Letters to the Editor
Margalis
Published Letters: 614 Editor's Choice: 16
-
We need a man's man
[Read the article: Make room for Daddy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Remember, they looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes, and in two minutes, they released the hostages.
Of course, the funny part here is that George Bush was the man's man they were looking for.
I was reading an old thread on FreeRepublic an hour or so ago, about Bush's flight deck performance. It was full of:
"Bush is a great MAN and a great President."
"Bush looked great in that flight suit. The MAN makes the clothes!" (I am not adding the capitalization, by the way)
"Bush is what we need - a man's man."
At least half the comments commented on what an amazing MAN Bush was.
So what happened? Bush was the James Dean cowboy type that Camille Paglia (genius that she is) swooned over. Weren't our enemies supposed to look into his eyes and back down?
All we've heard about Bush is what a great MAN he is - so manly! And he has failed utterly.
But rather than learn from their mistakes, the Republican solution to electing a man's man that turned out to be an idiot man-child is to...wait for it...
elect another man's man.
What is the old saying about the definition of stupidity? Repeating the same actions and expecting different results?
Electing a tough guy didn't work - what we need to do is elect a tough guy! That's our new improved plan - same as the old inferior plan.
-
@kmdawson, your Supreme Court issue is mostly red herring
[Read the article: The right's explicit and candid rejection of "the rule of law"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, the Supreme Court does not issue directives.
Second, we have three branches of government. Do I really need to get into separation of powers, checks and balances and all that?
Congress passes laws.
The President enforces them.
The Supreme Court strikes them down, upholds them or clarifies them.
(Short version)
The system is not perfect. Sometimes bad laws are passed. Sometimes they are executed poorly. Sometimes the court makes poor decisions. Such things happen.
However simply throwing your hands in the air and declaring a dictatorship is not a solution. I have exactly as much right to be a dicatator as Bush does.
The argument being made here is that in some circumstances the President should act as dictator - and the President alone decides what those circumstances are. Convenient. That is a far cry from the Court sometimes straying its bounds a bit.
For one thing, nobody argues the Court should simply contradict the Constitution as it sees fit, whenever it feels like it. That is very much the argument being made here.
Imagine that as a serious argument:
"Sometimes, the Constitution just doesn't cut it. In those situations, the Supreme Court should feel free to issue ruling that explicitly contradict the Constitution. Furthermore, in those cases the Supreme Court can pass laws and enfore them. Or simply enforce laws that don't exist. The Supreme Court decides when this behavior would be appropriate."
We would all laugh. But that is the same logic.
I think what you are guilty of here is very black and white thinking, not distinguishing between very different shades of gray.
Hey, sure a dictatorship is bad but a flawed system is bad - so they are both equally bad!
No. 90 degrees is hot and 2 million degrees is hot, but they aren't the same. Losing a toe sucks and losing your head sucks but losing your head sucks a lot more.
I see this sort of logic way too often. A and B are both vaguely similar so they might as well be the same. Wrong.
Our system is not perfect but it is a far cry from the absolute dictatorship being advocated.
-
Shorter Shooter:
[Read the article: GOP presidential debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's "sour grapes" to point out that the entire platform of your opponents is a lie.
---
Bush was elected based on his "manliness" and that's what these clowns are largely running on as well. Pointing out that they are feeble idiots is entirely fair game.
-
Amen RealName
[Read the article: Make room for Daddy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Conan, what is the best thing in life?
Ron Paul is funny - he is one of those people who is basically no longer a Republican because the Republican party packed up and moved away. Somehow he is the outcast for spouting what as late as 10 years or so ago were the core values of the party.
-
No news source is unbiased
[Read the article: Who funds and runs the Politico?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But some are less biased than others.
That sort of logic, that all news sources are biased to some degree and hence equivalent, is 3rd grade level reasoning at best.
90 degrees is hot. 2 million degrees is hot. Would you rather stand outside in 90 degree temperature or 2 million degree temperature? Not a trick question.
When someone gets an arm blown off do you respond with "well yesterday I cracked a nail?" I'm guessing no.
Just because two things are vaguely similar does not make them equivalent and interchangeable, nor does it make the far worse of those things easily dismissible.
I realize this argument requires a level of logic and understanding of at least middle school level, so I expect that most of the people I'm talking to are utterly lost.
There are degrees of bias, just as there are degrees of nearly anything.
-
I LOL'd
[Read the article: Neocons' rejection of the rule of law extends to the personal level]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Scooter Libby's case was another one in which a policy dispute was criminalized. That kind of criminalization is a very, very big deal."
Little bit early for revisionist history don't you think?
Perjury is a "policy dispute"? And perjury over treasonous actions to boot.
Isn't it odd that perjury over a blowjob is grounds for impeachment but perjury related to treason is A-OK?
Elephantman's "rebut" included exactly zero facts. Watching his clown show is highly enjoyable.
-
Shorter RealName and Elephantman:
[Read the article: Neocons' rejection of the rule of law extends to the personal level]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Glenn is wrong but we can't or won't say why."
Convincing!
"U GUYZ R WRNG!" is a powerful statement but given that Libby was already found guilty and Wolfowitz admitted his own guilt you'll have to do a bit better than that.
Call me crazy but if you want to claim that someone is incorrect you might try pointing out *why* exactly. I'm strange like that.
Logic - it's not just for 5th graders any more.