Hence my conclusion: the outraged letters of people who have chosen to hide in plain sight are not conducive to honesty, integrity or open discourse. Since the latter is what I seek, it seems safe to conclude I’ll not find it by reading someone who signs himself “ScuzzaMan.”

Interesting.

Around these parts, a person is generally judged by his/her product, not his/her handle. It's not hard to spot the bullshit artists, trolls, morons, and other assorted riffraff and it's also not hard to recognize quality information or opinion once a person decides he/she wishes to do so. After all, what is a name other than merely a means to identify a person. It doesn't matter whether that name is Smith or Jones if the information they post is quality. For instance, do yourself a favor and look at the letters archive of a poster who calls himself pow-wow. (link at sig)

I believe you will find that pow-wow provides quality information even if his identifying mark isn't his/her real name. Really...look at his stuff!

There are several good reasons why people choose not to use their given names in political forums such as this.

One, is that they have jobs or are connected to people with jobs which would be adversely affected if their political views were brought to daylight. In my case, my wife works for a very Christian/Conservative employer who would have a cow if they knew she associated with a leftie like me.

Others don't feel comfortable posting their real feelings over their real names. That's the opposite of those who get all balsy because they are not identified.

So, judge not by a poster's name. Judge by what the poster posts.

He has spent a lot of time over the years in the middle east, and understands it much better than Glenn.

There is a call for bernbart on the white courtesy phone....

Please pick up the white courtesy phone.

You have a call from calamine on the white courtesy phone.

He wants to come back.

So you're comparing someone who murdered 13 or 14 people with someone who disagrees with you politically?

re:"Tom Friedman can declare with a straight face that "anyone who shoots up innocent people is ... mentally imbalanced" without seeing how clearly that applies to himself and those who think like he does."

No, he's comparing someone who considers someone who murdered 13 or 14 people as mentally imbalanced while someone who has no qualms about murdering hundreds of thousands of people as being sane, as long as they disagree with him (Friedman) politically.

Where do you fit in?

Pay no attention to David Sugarman (calamine). He occasionally goes off his meds and ends up getting banned, only to beg to be allowed back under a different name.

He's due.

How are you going to explain how those same Palestinians that Israel "crushed" someday find a way to kill several thousand Israelis at one time?

You don't believe that will happen?

Did you believe Usama could knock down the towers?

It'll happen, and it will be the fault of people like you.

Mark my words, it'll happen.

Why is Greenwald so supportive of murderers? Whu does Salon back such anti-Western voices?

Why does God allow you to breathe?

Why do you back Salon with your money?

So many questions, eh?

It's really not rocket science.

Every single instance of U.S. aggression for the last decade has been about protecting Israel, killing uppity brown people, acquiring money, amassing power, and stealing other people's oil.

See?

"totally collaps" = "total collapse"

You're just not having a very good day, are you.

I was so pissed off writing that note I couldn't see straight. It's one thing being left of center...but to be so freakin concerned about terrorists..is beyond my understanding. I guess the King must live in a nice cozy home with mommy and daddy and has not been exposed to the pain of 9/11 that so many of us live with every day.

You really should learn to relax. All this hatred will eat away at your soul, leaving nothing but a burnt out hunk of garbage. Seriously.

Do you fly on commercial airliners often?

Should we also give up on cancer research and stop efforts to bring a cure to that disease because people have already died of cancer?

I still donlt get why Glenn does not understand that the other cases, are prisoners captured after we declared war they are are Prisoners of war, can be held until the war is over, and should be tried in a miltgry court, not a civil court.

The fact that there was never an official and constitutional declaration of war (on terror) notwithstanding, do you also believe that those who have been captured as a result of the "war on drugs" should also be held until there are no longer illegal drugs in the U.S.? Should those who have been locked up under the authority of the "war on drugs" be given military trials?

How about the "war on poverty"? Should rich people be locked up forever or should poor people be locked up and not given trials?

Finally, what is not black and white about civil liberties? It seems to me that either you have them, or you don't.

Is there a middle ground that I'm missing?

Just so I can get this straight.

Are we going to have to suffer through gobs of O/T posts about global warming just as we seem to have solved the Troofer problem?

If so, please give me a call when it's over.

I DO agree that it's not about courage.

Which is the only aspect of the initial post to which I took exception here.