I have your citation at:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/01/various/permalink/f0d5ecce17468a97c5953b69e35c6be9.html

I've been finding myself more and more angry, not with Bucko but with myself for taking the bait and continuing to respond to his bizarre opinions. He's just being true to himself as a kook with an internet account.

Odd, you are just like LWM. You slander others and call them 'kooks' but you have no real policy positions that you can defend. You two are clones.

The two of you 'defend' your position by attacking the other person --- and that is kook stuff. In fact both of you have bragged about that often. You have told others that this is politics and it is ruff and tumble, or words to that effect.

Then you whine about me. Bull.

Jury of twelve (The "Cabal") convicts bucky on his own words.

Convicted of telling the truth? Yes, I do that.

By the way, you only have 7 in the cabal and that includes sock-puppets. Did you hire the others?

I have your citation at:

I can not read that here with Firefox as it foes off screen. However, why do you think I care? If you want to talk, post in the current thread. I do not want to go back three or more threads to hear you say that man has no free will.

Sell that to LWM, he will believe anything that I do not!

Those dumb Democrats have no balls. Why we just use misdirection on them everytime and they don't have any idea of what to do but what we tell them. They are sooo dumb, why we just sent a bunch of them to visit Iraq to bring back reports on how well things are going with the Surge. See, we told them the Surge would work, just misdirect and screw them up!

You go back on ignore after this but I have repeatedly told you that this is between you and your own right wing anarchists, anti-statists and right wing libertarians. I give you links to try and get you to go away and fight the good fight where the fight really is but you just won't take the hint.

You are the one hurling lies because you hate freedom. You stated that you could not agree with one position of Ron Paul. that would included following the constitution, bring the troops home, and the rule of law.

No wonder all you have is hate and invective --- how else can you defend your brand of totalitarianism?

Far left or far right --- hate mongers who want to kill, in order to make others do as they want.

That is just silly! You are the one who returned to the other thread and then asked for a citation. I have complied.

Maybe this is shorter:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/01/various/view/?show=all

You slander others and call them 'kooks' but you have no real policy positions that you can defend. You two are clones.

You keep waving this statement around like some talisman allowing you to avoid answering any and all comments or questions you deem not necessary. As it has like so many other times, this little sidetrack involves your idiotic statements concerning Ron Paul and his "pure-as-the-driven-snow" political positions.

But I have to ask, why isn't a reputable, knowledgeable, and articulate source sufficient? The comments I cited and the link I posted come from an expert on the subject of extremism. He doesn't have an ax to grind or any history of being biased. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, waste our time coming up with "real policy positions ..." concerning Ron Paul?

All that one needs to know is at the site I referenced ...

As President, Bush has an enormous advantage. He can announce that his top intelligence people don't believe that any Democratic plan will work to protect us. The average American may no longer trust W and may no longer buy into his threats but look at the way the media reacted to the off-hand remark that the head of Homeland Security was concerned in his gut that we might be attacked this summer. They went bonkers. None of these guys are reliable. The remark was clearly made as a way of softening up the public for the passage of this law. Still, it worked because none of the "journalists" covering that story even questioned why he made the remark.

W has done little to protect us over the past 6 years and endangered us by fighting the war in Iraq. As a result, even Democrats believe we could be struck at any time. So, after the continuing failure of this administration, no Democrat wants to have something happen over the summer and have it blamed on them.

On the verge of gaining real power in 2008, the Democrats must accept that the threat of terrorism is the last great power that W holds. It may endanger our civil liberties, but it is very real.

Ultimately, the Democrats are trying to successfully gain power in order to achieve the best possible ends. They aren't perfect but, most importantly, they are not in control yet and, if we want them to be able to gain control, there are some short-term sacrifices that must be made.

crypto - "adjective 2. secret or hidden; not publicly admitted: a crypto Nazi.

The Democrats who voted Yes are crypto necons. Their votes indicate that they are more interested in protecting Bush's quasi-neocon empire than the Constitutional republic to which they swore allegiance and promised to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I see little difference between a breach of one's oath to defend the Constitution and a breach of a witness's oath to tell the truth except the degree of culpability. The former is far more threatening to the People and the country. If perjury is a felony than breach of an oath to defend the Constitution is treason. Those guilty of a breach of oath should be held accountable during their lifetimes just in case the atheist are right.