Letters to the Editor
prunes
Published Letters: 784
-
@e_five
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Have you seen the Fox News "comedy" show? Ohmygod it's bad. I actually feel sorry for the people.
Yeah, and boy does it suck. They had to use a laugh track even with a real audience. I just read it's not being renewed.
-
@NewLeft
[Read the article: Posting news]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was just about to post about that.
Here's an email exchange with Atkinson which clearly demonstrates that he holds his beliefs quite sincerely:
http://gonzomuckraker.blogspot.com/2007/08/conversations-on-genocide.html
Atkinson's views are undoubtedly those of a small minority in our country, but the Family Security Matters group is some sort of subsidiary of the Center for Security Policy, a group Cheney is involved with.
Check out FSM (not You, oh Noodly One!) on sourcewatch; the board of advisors has some extremely interesting names for us politcal junkies:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Family_Security_Matters
(the list for CSP reads like a Neocon Encyclopedia)
On Atkinson's home page, he has a charming story about realizing that those concerned with Truth will invariably be rejected by an inherently decadent society:
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/author.htm
-
"Caveat Spector"
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Translation: Don't accept party invitations from Phil Spector.
http://tinyurl.com/fd226
-
@shooter242
[Read the article: Enforcing the community's foreign policy orthodoxy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But consider the logical requirements of your position, only soldiers would have the right to determine use of the military ie. the president would have to be a soldier. In other aspects, if one were in favor of abortions, one would have to actually perform them. You may not like what I say, but that's the way it is.
No, that's not the way it is because your logic is inane.
Requesting someone to risk their life and not doing so are not symmetrical relations.
We do not ask others to take on risks we ourselves are not willing to take. This is inconsistent and possibly cowardice.
Asking others to NOT take risks that we ourselves would not take is a consistent position.
The anti-war and pro-war positions are not logically symmetrical and so your argument is ridiculous. You are able to draw the abortion "contradiction" because your initial premises are contradictory in the first place.
It is wrong to ask another to die in your stead. It is not wrong to ask another to protect his own life as you would protect your own.
-
@shooter242
[Read the article: Enforcing the community's foreign policy orthodoxy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey shooter, I found a kindred spirit for ya:
http://gonzomuckraker.blogspot.com/2007/08/conversations-on-genocide.html
The only solution to our wretched state is to wipe out the inferior cultures (including all Americans who don't conform to our own personal ideals) and impose a glorious new empire of force and order.
That is your view, basically, right?
-
@shooter242
[Read the article: Posting news]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Time to come back to reality.
Always good advice we all should heed.
It is very interesting that you obviously don't care about Padilla the person, just Padilla the instrument of your fantasies to damage Bush.
That is interesting, and probably not Conservativeslayer's finest moment.
It reminds me of war supporters view of Iraqi civilians: as long as you are remotely associated with terrorism, such as having the wrong skin/religion or being born in the wrong country, your life is frankly not worth preserving when balanced against easing our personal fears of people who look like you.
If Iraqi civilians were people like you or I, their lives would be as valuable as yours or mine, and the US government would be responsible for committing at bare minimum FIVE 9-11's worth of violent acts against civilians. (Likely much higher.)
But that's not the case, right? Since Iraqi civilians are only political props, and not humans, no critcism of the war can ever be anything but politically motivated.
I like your argument style, shooter, it's very easy to follow.
Looks like you'll have to find someone else to be the avatar of your political perversions.
What exactly are "political perversions"? Are they deviations from hundreds of years old legal traditions, like habeas corpus, banishment of torture, and Constitutional government?
-
@shooter242
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Interestingly, these days it seems that your side of the aisle is more interested in supporting people that would kill as many Jews as possible. I certainly don't think you would do such a thing, but enablement is pretty darn close.
Yes, planting land mines under Iraqi kids' feet and dropping bombs on their heads is saving Jews.
That is correct.
-
@Rufus X
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Who are they, and, since you use "would kill" instead of "are killing," what's currently preventing them from doing what they would?
shooter's syllogism:
1) All Arabs would kill Jews
2) The US is killing Arabs in Iraq
3) Therefore, the US is saving the Jews from the Arabs
-
@shooter242
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're going to equate disdain for mass murderers or sneak attackers of Israel as a predeliction for racist slurs?
Well, YOU equated support for universal habeas corpus and respect for the Constitution with support for anti-semitic fundamentalism, so what have you got to complain about?
Maybe if you ever argued in good faith for a change, you'd get more respect around here.
-
@shooter242
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry bud, you're going to have to show me that verbiage in reflection of current law. "Because I said so" isn't going to fly.
So you categorically deny the existence of any rendition program in the US and affirm that the obscene delay in Padilla's (secret and unconstitutional) trial could in no interpretation represent a violation of habeas?
Then it would seem that to you, there is no such thing as an illegal alien.
Uh, no, that's clearly NOT what was written. Learn to read.
Then what would the purpose of borders? As with most things given away for free, citizenship would become worthless. Is that what you had in mind?
If citizenship doesn't confer the guarantee of habeas, it IS pretty damn worthless.