Letters to the Editor
Margalis
Published Letters: 614 Editor's Choice: 16
-
@Jordon Orlando
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Their "grand plan" is simply that they agree with and support the legislation.
That's my interpretation as well. I'll quote myself:
http://margalis.blogspot.com/2007/10/democrats-master-plan.html
If this is truly their plan then they are so tone-deaf you have to feel sorry for them. But I suspect there is no grand master plan at work. The simpler explanation is that some Democrats are in the pockets of lobbyists, some are frightened children who cave when threats of terrorism are invoked and some are just plain incompetent and foolish.
When Democrats voted for the recent FISA "fixes" the reasons they gave were absurd: We had to pass something, anything, regardless of what it was! We were told that the capital itself was about to be attacked and the only way to prevent that was to pass the bill! We went to secret meetings and got secret info that we can't describe in any way but that totally convinced us! We met with administration lawyers who assured us the bill was fine! We were in a hurry to go on vacation and didn't have time to read and understand the bill before we voted on it!
Some of these people are just plain gullible and not bright. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me a thousand times...then what?
In the end though I think motivations are not that relevant. The bottom line is that the Democrats are enabling Bush, *why* they are doing that makes for interesting discussion but doesn't change *what* they are doing at all.
-
Hello I'm lost
[Read the article: Dumbledore? Gay. J.K. Rowling? Chatty.]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Can you direct me to the tiny corner of the internet that is not obsessed with Harry Potter?
-
Some people just aren't smart, part 583
[Read the article: Anonymous Liberal for Glenn Greenwald: FISA reform and the honesty gap]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And if you carefully read my comments, you'll see I never suggested a "thesis" of any kind for AL's post.
AL:
So I guess your point is, that although the country is going down the toilet and representatives from both American political parties are complicit in its demise, since Democrats are slightly nicer people, we can all breathe easier.
Intellectual coherence for the win!
He did not suggest a thesis, he merely suggested a central point, which is like totally different somehow!
LOL. Ugh. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
-
The ultimate solution
[Read the article: Anonymous Liberal for Glenn Greenwald: FISA reform and the honesty gap]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is to pick up a gun and shoot someone in the face. Or run for office. One of the two. Anything else is just as susceptible to the old "why aren't you taking action?!" troll.
-
"Look at the monkey!"
[Read the article: Chris Dodd's leadership vs. Clinton and Obama's game playing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How many times here will people fall for that?
---
Anyway, good for Obama? In a way. Regardless of why he is now opposed to the bill, even if just because he thinks it will garner votes. That said it would be nice if he were opposed for more principled reasons, but take what you can get.
As I wrote on my blog (blogwhoring ahoy!), the best message we can send politicians is that there is money and votes in defending the Constitution.
-
nabalzbbfr is stuck in a corner
[Read the article: Anonymous Liberal for Glenn Greenwald: The raw politics of telecom immunity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have to admit, I'm the first to say "don't feed the trolls" but this is priceless. He's actually trying to make a reasonable argument -- but can't come up with anything at all. It's almost sad. Is he going to quote the Constitution or some law at some point? Probably not.
All his reasoning amounts to "just because." It's no deeper than that. Now he's on to blathering about Marxism, falling back on purely reactionary spew in place of any logical argument. Maybe if he calls people Marxists and Communists enough times he'll magically be right and the Contitution will rewrite itself to say what he pretends it says?
As Judge Mukasey eloquently pointed out during his Senate confirmation hearings, the Executive Branch's Article II powers can be very plausibly argued to comfortably accommodate this surveillance authority.
If it can be argued, why *don't* they argue that in court? The Bush people are very good at arguing via press release, but they steadfastly refuse to make those arguments in court -- the one place those arguments matter.
It's really this simple: If you believe the telecoms were acting legally, argue that in court; you might even win. Courts decide guilt, not Congress and not the President. This is 5th-grade level stuff.
There are already frivolous lawsuit laws in place. The telecoms asked that the cases be dismissed and were denied.
-
Don't look at me, I hate Jews
[Read the article: Journalism and its discontents]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If saying something bad about Israel is all it takes then sign me up.
-
There *is* a downside
[Read the article: Anonymous Liberal for Glenn Greenwald: The raw politics of telecom immunity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]People stay home instead of voting.
-
How we know
[Read the article: Anonymous Liberal for Glenn Greenwald: Giuliani on torture]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The basis explanation for it all. We have a guy in our possession and we KNOW that he KNOWS about some imminent attack. And we must get that information. How do we know that he knows?
http://margalis.blogspot.com/2007/10/just-how-dumb-do-they-think-we-are.html
http://margalis.blogspot.com/2007/09/hypothetical-questions.html
Short answer: Lasso of Truth.