Letters to the Editor
farnsworth
Published Letters: 449 Editor's Choice: 21
-
Good news/Bad news
[Read the article: Is Rush Limbaugh right?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Disclaimer: This post assumes the conjecture is correct, and the Republican party is in its death throes. I agree, but it hasn't happened until it happens.
So the Republican party is probably gone. That is good news. Sort of.
The party responsible for the worst president in history will be irrelevant, at best, for the forseeable future. This is very good for the country. And the world. It should only take two or three decades to heal the damage.
The collapse of the Republican party means, for a while at least, that the Democrats will be mostly all there is. This is bad.
It is bad in general, because the system doesn't work without opposition. As we can clearly see, unchecked power leads to corruption, lies, and the crushing of dissent. I do not want to live in a one-party state, no matter what party.
This is bad specifically because the Democrats only look good when compared to the Republicans. Once they are in power for a while, we will begin to see the flaws they are beset with as well.
For a while, the various factions of the Republican party will splinter, probably into minor parties. The Greed Wing, the Theocrats, the Plutocrats, and other tyrranical sects will form up with the "true believers" that they think with in lockstep. These will, for a month or a year or an election cycle, demonstrate unequivocably that our system currently only operates with two parties, not more than two. Then the traditional Republican constituencies will re-coalesce into a new Republican party, whether under the old name or under a new one.
So this is just a brief respite. There is no such thing as a victory forever.
-
Danger to the world
[Read the article: Large number of Americans favor violent attacks against civilians]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]According to Bush supporters, these poll results indicate that Americans should be afraid, because a small percentage of Muslims approve of attacks on citizens.
By this logic, since a much larger percentage of Americans approve of attacks on civilians, the rest of the world should be even more afraid of us than we are of them.
And they probably are.
-
Thank you
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you for this.
Thank you for adding Berkeley Breathed to the site.
Thank you.
-
I am SO glad I didn't watch this crap
[Read the article: In New Hampshire, the Democrats play a little rougher]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If my vote in the presidential election were going to count, I would vote for the Democrat, no matter who it was.
Since I live in automatically-Republican Oklahoma, my vote won't count anyway.
Ah, our system for selecting our president is so wonderful.
At least I get to vote for the person I really want without worrying about wasting my already wasted vote. (That is, in the extremely unlikely chance that anyone I want will be on the ballot. Yeah, right.)
-
Editor' choice star
[Read the article: We'll always hate Paris]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For Cliff Barney, for doing a Frist-esque diagnosis-from-afar:
paris hilton and the others...do have a real illness
Could you diagnose the pain in my knee too please?
-
Why did you delete my letter?
[Read the article: We'll always hate Paris]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, I called Cinta Wilson an idiot.
I didn't threaten her. I didn't threaten anyone. I didn't do anything that I am aware of that would necessitate deleting my letter.
Wilson compared Hilton to Marilyn Monroe, Princess Diana, and Anna Nicole Smith. That seemed to me to be idiotic. Therefore, I called her an idiot.
Is this to be the new standard of discourse? What word should I have used? What would have been the acceptable way to express my disdain for such a comparison?
I need to know. And I think there are many other people who like to comment on Salon articles who would also like to know.
As things stand know, this seems like unwarranted censorship. What is the explanation?
-
Pretty funny
[Read the article: This Modern World]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hits the long sharp thing right on the flat part.
-
READER'S Choice Star
[Read the article: Better to be Hamlet than President George]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To djansing.
-
I don't hate Hillary
[Read the article: Polling '08: Good news and bad news for Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The issue is, though, that many many many people do hate Hillary.
That is the thing. That is why it will be a disaster for the US and the world if Hillary is the Democratic nominee.
She will bring anti-Hillary Republicans to the polls who wouldn't vote otherwise. They will come out in droves. A Hillary candidacy will help defeat Democrats in every state.
Nothing else matters.
Nothing else matters.
-
Lame
[Read the article: How do I get rid of mice? Plus: Testimonials needed!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This was lame.
Not a problem requiring advice. A problem requiring Google.
(Or, really, a problem requiring an exterminator. I understand Tom DeLay doesn't have a regular job these days.)
Why was this published? Have all the personal/spiritual/emotional/relationship/etc. problems been solved?
OK, I have written a letter that disrespected a Salon columnist. Did this letter cross the deletion line?
-
Candidates and names
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton always comes prepared]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]'They never call the other candidates by their first name.'"
Let's see, who was the last presidential candidate we had with a familiar last name due to a recent predecessor in the office?
George W. Bush.
And what was he often called?
W.