Letters to the Editor
Riversofexile
Published Letters: 76
-
Kitt
[Read the article: "Missing" evidence is familiar Bush pattern]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nothing in my post indicates that I don't see history, recent or ancient, as relevant. kitt
Except when you say this, I suppose:
Might that be more effective, or at least potentially so, than dragging in every past, present and potential future failure of government and government agents - kitt
The Democratic Party can challenge Bush. Why in the world are they in no position to challenge Bush? That makes no sense. - kitt
It would if you looked at actual results instead of walling yourself in party loyalty.
There will be no moving forward unless it is understood that the Democratic Party is in no position to challenge Bush? How will that 'internalization' moves things forward? kitt
Just about every post on this and other threads explains why: the Democratic Party, as it stands now and has for a long time, is part of the problem, not the solution. It first needs to reform itself before it can effectively lead this country out of its dire situation. That's my view, if you don't mind.
-
LWM
[Read the article: "Missing" evidence is familiar Bush pattern]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, I meant impotence in terms of results for the people who send them up there, no as individual weakness. In fact, they have shown great strength standing-up to their constituents of late, so weakness is not it. Lack of results, due to corruption of the system, and the ramifications of that for the rest of us is what concerns me.
Also, this notion that I should not voice those concerns about the Dems for fear that it would be used against them by the GOP leaves me cold. I'm more worried about the country and society than about any party.
More (intelligent, individual) dialogue with the people of the right is more constructive than this deep hatred constantly expressed by some partisan Democrats, for political gain, even as the leaders they parade participate in some of the most egregious behavior of dictatorship.
-
kitt
[Read the article: "Missing" evidence is familiar Bush pattern]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm confused too now.
I read your initial post to be a lament about those of us pointing the finger at the Dem party, its past and current active contribution to the multiple domestic/foreign messes this blog discusses daily.
I read it as telling us to shut up already, and just keep on doing what we have been doing: pressure again the Dems to pressure again such-and-so-Bush-appointee ie be obedient, work the system, people, don't reject it - sort of like hamsters in a cage going in circles chasing each other.
If none of that was going on, then accept my apologies, and please, by all means, go pressure whomever you wish in peace.
-
kitt
[Read the article: "Missing" evidence is familiar Bush pattern]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is all relevant but what is most relevant is putting pressure on the one man who is in the cat-bird seat, Mulkasey. Your post wasn't doing that. Your post was basically about throwing the bums out. My stance is f'k a bunch of that and just deal with the issue at hand. kitt
Exactly, although I want the bums out, and brought to justice, not just the Republicans, the Dems too. You want to work the system as it is now, presumably because you still see value in it. I don't. I believe the system is broken, and must be repaired first, it's been unresponsive to the people too long, on too many fundamental issues.
As for the party loyalty thing, that comes from what now appears to me to be a knee jerk response from some quarters to any criticism of the Democratic Party (in terms of delivering results), particularly of Bill Cliton's policies and those of his wife. We are generally told to shut up because the "GOP is much worse" and/or because we "feed into Republican memes".
Forgive me for not having noticed your posting history attesting to your independent mind; do I take it you are no partisan then, just that you believe the current system will correct itself if we just keep playing by its rules, within its confines?
-
LWM
[Read the article: "Missing" evidence is familiar Bush pattern]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He wants to throw the bums out. He wants to fix a broken system. He doesn't want any talk of partisan politics. Did I miss anything, Dounia?
Any concrete suggestions on how you are going to achieve this? LWM
It's the partisans who want no talk of criticizing their party or the policies of its leaders, past and present. It gets tiresome being told to shut up about the Dems. I won't.
As for the rest, either it gets achieved collectively, or it doesn't. I'm sure you understand that, so try to move your questioning to a different level, we might then begin a dialogue. Mocking me is hardly better than telling me to shut up.
-
kitt
[Read the article: "Missing" evidence is familiar Bush pattern]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My sarcasm is genuine, I don't appreciate your tone from the start. Skip my posts if they so irritate you.
As for your activities, whatever improvements in the Dem Party would be useful, so I'm sure your own activism within will help.
-
LWM
[Read the article: "Missing" evidence is familiar Bush pattern]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Try and articulate your thoughts in English, I might be able to respond. For now, you're not making sense. To what are you objecting exactly?
-
Mike
[Read the article: "Missing" evidence is familiar Bush pattern]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The republicans have proven something over the last four decades: you can change the system when the democrats are in charge. So if you want to change the system, you first put them back in charge again, right?
Thks for a coherent point. Look, I'm not viscerally pro or anti any party, I'm just not ideological that way.
I think Barack Obama has the right idea about reforming his own party, and the system in a soft way. I wish him the best in that, and would support such a velvet approach.
The Clinton wing, on the other hand, is unappealing to me if we're talking real reform.