Letters to the Editor
Jebbie
Published Letters: 1207
-
-- William Timberman
[Read the article: The New Republic syndrome]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You could very well be correct regarding the original intent of the Congress. Evidence at hand seems to support that theory.
On the other hand, it's also possible that because of the damage done to the Republican party by bringing to light the excesses of the Nixon administration and the resultant changes in our laws, that subsequent administrations thought better of openly flaunting their power in an illegal manner.
This, of course, was all brought to an end by Reagan and his Iran/Contra team - most of which are at least tangentially involved in our current "troubles".
I also agree with you regarding the two-by-four approach to party discipline being needed. The problem now is that it's much harder to discipline the leadership since they control the disciplinary apparatus.
-
-- kimoco
[Read the article: The New Republic syndrome]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Can someone explain why we are using a pastor to deliver a political message?
For the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks.
-
-- T. Suarez
[Read the article: The New Republic syndrome]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps you can tell us how FISA, which was enacted in 1978, was the result of a case which wasn't argued until 1979.
-
-- T. Suarez
[Read the article: The New Republic syndrome]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... but you're missing the point. Greenwald and Salon made a big deal of saying Iran had no intention of producing nukes based on a flawed intelligence assessment.
What proof do you offer to back up your claim that the intelligence assessment is flawed?
El Baradei is saying that Iran is indeed capable of producing them (believe me, six months is the bat of an eyelash in the context of producing nukes) and has shown every intention of doing so, which is why they're not cooperating with IAEA or the European Union.
Once again, you are distorting what ElBaradei said. He did NOT claim that Iran had an ongoing nuclear weapons program (and no one has produced any evidence whatsoever that they currently do). What he said is that if they wanted to make a nuclear weapon, and if Iran were to lock he and his inspectors out of the country, and if they had sufficient centrifuges, etc., they could possibly have a nuclear weapon in 6 months to a year.
His statement was in direct opposition to any country (specifically Israel or the US) attacking Iran and giving the Iranians the excuse to stop any inspections of their nuclear program.
If Willy T. treats you like a kindergartener, perhaps it's because you act like a kindergartener.
-
Oh!, Mona
[Read the article: Hoyer hails FISA bill as "a significant victory for the Democratic Party"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please rein in your subjects.
-
-- William Timberman
[Read the article: Hoyer hails FISA bill as "a significant victory for the Democratic Party"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you can find it, GC!, I'll join you in applauding it. The truth is, in everyone's end is their beginning; we're made the way we're made. Those who admonish may have right on their side, but their admonishments are rarely unalloyed; if you look carefully, some thought for the admonisher's own advantage is always part of the mix.
Put another way, even wisdom isn't innocence, although it's just as welcome. As yours is -- now and always....
I admonish you......English, please!
-
Oh!, Mona
[Read the article: Hoyer hails FISA bill as "a significant victory for the Democratic Party"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks, Mom.
-
-- William Timberman
[Read the article: Hoyer hails FISA bill as "a significant victory for the Democratic Party"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, you gotta watch out for those simulacrums.
-
Willy T.
[Read the article: Hoyer hails FISA bill as "a significant victory for the Democratic Party"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Watch out? As though their beady little eyes didn't surround every civilized campfire in the great American darkness as it is. Maybe it's that Eyes Wide Shut thing that prevents so many folks from seeing them for what they are.
Are simulacrums like snipes or do they just bear a vague semblance?
Remind me to tell you the story about when I went snipe hunting. I ended up with a shitload of onomatopoeias. Yep! Went right up to the bag limit and would have gone farther had they been edible.
Oy.
-
-- Jordan Orlando
[Read the article: Hoyer hails FISA bill as "a significant victory for the Democratic Party"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anyone know?
Yes, but she isn't talking.
-
Willy T.
[Read the article: Hoyer hails FISA bill as "a significant victory for the Democratic Party"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Make that Jebbie. Which brings up another useful tidbit about simulacra. Be careful never to talk to one, even inadvertently. People will suspect the worst of you.
Gulp!
Is that with a Big S, or a little s?
I once was married to a woman with a Big S. Does that count?
-
-- drlimerick
[Read the article: Hoyer hails FISA bill as "a significant victory for the Democratic Party"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]'Way back when, Steny Hoyer represented my dad's second wife in their divorce and, according to my dad, took him to the cleaners. Where's that Steny Hoyer when you need him?
He's still doing the same thing. Taking people to the cleaners.
-
-- Silash
[Read the article: Chris Dodd's speech and a glimmer of hope for stopping the FISA bill]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I understand the points you're trying to make (hearsay shouldn't be [and isn't] permitted in court; the victim's posthumous testimony secured first degree murder instead of a lesser charge). I still believe that if the victim filed for a police report, that report should be admissible evidence, even though the accused cannot confront the accuser. I think this sets a dangerous precedent that dead people's testimony can't be used.
Those police reports were not given under penalty of perjury and there has been no opportunity for anyone named in those reports to give either exculpatory evidence or mitigation regarding the contents of the reports.
For example, anyone, anyone at all, can file a police report which claims you (the royal You) are a child molester. The person filing the report presents as his/her sole evidence, that he/she personally saw you (again the royal You) molesting a child. There are no other witnesses and no complaint from the child. As luck would have it, the person filing the report is killed in an automobile accident the day after he/she files the report.
Should the State investigate the claim of child molestation?
If not, why not?
Should the State file charges against you if that report is the only evidence of child molestation they have and then be allowed to introduce the report as evidence against you?
If not, why not?
-
Willy T. - Fill your hands you sonofabitch!
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann: Then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In case anyone is wondering, that's in response to WT's earlier statement about fat men which was taken a Ned pepper line in the movie "True Grit".