Letters to the Editor
prunes
Published Letters: 784
-
@Proximity Warning
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You know it's true guys. Confronted with irrefutable examples of how Republicans are clearly not institutionally racist ( there are racist elements in each party however), you dismiss them as "unblack" on the basis of their opinions.
You don't understand the definition of the phrase "institutional racism." It doesn't mean that the entire institution is full of racists, it means that the real-world functionality of the institution benefits whites over blacks due to biases in the processes and institutional rules of the institution.
Whether or not the GOP is institutionally racist (and it is), you're using the phrase incorrectly.
To you race is defined by attitudes, not ethnic background, hence your monumental confusion, disorientation and bilious hatred when confronted by Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas.
That's a stupid assumption. I used to love Condi until she started shilling for Bush in the most undignified way, because I used to think she was a good counter-balance in the administration to Bush and Cheney's attitudes. None of that had anything to do with her skin color.
Wrong. You people are haters. You hate any black who holds opinions your consider unbefitting of a black person.
Sez you. I hate people who are shitty people, who don't mind killing other folks so that their ideas can be promoted. That has nothing to do with skin color.
Could it be? Another indignant lefty trying to punish me for my thought crimes by saying he finds me amusing?
That's punishment to you? Man up.
Instead, I suspect it's the novelty of having someone who doesn't agree with all you fringe loons actually stick around and put up with the inevitable tide of ad hominems which greet anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy in these pages.
Economically, and in terms of my philosophy in Constitutional government, I can virtually guarantee I am to the "right" of you.
However, the GOP is no longer a conservative institution, it is a radical, violent, anti-American institution. It has attempted to radically change every significant American institution for it's own benefit since coming into power in 2000.
Until that changes, the dems are more conservative in the classical sense than the republicans and real conservatives (not neocons=fascists) all oppose the GOP.
Republican supporters who still sputter about hippies and pinkos are living 30 years in the past. Your characterizations of "lefties" and "righties" bear absolutely no resemblance to what the political movements of today are actually doing.
I'm hoping enough of you old senile fascist farts will croak choking on your Metamucil before you completely eradicate every trace of what America was founded on.
-
@myiq2xu
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whisper campaign starts alleging that Obama fathered two black daughters.
I read that yesterday but I forget who originated it, it wasn't SadlyNo!
hee-hee, I made that joke on Digby's comments yesterday, maybe you read it there.
-
@Proximity Warning
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you are talking about social policies - resistance to increases in welfare, resistance to affirmative action and so on - there are reasons Republicans do not subscribe to these; they believe they are ultimately ineffective and even deleterious to the position of African Americans (and for that matter, many other groups who support them).
Certainly.
However, NONE OF THAT THEORETICAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS IS RELEVANT WHEN THE REPUBLICANS ARE DUMPING 10x THE DEBT ON US CLINTON EVER DID.
Republicans are not for small, limited, balanced budget government, and they haven't been for near on a decade now, at least.
It's worth pointing out of course that Bush has outspent every President since LBJ when it comes to descretionary (non-military) spending on all manner of social programmes and initiatives in which I have very little faith.
If you dig deeper, you'll find that little of that spending is reaching poor people.
Bush is giving profits to his buddies with our taxes.
Any conservative who understands the barest connotation of the word would support the Democrats over the Republicans at this point, because the Republicans are spending more than the liberals and interfering with individuals more than liberals are at this point.
If you still support the Republicans, fine, just don't call yourself conservative.
-
@karrsic
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Though, to be fair, they could also just be confused over what competence looks like.
Plenty of thieves, murderers, liars, and gangsters are competent at what they do, I imagine.
-
@Anonymous
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's why as a Black person I'd vote for the grand wizard of the kkk before I'd vote for Rudolph Giuliani.
As an American, I'd vote for George "W fer Worst" Bush again before Giuliani. Casual inquiries suggest that other people I know feel the same way.
-
@Pro War
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't answer questions from anyone who deploys the word genocide in relation to George Bush and the war in Iraq. It display such catastrophic ignorance of the meaning of that term and of the dynamics of the events in Iraq as to invalidate anything else you might say (most of which is invalid anyway). You are a buffoon. Go froth.
OK: you can talk to me then, I haven't used that term ever for Iraq.
Bush killed more civilians, many women and children, than bin Laden did. We've lost more Americans as soldiers in Iraq than we did on 9/11.
Bush and bin Laden both think that they know exactly how the world should be. They believe it so much, they don't mind killing civilians to try and bring their vision about. They are so smart, they know whose lives are worth preserving, and whose aren't.
The Republican party leadership is not conservative, but neoconservative. The primary theme among various writings generally considered "neoconservative" is that it is moral to kill thousands of people if you think it is "good for the world" in the long run.
Anyone who still supports the Republicans is not a conservative at all, but a radical rightwing authoritarian, who at minimum accepts this feature of neoconservative thought, if not all of it.
This is a sociopathic political movement.
Bush and his friends have killed more people than bin Laden. He thinks it was a good thing to do. He made a lot of money doing it.
Just about everything else said about the war is sick, amoral rationalization.
-
I thought it was bad
[Read the article: The role of political reporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]when Cobb and Badnarik were arrested in St. Louis for trying to enter the Kerry/Bush debate.
Now, the media/party structure is even excluding candidates like Paul and Kucinich from their coverage, nevermind third parties!
-
NOOOOO!!!
[Read the article: The role of political reporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn Greenwald for....
Public Editor of the New York Times!
Then how will he have time for his exhaustively researched and thoroughly-sourced articles?
Don't think I can do without!