Letters to the Editor
shooter242
Published Letters: 1590
-
Re: Re: Shooter
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lincoln once said that a house divided against itself cannot stand,--Anonymous
That is indeed a real problem. The current one extends all the way back to the 2000 election, and has been exacerbated by the freeforall that is current politics. ie. the Supremes ruled 7-2 that Gore's plan was unequal treatment, while the left continues to point to the 5-4 inability to produce a remedy. the NYTimes and Miami Herald combined to discover that under the election rules Bush won, but the left doesn't care.
So, what to do? I have no idea. If your side wants to play spoiler every time a ruling doesn't go your way, we'll likely end up with lot's of court battles and stalled Government. Luckily, that's what conservatives like, so I guess it's up to you guys.
-
@ Denning
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So, there you have it. Blinded by hate. What's all these crocodile tears over our country then?
Wouldn't you just flush the constitution down the toilet if it meant defeating the democrats? -- DenningLOL. It's true. Liberals have no sense of humor. Well, I take that back. I enjoy listenting to the "Lionel" show on Air America. He is a very funny guy.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, hysteria reigns. Nobody needs to flush anything to defeat Democrats, they don't stand for anything. When forced to take real live positions, they are usually absurd enough to easily counter. The last election was a combination of Republican Pork, Maccaca, and Foley. Democrats didn't win, Republicans lost.
You might also consider that when it comes to thinking outside the box for political chicanery, Democrats set the standard. Foley is a great example. The chutzpah that sent Foley to resign over a questionable email, while keeping a Democrat that actually had gay sex with a page, held a press conference about it, and was re-elected multiple times is just stunning. Congratulations, those are the people you're defending. Yuck.
-
Heh.
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This... the NYTimes and Miami Herald combined to discover that under the election rules Bush won, but the left doesn't care. is a lie. -- Wabanatta_3
Oh? Then get off your ass and prove it.
-
Well gosh! Glenn illustrates the idea that two wrongs DO make a right.
[Read the article: Michelle Malkin's hate sites]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One of the lowest and most dishonest tactics is to attempt to smear and demonize a blog by exploiting statements left on the blog by commenters.....Glenn
Translation: Yeah it's nasty and unfair and dishonest.... but I'm going to do it anyway, so there. Hubba, hubba.
-
It's called "an Eye for an Eye"
[Read the article: Michelle Malkin's hate sites]
[Read more letters about this article: Here](1) Standard X is dishonest and corrupt.
(2) Those who advocate and apply Standard X to others ought to have that standard applied to them.
That is not all that complicated.No, it's not complicated. Retribution and revenge are as old as mankind. Congratulations Glenn, you've just sunk to the level of terrorists demanding their own pound of flesh for slights real or imagined. And who says the left has no principles? Tsk.
-
Wabanatta_3 Let's see what you've got, bud.
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My response has as much evidence as your accusation. You first troll. -- Wabanatta_3
OK let's see if you can do anything besides being a jerk. Here's the WaPo article conceding Bush would have won even if the limited recounts went ahead. Keep in mind that under Florida election law only machine counts are valid.
In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts -- one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court -- had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html
Now let's see if you can anything besides whine woulda, coulda, shoulda. Heh.
-
Glenn Greenwald, pit yorkie.
[Read the article: Joe Klein and Beltway seriousness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lord, can this get any more trivial? Serious, credible, gravitas, who cares? There is always going to be a word to describe people that are interested in what's possible rather than fantasies of political purity.
Which brings me to the question of whether Glenn has been specific about what to do in Iraq? If we pull out is the resulting killing acceptable? Does he care?
-
re: How do our troops prevent killings?
[Read the article: Joe Klein and Beltway seriousness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just in case this is a serious question (Dirks has no sense of humor, ironic or otherwise), exactly the same way that police deter crime. Do I need to explain how that works to you?
-
Then head 'em up and move 'em out. ALL of them.
[Read the article: Joe Klein and Beltway seriousness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Soldiers are not policemen. Their primary purpose is to take and control ground and they do so by killing anyone who stands to prevent them from doing so.--Dirks
Deterrence. That's exactly what our troops are doing in Iraq, as well as the South Korean Border, Germany during the Cold War, and the nine years we had troops in Bosnia. We have over 700 bases and 250k uniform personnel.
The reality is that we ARE the worlds policeman, and it's a failure of imagination to envision what would would happen otherwise. But.....
As I have said so often, and I'm surprised you don't jump on the bandwagon we should pull out ALL the troops overseas and let the world sort itself out. As pointed out such an action would
* Eliminate American casualties and American killings,
* Save so much money all our debt could be paid off,
* And the world would love us.
There is no better outcome possible. So... are you people "serious" or not? -
So who is going to answer the question?
[Read the article: Joe Klein and Beltway seriousness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've posited a scenario for minding our own business, saving American lives, putting our fiscal house in order, and regaining the world's respect... yet I've heard absolutely no reason why it wouldn't work, or why we shouldn't do it. Why is that? If you people want to pull troops out of Iraq, fine. Why not extend that to the rest of the world?
Apparently
* liberals WANT to be the world's policeman,
* liberals aren't interested in funding Social Security and Medicare,
* aren't really interested in what the world thinks of us.
* or care about the troops lives.
If that's the case, nearly every argument for leaving Iraq is negated. Is this a colossal case of hypocrisy? I guess so. Now you know why people like Klein call you folks "unserious".