Letters to the Editor
prunes
Published Letters: 784
-
@Chris Sinnard
[Read the article: The grave Iranian threat to world peace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For one thing, I wasn't talking about the "Republican Platform", let alone the "Entire" thing, which is just a different flavor of blind statism. I was talking about Ron Paul's platform. If you think that Ron Paul's platform is no different than Mitt Romney's, Huckabee's, or McCain's, then you haven't been paying attention.
Alright, jerk. I am also a Ron Paul supporter (I've been reading his columns for YEARS) and my comment was agreeing with yours and developing the thought further. My comment was contrasting Paul with the rest of the Republicans.
My feeling is that a lot is being made of these comments (not even Paul's) while his primary competitors are all actually endorsing KILLING PEOPLE as a party platform, with no clearer goal in mind than "winning" a made-up, ahistorical, racist "war of civilizations."
Two, do you really think that the Saudis are "confused" by US Forgiegn Policy? That is laughable, the Saudis know exactly what is going on, they are an integral part of this "confusion" you speak. If you think that the Saudis aren't playing the US like fools, or that Saudi Arabia doesn't have an agenda and is simply "Confused by the US", then you are extremely naive. Where do you think Islamic Fundamentalism propagated from? From under the short skirt of a white feminist voting in the NH primary?
I must be a very poor writer or you a poor reader, because what you have written describes my own position.
Do you even pay any attention to things outside of your favorite leftist rags?
PPPPLLLLEEAAAZZEEE do not call everyone who disagrees with you "leftist". I've been enduring that from Republicans for 7 years now, I don't need it from libertarians too.
Besides, it's ignorant. The Republican party is more "socialist" in their actual spending than the Democrats ever were. This is 2008, the playing field has COMPLETELY changed.
The "businessmen vs. hippies" narrative is 40 years old now and describes no one I actually know, it's time to retire it.
-
@shooter242
[Read the article: Your Harry Reid-led Senate in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The real point here, is a legal fishing expedition, because as admitted, no one knows if a crime of any sort has been committed. Everyone running around with their hair on fire just serves as amusement for the rest of us.
Actually, everyone KNOWS a crime was committed, only un-American, anti-conservative, fascist GOP-toys continually deny it.
Just like they deny that the administration ever lied about WMDs (they're in SYYYYYRRRIIAAA), or that they've "lowered taxes" by raising debt 10x what that pinko socialist librul Clinton left us.
Keep laughing, chucklehead.
Mockery from obvious fools and goose-stepping stooges is the highest praise.
-
shooter seems to think...
[Read the article: Your Harry Reid-led Senate in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... that if you break into someone's house, but don't actually take anything (because you didn't see anything valuable to you), then that is not a crime.
Why, judge, I was only lookin' fer terrists!
-
@Anonmous
[Read the article: Your Harry Reid-led Senate in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...seems to think that private property is akin to call data.
Hint: It's not. You do not own your call data.
DUHHHHHH.
Don't be a presumptive ass. You have no idea who I am or how informed I am on the topic.
You missed the point of my metaphor entirely: shooter seems to think that "no harm done" and "good intentions" is an adequate standard for even investigating crimes, nevermind prosecuting them.
If there's no crime, all charges will be dropped, the law will be upheld, and we won't have set a mendacious precedent of allowing crimes committed by telecommunications companies to go un-investigated based on nothing more than intimations of some implausible top-secret made-up "anti-terror" strategy.
But shooter knows there was a crime. Otherwise, he wouldn't oppose all inquiries into the matter and trivialize every tangent concern. He just wants "his boys" to get off.
-
@Chris Dowd
[Read the article: Your Harry Reid-led Senate in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was reading a thread on a reich winger site today in which they were bemoaning the lack of media coverage to the EGADS- three million pages- of ancient Hillary Clinton papers on her attempt to nationalize health care.
Ah, yes, the terrible national health care.
How many of these so-called conservatives give half a fuck as much about the $10 TRILLION debt Bush has given us, almost all Republican PORK, and not a veto in sight.
"small government" my ass. "conservatives" my ass. "free markets" my ass.
If any of these GOP slaves would bother to look in a fuckin' dictionary, they'd see their party HATES their values, HATES their worldview, and is doing all it can to consolidate as much power into the federal government as it can.
You know what sort of media wouldn't be considered "liberal" by Bots? A media that was Stalinist like in its worshipful praise of Bush and the federal government (along with homo erotic military glorifying imagery).
Oh, so FOX.
-
@WT
[Read the article: Your Harry Reid-led Senate in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Never mind, shooter. You've had a bag over your head since you first showed up here. Go ahead and heh. No one will take it for more than it is.
It's whistling past the graveyard as the fascist implications of his party-love become inescapable.
-
@reptevye
[Read the article: Jay Rockefeller's unintentionally revealing comments]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am tired of people like yourself who would much rather mire our agencies in legalese and hearings than tracking down those who threaten the nation.
The fact is: the program cannot possibly work in the manner the government describes, due to fundamental information theory issues.
Further: there is non-theoretical reason to suspect that the system is being used for purposes other than terror-fighting.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html
It amazes me how people like yourself - who undoubtedly argue for more government intervention for social programs and the like, are in turn so opposed to the same government trying to protect its citizens by monitoring illegal activities.
Not "undoubtedly", don't be a stereotypical bigot. I am a conservative who opposes this program.
And just for the record: the GOP has spent at least 8x more on pure pork than on fighting terrorism. Even in the Democrat-controlled Clinton there was never so much deficit spening on BULLSHIT, which has RAISED our real-world tax rates.
This issue is a no brainer<- not only are the majority of cases involving activities and telecommunications OUTSIDE the country where rights are not and SHOULD NOT be extended, but the information being requested is much less than what is given to marketing companies in daily data mining.
I'm starting to think you're a no-brainer.
The majority are outside the country? How do you know this? Some nameless government drone told you so? Well, that's proof enough for me!
Also: the information being collected is much, much more than "call data". They would not need Narus units if the true purpose of the wiretapping programs were only to match call records.
Further, in NEARLY EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE, the government is more restricted than private entities in data-collection and this is as it should be.
If you think such a program will never be abused, will never be used to target political enemies (which it is far better suited for, info-theoretically), I have a nice bridge to sell you, it's been in the family for generations.