Like the frenzied behavior of yellow jackets at the end of August when they know winter's coming and their life span is coming to an end, the MSM knows their control over news and information is over and there's absolutely nothing they can do about it other than, like the yellow jackets, annoy people by buzzing around and trying to sting them.

The old media is dead and after things shake out for a while, a new media will emerge. It'll be interesting to see what it turns out to look like.

'Most liberals (in today's sense) that I know are all for gun ownership and more personal responsibility for your actions.'

Maybe the ones he knows but in my state and many other blue states a referendum to abolish the 2nd Amendment would pass overwhelmingly.

'They love their country'

I'm sorry but I don't agree or believe that. They love the freedom that it provides them but don't have any appreciation for that freedom in perspective to the rest of the world. Obviously you can't label everyone who supports some 'liberal' social causes as anti-American but I have no problem with calling the blame-America-first crowd what they are.

Jack:

Ah, there's the wingnuttery I've come to know and love. I thought for a few minutes I'd actually found some sanity among the conservatives. Fooled again.

I got news for you, sweet pea. I've been called a liberal, despite the fact I've supported some of the things Republicans have done, and publically written that a left wing bigot is no more useful than a right wing one.

But if you want to send me your address so you can question my love for this country to my face, you'll find out just how dedicated to the Second Amendment I really am. If, that is, I don't just punch your lights out.

Sigh.

Take your meds and learn how to read.

"Take your meds"? Whoa. That's original.

"Sigh."

Sorry, Bill, I'll try to be a good boy.

Like I say, sane, rational conservatives should be encouraged and cherished. The other kind, not so much.

Just as an aside, the cartoon where Ted Rall calls Condoleeza Rice a “house nigga” is just unreal....it's amazing that liberals seem to allow themslves the privilege of expressive racist views

JD, wow, we are all just so very impressed with how tough you are. So you are going to shoot Jack unless you decide to just punch his lights out. All because he holds an opinion (defensible by the way)about a class of people that he didnt even know you consider yourself to belong to. You think Jack is the wing nut?

I guess the seeming incongruity of making an anonymous threat to shoot someone on the internet and judging other peoples sanity and rationality isn't going to make an impression. What would be a more accurate benchmark of rationality?

JD

Thanks for showing a level of sanity and level-headedness. However, your statement about income redistribution concerns me. How can any kind of income redistribution be justified? It is forcefully taking from one man what he rightfully & lawfully owns, and giving it to another. That can never be justified.

Your statement that government ought not be the vehicle for that kind of forced redistribution I agree with wholeheartedly, so maybe what you are advocating is VOLUNTARY redistribution? If so, that is no different from charity which is practiced by many cons & libs today, which I also wholeheartedly support. But any kind of forced income redistribution is simply wrong and cannot be justified in a society that values individual property rights.

What a man owns he owns, and it is his until he chooses to give or sell it away. It would be good and beneficial for that man to give a portion of it to others less fortunate, but he should never be under any kind of compulsion to do so.

I wish I knew what he means by "most liberals (in today's sense)" ...

It may only be a little thing, but I very clearly try to delineate between liberals and leftists, even though it is harder today to distinguish the two because leftism has co-opted the "liberal" label. Old fashioned liberalism was pro-America, pro-democracy, non-apologetic about American values. Read JFK's inaugural speech to see how far todays "liberals" have devolved.

I will say that at best, LEFTISTS are ambivilant about America. Some are downright hostile and I would include some prominent ones that publically decried things like flying US flags after 9/11 (and that's leaving aside people like al-Moore and Ted Rall who place their anti-Americanism on prominent display).

When someone actively wishes for America's defeat in Iraq, I'd say that qualifies as "hate" of America.

That's exactly how I see it, Darleen. Even though I disagree with most of the things "liberals" believe, the ones who are leftists are the problem. They don't deserve anything but disdain.
At least with true liberals, if we can agree to disagree, I've got no problem with them.

AG:

Sorry, if your retort was coherent, I might be able to respond to it. As for the part that seems to be written in English: I don't give a rat's ass if you're impressed with me or not. But I can't help it, I'm a Southern boy...question my love for this country (and have the balls to do it to my face instead of smugly hiding behind a 'net pseudonym) and you will get stomped. As Merle said, "you're walkin' on the fightin' side of me."

"Jack Tanner": The name I use on the 'net is my own. YOU seem to be the one that's anonymous. And one who buys into the Coulterian "Duuuuhhhhh...liberals hate america" meme has no room to talk about rationality.

DamnWalker: I'd submit that ANY government, heck, any civilization, involves SOME form of income "redistribution." Don't we take some people's income and give it to the military for the good of all, i.e. defense? Don't we take some of people's income and use it to build roads? Dams? Lighthouses?

So to say "all income redistribution can never be justified" seems a bit unrealistic. What we're really arguing about is matters of degree.

Darleen & Beth: Glad to see that someone makes the distinction between liberals and leftists.

I found JD's piece less than convincing myself. Such people as JD describes exist, but seldom actually call themselves "liberals" these days. They wander around a bit confused and stand to the side allowing the leftist wingnuts to shout out the incoherent arguments that dominate the discourse from that side of the aisle today. They pretend not to notice the MacKinney's, the Hinchley's, and the Jackson's.

And sometimes, at the dinner table, they even try out a few Bush is a Chimp slogans, just to see how will nod sagely.

Roberts:

Oh, look. Another ninny who's made up an imaginary creature to argue with. It's like you're arguing with the voices in your head.

Like I wrote before - if you could read -

'Obviously you can't label everyone who supports some 'liberal' social causes as anti-American '

'It's like you're arguing with the voices in your head. '

Are they the ones that tell you to shoot people who disagree with you?

Nothing says rational like threatening to shoot people on the internet.

JD, the point is that Jack was not not questioning your love of our country -he does not even know you. He was making an observation, capable of being supported by facts, about a group of people and you respond like he has literally spit in your face. Frankly, Jack is right on, your response is irrational.

You're Southern, wow, so am I. I was not aware that an irrational desire to "stomp" or "punch" people who hold different opinions, even regarding patriotism, was a Southern thing. You're response is way out of proportion irrationally so)to the perceived slight. It is also telling. Since you take pride in your Southern heritage, surely you know the old adage: It's the guilty dog that barks loudest. Grow up - you are not helping your case - whatever it is.

I eagerly await more of your name calling and wisdom gleaned from from country singers - Charlie McDaniels this time?

JD

You need to review your civics books. What you describe is not income redistribution, but infrastructure investment to support defense of the people & interstate commerce, 2 main purposes of the federal government as defined in the constitution. No one argues (well maybe a few libertarian wackos) the government's right to tax for these purposes.

Again, let me define this for you to read once more, income redistribution is forcefully taking what is rightfully & lawfully one man's and giving it to another. That is just wrong, no different than stealing if you do not have the consent of the individual. If that individual chooses to give away possesions, then that is charity and I fully support that, and feel it is the proper way to help those in need.

PS: Your braggadaccio bluster is pure and simple BS. If you want to discuss issues, fine, but drop the "I'll kick your ass" crap. Nobody buys into it, and we all recognize the "big bad wolf" huff & puff syndrome of the small man who uses it as a defense mechanism. Nothing more than the blow-up of the puffer fish, which any southerner recognizes for what it is, and pays no attention to. Get serious & drop the bravado.

AG:

The next time you attempt to pose as a Southerner by name-dropping country music stars:

1. You might do some research so you get their names right;and
2. You might show a little less elitist condescension towards the music.

And as for "making the case": I'm not at all interested in "making a case" to idiots who respond to "liberals love thir country" with "sorry, I don't believe that." These people are beyond help and deserve nothing but contempt. They spew BS like that because they feel that 'wimpy liberals' aren't going to call them on it. Further, it was the pseudonymous "Jack Tanner" who brought up the Second Amendment, not me.

DamnWalker: "What you describe is not income redistribution, but infrastructure investment to support defense of the people & interstate commerce, 2 main purposes of the federal government as defined in the constitution."

So is "promoting the general welfare," last time I checked. And calling taxation for one of those purposes enumerated in the Constitution 'infrastructure investment' while calling taxation for another 'income redistribution' doesn't answer the issue. It's just argument by redefinition.

Govermments take money for public purposes, one of which, in a civilized society, is to give the needy a helping hand. You may argue that the way it's being done is ineffective. But to say it can never be justified is just not supported by the Constitution.

JD - You caught me. My real name is John.

Now you can go back to foaming at the mouth, making threats and calling people names.

JD

Yes, the general welfare of the people is in the constituiton. However, you might note that noone interpreted that to mean taking from one man to give to another until the middle of the last century, nearly 165 after our constitution was drawn & ratified. And most Americans still would disagree with "income redistribution".

I also point out that giving the needy a helping hand, as you call it, is quite different from income redistribution as proposed by many of your fellow liberals. I give people a helping hand all the time thru my tithe to my church, private donations of moneys I earn to charities, and donating my time to local agencies & charities.

Perhaps we are arguing different definitions of income redistribution. To me it means trying to put everyone on an equal level of wealth by taking from some until they get down to the predescribed level, and giving it to others until they rise up to the predefined level. If that is not the extent to which you are proposing income redistribution, then please be more specific. If what you mean is some small amount to give to those truly needy (who decides?), again I say that is charity and not income redistribution.

I also believe that taxation to achieve charity will in the long run hurt charitable giving, because it removes the donor from the entire process and puts it in the hands of beauracrats who often abuse & misuse it, or put it to use for purposes not intended by the giver, which is exactly why many of us have problems with it as implemented today, and rise up quickly to resist when we hear words like "income redistribution". IMHO It is just not a good way to do things.

"Now you can go back to foaming at the mouth, making threats and calling people names."

And you can go back to being a mindless Ann Coulter wannabe, spouting the latest wingnuttery and tossing out insults like "take your meds" as if they were original when, in fact, they were old and tired in the early 90's.

Oh, wait, you never stopped. My mistake.

Have a nice day, "John."

And as for the rest of you objecting to my Second Amendment reference, allow me to amend:

"FROM MY COLD DEAD HAND!"

Better? I mean, conservatives creamed in their khakis over that one.

Or how about this:"The best way to talk to conservatives is with a baseball bat."

Didn't hear a peep when that was said about liberals.

Funny how incensed some people get over so-called "liberals" when they use the same harsh language as conservative heroes.

I submit that if your sense of mroal outrage is dependent on the political orientation of who's committing the act, then you don't really have a moral code.

oh, and bsp: I think Ted Rall was wrong for that, too. No one should be called "nigga".

Well, it's nice to see that Sharp as a Marble's post about how we should all have a little more sanity in our discussions has inspired a bout of name-calling.

JD: it's cool if you don't like the way Jack said what he said, but couldn't you have given him the benefit of the doubt before jumping for his throat? Instead of immediately assuming "wingnuttery", couldn't you have just told Jack that you didn't like the implications of what he was saying?
Don't you think that the approach you started this discussion with doomed it to end in name-calling from the start?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050226/wl_nm/egypt_president_dc_1

Looks like that Bush fella maybe outsmarted everybody.

Even Der Spiegel is beginning to wonder if they misunderesimated Bush's strategery.