Letters to the Editor
debaser
Published Letters: 652 Editor's Choice: 11
-
@anonymous
[Read the article: Hillary's time of troubles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]you wrote:
"The party is just something to ride his own ambitions on and discard at will."
Do you not remember Clinton throwing Kerry under the bus before the midterm elections for his stupid "get (us) sent to Iraq" joke? Ya know, when the Republican Noise Machine was trying their damndest to turn that into a wedge issue and squeak out a victory? Remember how she demanded he apologize to "the troops"? Sure seemed like she was "discarding the party at will" there doesn't it? That maybe she was only thinking about her image as a staunch defender of the military? It was pretty despicable...but you forgot that episode didn't you?
-
@cythera45
[Read the article: Hillary's time of troubles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's called Party Loyalty...look it up sometime. Where I come from Party means something, you simply do not do that...ESPECIALLY when an election very well could've hinged on that stupid joke.
I was replying to a specific comment that was disingenuous at best, but thanks for the snark...it was much appreciated.
-
@anon.
[Read the article: Hillary's time of troubles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're right, I'm not a Democrat. I'm a socialist.
:)
-
@Creich
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]About the high ticket prices, I was under the impression that they raised the prices in part to curb hooliganism...is this not correct?
Otherwise, I agree with the general point of the article - these games are a daft idea...international exposure is what friendlies are for - like when Aston Villa played Toronto FC last year...everyone seemed to have a great time, and the teams made a bundle of cash to boot...win/win if you ask me.
-
@utdajx
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for the reply, I was basing my opinion mainly on that wonderful series "Real Football Factories", the host consistently credits higher ticket prices with a decrease in violence at the stadia...I suspect it's probably a combination of many factors that led to the decrease.
Nice to see someone who likes MLS here! I'm a neophyte to the league (didn't pay it any attention until Toronto FC started) but I find it to be a surprisingly high level of soccer, and have had nothing short of an amazing time every time I've been to a match.
A few improvements would go a long way to making a better product
1) soccer specific stadia. Salt Lake still plays on the college football field? It looks SO low rent.
2) Field Turf at the very least in every stadium. Again Salt Lake plays on the old school astro turf...controlling the ball is damn near impossible on that stuff.
3) Fix the stupid names. Half are awesome (Houston Dynamo, TFC, Chivas) the other half sound bush league (Galaxy? Columbus Crew?) and Real Salt Lake at least has its heart in the right place.
4) More latino players! Forget Europe, the imports should come from south of us...I suspect the latino population in the US would make up the bulk of the support for the league...and they'd probably be more enamoured with a top flight Mexican player (I can't think of one right now to save my life...sorry!) than Beckham.
well that was one huge tangent there...sorry 'bout that.
cheers,
-
@lynx
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"motto for the team of "One man plays, ten stand around and watch."
thanks for my requisite morning smile...oh man, that's great!
-
anonymous also forgot
[Read the article: Is Hillary Clinton's campaign in trouble?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That debates, while great political theatre, change very little. By and large those who are watching have already made up their minds are tuning in to see if their candidate does well. Instead of a decision making process it's more of a reinforcement process. After all, after how many countless debates we've already witnessed...is there ANYthing more either candidate could realistically add to the conversation? And let's not forget that winning the debate doesn't necessarily correlate into winning the election - John Kerry anyone?
but anyways, Clinton's desire for more debates is almost assuredly because of the free fact time it affords (the fact that she's a good debater, although I don't think she's much better than Obama...see personal biases REALLY temper how one sees a debate...certainly doesn't hurt though)
cheers
-
veep?
[Read the article: Barack Obama wins Virginia; Republican side too close to call]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama/ Wes Clark!!
c'mon...think about it :)
-
enough!
[Read the article: Obama's surge extends down the Potomac]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Alright everybody, enough with the "if my candidate loses, then McCain will win" crap.
McCain will not, I repeat WILL NOT, win the general election!
The Republicans are a bitter hollow shell right now, hell only 30% still like THEIR President! And John "I'm as old as Methuselah" McCain is not the great hope to re-energize the Right...he just isn't. Hell, he hasn't even sewn up his nomination yet against a guy that wants to scrap the IRS and doesn't believe in Evolution!
So debate the merits of your candidate all you want, but please stop with the fear baiting "my candidate is the only one who can stand up to the big bad McCain Machine".
thank you
-
the numbers?
[Read the article: What the Huck?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Correct me if I'm wrong, but while he can't get enough delegates to win, can't he still prevent McCain from getting enough? Wouldn't that mean he could theoretically go to the convention, get the first vote out of the way then go for broke on the second ballot?