Letters to the Editor
Margalis
Published Letters: 614 Editor's Choice: 16
-
The good old 101st Keyboard Warrior Brigade
[Read the article: More cruelty from right-wing crackpots]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Most troops that I've talked to hate these clowns, because they understand real combat is not some dumb movie.
Count the shots and rush him reloading. LOL. Counting shots is real easy when bullets are bouncing around and people are screaming - and of course all these college kids can instantly recognize the gun and know the exact magazine size, as well as how many shots he has already squeezed off.
You are hiding behind a desk and the sound dies down - now what? Is he just switching hands? Reloading? Walking around?
Most of these fuckers would shit themselves instantly in this situation. Why didn't they rush him? Because they didn't want to die? How is that for an explanation assholes?
It's easy to be brave when you are sitting at a keyboard no? A military man will tell you that you never know how you are going to react until it happens.
One of the commentators compared it to standing in front of his wife when he heard a dog growling - lol. We should give him the medal of honor.
-
Obviously Clinton is behind the scandal
[Read the article: Alberto Gonzales testifies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shooter proved it. Not only is the Clinton case a perfect analogy, I would go further and claim that Clinton is actually Gonzo in disguise!
I think being shooter must be a blast. No matter what happens, change the subject, point out that somebody else did something vaguely similar, complain about bias, say "what's your point", etc. I'm sure Bush caught on camera sucking the stem cells out of fetuses wouldn't phase him at all. "What, you guys are for abortion so what the hell does it matter if Bush sucks the marrow out of some fetuses!"
Since shooter is defending Gonzo, I'm going to assume that he feels Clinton's behavior was a-ok. Makes sense right?
In all seriousness, no reasonable person fires someone just because an underling tells them to. Typically you build up a portfolio that illustrates performance issues, you have informal discussions, etc.
It's one thing if you are the CEO of a company and you have final signoff on laying off some assembly line workers. But firing a USA is the equivalent of a CEO firing the head of a branch office. Nobody thought to ask "uh...why are we firing these people exactly?" It *never* came up? LOL.
In his emails Sampson stated there would be political fallout. Surely Gonzo realized that too. It didn't occur to him to say "hey guys, we might get some heat over this so maybe you should tell me why we are firing these guys before I sign off on it."?
-
Ha ha ha shooter why bother?
[Read the article: Alberto Gonzales testifies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Some people here obviously don't get that you are a gimmick poster but I do. I enjoy your posts for what the are - obvious parody.
There literally isn't a single thing anyone can point out about a Republican that you can't bend over backwards to excuse. It's really brilliant satire, and I salute you for it.
Why should the Attorney General know anything about the firing of USAs? Why that doesn't make any sense at all!!!
Keep up the good work, I really enjoy it. You should get an Onion column like the old "Ask a Worker Bee."
-
What hypocrisy????
[Read the article: Charles Krauthammer takes rank hypocrisy to new lows]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's review:
1. Guy scores cheap political points blabbing about VT shootings and realting them to his agenda.
2. Guy then complains that people make cheap political points out of VT shootings.
Hypocrisy? I just don't see it! What are you on about Glenn??
Also some other people rushed to make political points too - which obviously makes Charles not a hypocrite somehow! The logic is obvious but I'll leave it to the reader.
---
Lollers. Some people need to crack open the old dictionary. Saying one thing and doing the opposite - yeah that's pretty much the definition.
-
The Lynch stuff was so obviously manufactured
[Read the article: The Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch frauds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As soon as it happened we kept hearing stories about how Lynch bravely defended herself by shooting a horde of Iraqis before being overtaken.
How did we know that? There was no radio contact and no first-hand account. Knowing that information seemed literally impossible.
The people reporting that didn't ask the most basic question: how could anyone *possibly* know what happened at all?
-
Elephantman betrays his stupidity
[Read the article: The Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch frauds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now I get it. When the media was pandering with the fabulist Jessica Lynch coverage that seemed to be pro-military, they were all idiots. Now, with the media pandering the newest Jessica Lynch story with an anti-military slant, they are once again the gold standard of what is right and proper.
See, here is the difference: the original Jessica Lynch coverage was a purposeful fabrication - the coverage now is simply of what actually transpired in reality.
It's too bad that reality has an anti-military slant, but thems the breaks.
This is why people like Elephantman are so angry and confused. Reality is biased against them. In they eyes of Elephantman, the fact that reality makes the military look bad is somehow a legitimate complaint of bias.
In Elephantman's world, "fair and balanced" means balancing actual facts with right-wing propaganda.
The implicit argument he is making is that covering actual things that really happened is no more justifiable than covering propaganda and invention. They are apparently equally newsworthy.
What differentiates the new coverage of Tillman and Lynch from the old is that the new coverage appears based in reality. For people like Elephantman that is quite an affront to the sensitive egos they've carefully protected with an elaborate fantasy-land.