Letters to the Editor
tempus
Published Letters: 446 Editor's Choice: 7
-
@psyberdawg
[Read the article: Mukasey's nomination and the sudden opposition to "waterboarding"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What's the deal with Feingold?
The problem with Feingold, as great as he is on many levels, is that he believe absolutely that the President has the right to appoint ANYTHING and ANYONE to be this or that in the Administration. A pedophile who believe in the fantasy of "consensual" sex with a 5 year old? That's Ok because the President is entitled to appoint anyone he wants. A person that believes that rape is a woman's fault when it happens? That's OK because the President is entitled to appoint anyone he wants. The Congress is merely a robotic rubberstamp, there to vacuously stamp "Approved" on any paper Bush slips in front of them at their desk.
Not sure at all why Feingold even attends appointment hearings since he is of the belief that nothing that comes out in a hearing has any bearing on how the vote should go.
-
Really Glenn? Boy have YOU dropped a ball here
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That is completely irrational. Just because the Federal Government can't do "X" doesn't mean that "X" won't be done. There is such a thing as state government, and municipalities, and they can operate and maintain public school systems, too.
So, a poor state or poor municipality can operate and maintain a public school just as well any rich state or municipality? Or should we just accept that poor folk don't get good edumacations and have to pick strawberries for the rich folk who do get good edumacations?
Or how about this? Just when Global Warming needs decisive action, many people are pushing a candidate that opposes environmental regulation, or regulation of ANY kind. Boy is THAT a good idea! Yeah! Just as we are in danger of wiping out countless species, destroying biodiversity the world over, some people are pushing for a candidate that just shrugs his shoulders and says, "If they want to survive, then they should pay for their protection themselves." Great plan.
I like Paul's stance on war, and that is all. On virtually everything else, he is a disaster: no actual personal privacy rights because the instant a woman becomes pregnant, she becomes state property and a mere incubator. Gay's aren't to have equal rights with everyone else.
It is a funny libertarian that only believes in a very Xtian fundy type of personal freedom and liberty.
-
I'm sorry but you are still wrong here
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, you argue that Paul's argument is constitutional and that regardless of whether it is a good idea to regulate environmental destruction, etc, is immaterial if it is, in fact, unconstitutional. The problem is that he, as Prez, would act immediately as if it is unconstitutional and do everything possible to curtail antitrust regulation, environmental regulation, etc. Besides that, who determines what is and is not "constitutional"? Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and that moron, Thomas. So, whether or not environmental regulation is constitutional depends on the particular immediate makeup of the SCOTUS rather than reality. We already know these clowns have no problem overturning any and all precedents on their personal preference, personal religious views, or political ideology.
Our very survival as a species (and the survival of most others too) is a bit too important to let go on the alter of an extremist personal preference of a Paul or Alito or Roberts. I understand your argument up to this point the SCOTUS has NEVER EVER claimed that the EPA or environmental regulation and the Endangered Species Act are unconstitutional. That is what a few people like Paul and Roberts and Thomas might think but that is pretty much it. I do not doubt at all that Paul would insert yet more like these clowns onto the SCOTUS if any seats open up during his reign. Our system is NOT trustworthy or legitimate since the courts have been packed with ideologues (with abject acquiescence of Democraps in Congress at that).
Finally, is it your position then that it is just tough shit if po' states get po education systems under a Paul regime? That's OK though because at least the argument Paul is using is "constitutional" in its nature? Setup a system of ghetto states and gated community states? I got mine, go get your own loser but not on my dime?
There is too much damage done by Bush-Cheney that needs to be REVERSED besides the wars. Paul wouldn't do it because he is against the Fed doing much of anything. And a Gold Standard again? Coo-koo! Coo-koo!
-
@Mona
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]By the same token, he wants each individual state to decide what its law on marriage will be.
This is bogus. First of all I cannot, for the life of me, understand how ANY state has managed to pass laws that pass constitutional muster that refuse to recognize marriages created in other states. Isn't there a little piece in the Constitution that says this is a no-no? Not on marriage, specifically, but on contracts and such? I cannot see how it is constitutional to not recognize a marriage -a contract, among other things - duly and legally acquired in ANY other state. If it is OK to pass laws not recognizing gay marriages created in other states, then it IS constitutional to not recognize ANY marriage so designated from ANY other state as well: mixed race marriages, for instance, or what if state X has a legal age of marriage of 17 while state Y has it at 15? Does state X get to not recognize the marriage of a 15 year old to "someone" when they move into state X?
This crap was found to be unworkable and unacceptable either when the Articles of Confederation fell apart (as they had to) AND when the states split into Union vs Confederacy. It doesn't work! Sure, there is good to the general idea of a Paul President gutting a lot of bullshit intrusive and overarching Fed control of everything but Paul goes way too far into Confederacy land.