing to make them change their modus operandi.

The only thing that might work is to indeed drag them through the dirt in the same way they drag their victims through the dirt.

It's exactly the same scenario as fighting other terrorism.
If we (as we have done for so long) act only in accordance with what's 'nice', have stringent rules of engagement that make it impossible to act decisively if at all if there's the slightest chance of civilian casualties, treat terrorists like they were just conscripted soldiers who are no different than our boys and probably don't want to be there, we loose.

The ONLY way to fight this kind of people is in kind.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, is the only kind of reaction they understand, fear, and respect (because they see fear as being equivalent to respect).

Of course we have to make sure that we don't turn such harsh operations into our general way of operating, use them exclusively against those who employ them against us and set that as our general policy.
Go no further than the other guy, but don't back down an inch from the line he himself draws or he'll just draw another line to force us back even further until we drop over the edge into the chasm of complete defeat.