... Upon some further investigation, it seems that I did confuse you with someone else who posted something along those lines. My apology for the incorrect attribution.

Thanks for that.

In the heat of a flame/slime war we all make mistakes. It is gracious of you to correct the record. I hope you gave whoever wrote it hell.

... that Salon might only use email addys to confirm a nom de plume here never even occurred to me, it would seem logical to use IPs to do that if one wished to eliminate people posting under multiple aliases.

True, that wouldn't weed out those on dialup, since their IP changes every time they log on, but Salon is not dialup friendly anyway. ...

It would be easy to sign up multiple times even if you checked IP. Every other restaurant in this town has free WIFI and each has a different IP.

JH wrote: "Amusing.. That no one has yet said what it is that I wrote with which they disagree."

You responded: But, Jonathan, I DID say what I disagreed about: the issue of anonymous posting in the subject line.

You seem to have missed his point. No problem that, we have had two days of it here. The regulars seem to enjoy it.

He asked what was wrong with the message that he wrote. The text. The position stated in the post. Clear?

You responded that you did not like the way it was signed! I hope you see that difference. I do not know what posts you two are talking about, but I do know that I have no clue what was in it that you dislike.

Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his West Point audience on May 26. I hope that some reporter in the MSM will call him on it. Near the end of his speech at the United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated:

"On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your vow, that is the business you're in."

Well, not quite. From the oath: " ... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ..." The USA is not the same thing as the Constitution.

Why would Chaney misrepresent the oath? Perhaps because the present neo-con administration is not very constitution friendly? Or, perhaps it is because we have domestic enemies of the Constitution in office today?

Does anyone recall the right-wing noise machine (and the media) giving VP Gore hell on a verbal slip translating the original national motto: "E Pluribus Unum"? He got it backwards as I recall. Should not Chaney's mistake warrant as much coverage?

... We should not call these guys Conservatives -- we should call them Radicals and Neocons and relabel the Republican Party the Radical Party.

Yes, someone finally has a truly great idea. If the game is simply "liberal" v. "conservative" then progressives run a real chance of losing. Not in 2008, I hope to all that is Holy, but in election cycles to come. After all, the "conservative" label has been selling well in the USA for a generation. One bad war will not yield everlasting victory for the progressives.

First, we need a definition of what "conservatism" is, and then show how the Republican Party repudiates that ideal.

I'll start with an easy one. Our own GOP controlled GOA tells us that in 2000 we were 20 Trillion dollars in debt by the same accounting methods that corporation must use by law. They further tell us that by 2006 this debt was up to 65 Trillion. (memory here, but I am close on that 65)

Is running up a debt increase in 6 short years, that is more than double the debt of USA history prior to that, "conservative"? No, it is radical destruction of the USA.

The GOP appears ready to say (for the short term) that BushCo was an aberration; more to the point he was a closet "liberal", so vote against the Dems. If they get away with that we are doomed. (later he will be rehabilitated)

Do you read books that feature Panda jokes? Perhaps one on the cover with a pistol?

A note on Republicans v. Democrats from the hard left. I have read counterpunch.org for a long time, and I always wonder why they drive the wing-nuts to froth at the mouth. The hard core leftists make a lot of sense so much. (plus some nonsense, but who does not?)

They have a post today by a good lefty by the name of Susan Rosenthal, M.D. who wrote a piece entitled, "How Cindy Sheehan Unmasked the Democrats". She claims that the Democrats are just as committed to dominating the Middle East as the Republicans.

The money quote: "We expect to be attacked by our enemies. We don't expect to be betrayed by our friends. Back-stabbing Democrats accomplished what Bush and his supporters could not - they brought Cindy Sheehan to her knees. On Memorial Day, she announced that she was too depleted to continue fighting."

Dr. Rosenthal seems to be waking to the idea that many in the anti-war movement have talked about for a while now; neither party will leave the middle east. Perhaps the Democrats will fool us and renounce the warfare-welfare D.C. culture, stranger things have happened. (I just can think of any right now)

see:

http://www.counterpunch.org/rosenthal06042007.html