Letters to the Editor
capecoral
Published Letters: 39 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Clinton silence on Reid
[Read the article: And the winner is?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I watched only the first half-hour of the "debate." The participants know they have sixty seconds to answer the question. When they hear the word "Iraq," they have already practiced a sixty-second response, no matter what the specific question was. Senator Clinton seems programmed like a robot (or maybe overly cautious) and she wouldn't dare to veer from her scripted sixty-second Iraq response. Or maybe she thought there was nothing to gain from either supporting Reid or criticizing him. But I think the programmed response is the more likely reason she said nothing to support Reid.
Commenting on the hedge fund responses. They both sounded surprised by the questions, so they didn't have a sixty-second response practiced. They tried to "wing" it, and came up flat.
So much for thinking on your feet. Why not have a prepared response on the benefits of a capitalist economy that you can regurgitate when necessary so you can appeal to a broader audience? If those were prepared responses, they need editing.
-
pure stonewalling
[Read the article: "I stand by Al Gonzales"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This will end like Nixon: with a pardon or two or three. Gonzo will eventually leave (resignation or impeachment), but the administration will drag this out so Gonzo can draw the fire for as long as possible. The administration doesn't want a replacement AG who might appoint a special prosecutor (or aid the on-going investigations in any way).
The Democrats will continue to investigate all of these matters and then Gonzo will be pardoned by January 2009.
If they have committed felonies, the end game for the president and the vice-president will be to avoid getting convicted themselves.
Pres will pardon the veep, then resign and get pardoned by the next Gerald Ford, or maybe there will be some tragedy that will overtake all of this.
-
In the end
[Read the article: "I stand by Al Gonzales"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hope that Cheney resigns before Bush then. If felonies have been committed, let's find out before they can run out the clock.
-
Thompson shoe in for nomination
[Read the article: Fred Thompson, "tough guy" and "folksy cultural conservative"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I grew up a conservative, and I have lived in several red states. Don't dismiss my opinion because of this (the last Republican presidential candidate I voted for was Bush in '88, no way in '92).
This Fred Thompson character is the perfect candidate for the Republicans. Once the Republican propagandists get behind him, I think he's a shoe in to win the nomination.
The conventional wisdom seems to be the dems will win in '08 because of Iraq. The conventional wisdom will be wrong if the dems aren't ready to fight as dirty as the republicans will with this Thompson "tough-guy, conservative" character as america's hero. The dem nominee will be portrayed as anti-american, and the republican propagandists will be very good at this.
Fight dirty or lose.
-
Candidates are a null set
[Read the article: "A null set"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Who is Romney trying to impress?
non sequitur
1. Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.
[Origin: < L: it does not follow]
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
A thought that does not logically follow what has just been said: “We had been discussing plumbing, so her remark about astrology was a real non sequitur.”
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Romney's premise is a big fat lie.
And the way these candidates pander to the base-- the null set describes their lack of a set of real balls (except for maybe Paul).
Most of them wouldn't even give a straight answer to the Libby pardon question. "Let's wait for the appeal process!" B.S. Libby won't win his appeal. Just answer the question.
It will be even more fun when Fred Thompson's character and maybe Newt join in the debates. Watch them tell us that everyone should obey the rule of law but them.
-
Apologizing for our evolution
[Read the article: Healthy, my ass]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am sorry that our mammal brains and sex drives have evolved over millions of years. My brain tells me what is sexually attractive, but it isn't easy to explain. I'm sorry that animals were having sex before they invented language.
But for your own sake, it is a good idea to eat a healthy diet.
And you are probably more sexually attractive when you are healthy instead of sick.
-
We don't like her.
[Read the article: We'll always hate Paris]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's why we want her to sit in jail instead of her home. It appears she has very little regard for something as basic as motor-vehicle laws, and for all of us on the road every day, how else to keep her off the road, but put her in jail? Teach her a hard lesson that she can't buy her way out of.
-
right to the point.
[Read the article: Paris isn't free -- and neither are we]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wilson's article missed it. We want her ass in jail. Too bad if it's overcrowded. Jail sucks.
-
why smile?
[Read the article: Marginalized]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The fake smile is what you do when you get photographed. I was never good at it, so people think I'm "unhappy."
Politicians have to be seen smiling all the time, or all the children will think something is wrong. You're not smiley! I can't vote for you!
But how stupid are you to think you should smile when you are giving/receiving a report about Virginia Tech? The smiles are much more disturbing than the AG's place in the picture. He ain't going nowhere until January, 2009.
-
Where are the Dem candidates on Iran?
[Read the article: The NYT on the administration's "debate" over whether to attack Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Especially the two most likely nominees: Hillary and Obama?
Are they for war with Iran, or do they fear being attacked for their views? We should be hearing more from the Dem leadership in Congress, too.
Also, if enough Americans favor more wars against people not like them, or just don't give a damn about anything but themselves, little will be done to stop this madness by those mentioned above. The only hope then to prevent war would be true heroic action from people in positions of power.
America is not Germany in the 1930's, at least not yet.