Sandy wrote:I took it as name calling, and given that Pravda was a Soviet Communist publication, a backhanded attempt to call me a Communist.
No, I wasn't calling you a communist, only implying your ability to disseminate rhetoric would make you a good fit for editing Pravda, such as was displayed with your ""Extremist Right Wing Southerner's Interpretation of the Constitution and the Kennedy Assassination". For one, I don't even know what in the world is meant by a "extremist right wing southern's interpretation of the Kennedy Assassination". The thing I was taking issue with was the attempt to push off the Kennedy killing onto the political right when it was a guy associated with the political left that killed him. The political environment in Dallas was irrelevant to the fact that a commie killed Kennedy.
I do understand that all it takes to have an "extremist right wing southerner's interpretation of the constitution" is to not believe in a so-called "living" Constitution. Interestingly enough, there are a rather significant number of non-southerner's who don't accept as valid the idea of a "living" Constitution.
Sandy wrote:Extremist right wing conservative" is a legitimate description of a particular political position, similar to the views that ET shares. I could just as easily have said "Tea Partier" but that is less definitive.
Oh, really? I say that's a bunch of

. You nor anyone else here has EVER been able to explain the difference between a "conservative", a "right wing conservative" and an "extreme right wing conservative". I have no faith you can produce a coherent, logical definition to define the positions an "extremist right wing conservative" holds versus those of a "plain ole conservative".
You claim the use of such a phrase is a "legitimate description of a particular political position". I challenge you to list those positions and explain why they are "extreme".....but I doubt you can or will. Your use of the adjective "extremist" is just an attempt to dismiss any positions with which you don't agree by implying that they are irrational and therefore not worthy of addressing the substance.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.