Letters to the Editor
bucky1
Published Letters: 1714
-
-- Kitt a confirmed moron
[Read the article: "Fringe liberal bloggers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why are you so determined to continue embarrassing yourself? And why do you continue to whine about insults and invective, when it is you who puts out ridiculous insults
God damn fool; can you not see the references on a thread about old hippies? Fuck man, "grasshopper" was not an insult and "little one" came from the same show.
You can not sell that load of codswallop that I am the attack dog --- it is plain to all that you, LWM, and Paul have that sown up. I do slam back --- but not with "grasshopper" or "little one". Go ask your momma where "grasshopper" came from and what context it was used in.
Damn, fools to the left of me; morons to the right of me ...
(rephrased song, if you must know)
-
-- AnnieW and sarcasm
[Read the article: Face of a psychopath]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Good Lord, the whole point is NO ONE is a Ward Churchill follower. Well, expect for that one anarchist that chimed in, but who cares?
Annie, how about getting it straight. I am an Anarcho-Capitalist.
I defend Churchill's academic freedom as do these people:
"... Public intellectuals including Derrick Bell, Noam Chomsky, Richard Falk, Howard Zinn, and Immanuel Wallerstein published an open letter in the NY Review of Books denouncing CU's actions ..." as you would know if you had taken the time to read the link.
The link led to a real left-wing site, so left wing that they are not Democratic Party shills but are real leftists. I like them - not plastic; real.
http://www.counterpunch.org/saito06212007.html
If you will claim that Zinn and Chomsky also do not count, then you are hopeless as a 'liberal'. There are two issues; defending academic freedom and fairness. Anyone can at least support the former.
-
No one here is much of a "follower" of anyone. ...
[Read the article: Face of a psychopath]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LWM: "We don't even wait for Glenn to tell us who to vote for."
Ah, a cabal member is ready to announce an endorsement. Good for you. Who can you support for president this cycle?
-
House Vote on Condemning Ahmadinejad
[Read the article: Face of a psychopath]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This afternoon the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to urge the United Nations to indict the President of Iran for inciting genocide. The charge is over a disproven allegation (based on a mistranslation) that Ahmadinejad was called for the destruction of Israel.
Only two members of the House voted against the resolution, Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich. Eleven members voted “present” indicating a weak opposition. Usually-consistently-antiwar Rep. Barbara Lee supported the hawks in this vote.
(from antiwar.com --- Eric Garris on the blog)
-
Democrat Dennis Kucinich
[Read the article: Face of a psychopath]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think I will amend my list of candidates that I can support in the 2008 election cycle to Ron Paul (R), Al Gore (D), and Democrat Dennis Kucinich (D).
I add Kucinich since ending the war on drugs is on his platform as well as his being anti-war.
If he would add no income tax (as a starter) for any family making $100,000 or less, he might actually win. Hell, almost any Democrat that came out and said that the working poor should not pay income tax would win.
-
re: @bucky1
[Read the article: Face of a psychopath]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kucinich is good in a lot of ways, but no way we'll see a lot more of people like him. He couldn't be elected almost anywhere else, unfortunately. Having said that, of course I agree with his vote, personally.
I hear what you are saying.
It is hard to get some folks to realize that what one would personally like to see happen is different from the hard-scrabble of partisan politics. I saw others have at you for suggesting your view of what is possible this election cycle as well as general strategy. The main thing is one must be "for" something or someone as you can not win by just being negative; this is just old time political wisdom of the Tip O'Neal school.
Having said that, I am still fearful that we will elect a Democrat neo-con as a reaction to the horrible policies of the present administration. That might be even worst that what we have; I hope not. But some here do not think that there are Democrats that agree with our overall foreign policies of the last several decades.
I am anti-war. That includes Democratic wars as well as Republican wars; and it includes the "war on drugs", "war on crime", "war on smoking", and "war on damn near anything". To get people to see that these wars are bad even if your side wins is problematical in our country today.
-
Although I disagree ...
[Read the article: Face of a psychopath]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]William: " ...Although I disagree with bucky1 that the Democrats, even those who feel they have something to lose by speaking and acting more forcefully against the war now, will be just as bad as GWB ...
They do not have to be as bad as GWB to still be very bad. I am just warning that power corrupts and the Democrats have proven to be warlike themselves.
There is an outside chance that any given Democrat could use the presidents set by the fools in charge now to go even further down the road to Orwell-ville. Let us pray that does not happen.
-
precedent
[Read the article: Face of a psychopath]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... Our "fringe" element, the Democratic Party's base, does not walk in lock-step with anyone, not even with a Democratic president. ...
You miss the point. There is no "we" in the base; no unified whole to stop politicians. The party leadership after election will run the country and history suggests that Democrats also like war for many of the same reasons Republicans like war.
Clinton used the military, as did Truman. The idea to hold on to is that the GOP did not corner the market on evil. There is plenty in both parties --- after all, the neo-cons came from the Democratic Party in the first place. (or at least many did)