Letters to the Editor
ironocrat
Published Letters: 245 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Off topic, but...
[Read the article: Chris Matthews on Fred Thompson's sexiness and smells]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, I'm sure you hear this a lot (at least I hope so), but THANK YOU for being one of the last quality reads on Salon. Every column is spot on and bullshit-free.
Keep up the good work.
-
@Anonymous pothead (you know who you are)
[Read the article: Bloomberg declares his independence]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Always enjoyable seeing every letter you post be about the same topic.
Frankly I think Gore could do without the voters deluded enough to make their choices based on whether or not a candidate will loudly proclaim "Legalize it!"
Granted, I'm sure those voters do number in the HUNDREDS (if they vote), but don't you think we have a few other more important issues to address before we get to marijuana?
-
Agree with Reid
[Read the article: Feingold brings it on]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Censure would be a waste of time, only slightly less so than nonbinding resolutions. Impeachment? Regardless of whether it's right or not (I'm all for it personally), it's politically impossible without several more seats changing colors.
Besides, I'm not sure that more than a quarter or so of Americans really know what censure is anyway.
-
Yep...
[Read the article: Microsoft on Mac gains: Apple's not even close]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A lot of people went to see Norbit too.
-
Gay "marriage"
[Read the article: Don't ask, don't tell]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While I support equality in terms of civil rights afforded by law, I don't feel that the "gay marriage" issue is one that should be pressed by the Democrats. As has been noted, ballot initiatives for it have failed miserably, and we as a country are obviously not truly ready.
I don't think it's entirely rigorous of us to demand withdrawal from Iraq based on the will of the voting populace yet also un-democratically push something like the gay marriage initiatives which are also unpopular.
-
"Their civil war" ...
[Read the article: Brand Petraeus, by the numbers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... which we kindly incubated.
We, the American people, own this war. "We" elected and worse, re-elected George W. Bush knowing full well what we were buying.
Now after being responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, "we" want to leave because we're bored with it. This business of blaming the Iraqis is a bullshit coverup that conveniently lets the American people off the hook.
We bought this situation, and we owe it to the world to do our best to correct it through whatever means necessary - monetary, diplomatic, and/or military. Of course, infinitely more popular is the option where we skip town and cross our fingers.
-
Kalyarn...
[Read the article: Brand Petraeus, by the numbers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Don't get me wrong, I'm conflicted on this issue myself.
I do agree that in our current configuration we can't do a lick of good in Iraq. However, I don't think that means we have earned the right to pack up and head home. Somehow someone needs to make a GOOD plan to get Iraq into a workable state. Maybe this involves the UN and a hefty dose of diplomacy; I don't know, I'm not qualified to seriously make such plans.
My original post was made because so many liberals seem to think that we should just leave because we've done our best and the Iraqis haven't achieved. Well we haven't done our best, and the suggestion that Iraqis are incapable of effective governing or living peaceably delivers a chirp on my racism alarm.
As I implied, I don't personally know the solution here, but I don't believe that's a prerequisite for arguing that SOMETHING better than leaving and saying "too bad" about the subsequent hundreds of thousands of deaths.
-
number1 and Anon
[Read the article: Brand Petraeus, by the numbers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So you claim I am misreading, yet in the same post you say that liberals have in fact said what I discussed? I don't follow what your intent is...
As far as your taunt that I don't personally have a plan, I submit that there are people who know better than myself. My personal plan or evaluation of any ideas is hardly material here, and the same is true for you.
Your capacity for callous disregard is stronger than mine, I suppose. If bailing out to the tune of hundreds of thousands more dead and millions displaced is the "right" answer, then I'd prefer to be wrong.
As others post on Salon, we chose this war, like it or not, but there's a sizeable contingent that would rather begin forgetting it so we can go on talking mortgages and gay marriage.
-
@Trotsky:
[Read the article: Quote of the Day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I understand that someone with such a poor mastery of spelling and grammar of the English language wuold want to skip it."
Those who live in glass houses...
-
It just keeps getting better...
[Read the article: Quote of the Day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"or perhaps you are similar to our dunce president and to stupid to learn anything...."
People, this is why you're wasting your time.
-
Withdraw "now"?
[Read the article: A bipartisan end to the war? Fat chance]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What a joke. There is no "now". The Democrats could cut funding tomorrow and the resulting withdrawal would still take months if not more than a year.
There are hundreds of thousands of troops and contractors there plus billions of tons of equipment and supplies; it's not like they can all hop on United and check their M1 Abrams tanks and come home.
Cutting funds to force this would leave a lot of OUR OWN people in danger and a lot of military equipment in the hands of unknowns.
Face it: The withdrawal of troops has nothing to do with the 50 Democrats in the Senate "growing a spine". We could have 50 Jim Webbs and it wouldn't make a single damn difference. This disaster will be handed over to the next president to do as he or she sees fit.
-
What's the announcement here?
[Read the article: Verizon sees the light, frees its network]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They still use CDMA and they still certify which devices can run on their network.
So you're telling me I can (potentially) pay a shitload more to use any CDMA phone that Verizon says is A-O.K.? I wouldn't say this merits a "Hallelujah."
-
Is this for real?
[Read the article: Facebook: Shut down that privacy-invading ad program!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]WHO CARES??? So what if the government knows you like talked to your mother on the phone earlier.. Big deal. So what if they know who you call. Besides, you are using a private company's telephone network, you are not required to use Verizon. What do you people need to be kept secret so much? Privacy schmivacy!
Regardless, if you're over the age of 20, you're too old to be using a cellular phone.
-
Well...
[Read the article: Today's Democratic debate on NPR]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You know who else used gender-specific language?
Well he was a European dictator in the mid-20th century and his name started with 'H'...