Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
@ thelastnamechosen
[Read the article: The Bush administration's terrible luck with finding documents]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am appalled that Sandy Berger destroyed evidence related to the 9/11 investigation. He should have been put in prison for a long time and the exact details of what transpired meticulously investigated.
The investigation concluded that no original documents were missing or destroyed. This "he destroyed documents" crapola is just more RW fiction that's been around the world while the truth was busy putting its pants on.
Cheers,
-
@ shooter242
[Read the article: The Bush administration's terrible luck with finding documents]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ah yes the eternal lefty debate.... are the Bushies terminally stupid, or criminally and corruptly competent?
Why choose? ;-)
Actually this would be easier to be concerned about if the House weren't fighting the search of Jefferson's (D-La) office for the marked money he was hiding.
Dear readers: Keep in mind that "shooter242" can see things that others can't see. The usual remedy is Haldol.
Cheers,
-
@ shooter242
[Read the article: The Bush administration's terrible luck with finding documents]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"shooter242" is the pot calling the china cup black:
Considering how much of law seems to depend on custom, precedent and tradition, that may indeed be true. If Clinton gets away with doing something, it sets a standard for following Presidents. They should be able to emulate their predecessors, with the support of the same people that supported it previously. Anything else is rank hypocrisy.
So "shooter242" makes up sh*te about what Sandy Berger did, and ignores the fact that Berger was prosected (by his own gummint) and found guilty. All in the interest of a bogus tu quoque 'argument'.
The tu quoque (even if it were true, which it isn't in this case) is hardly a legal defence.
But "shooter242" then accuses us of a moral failure: Hypocrisy. Once again, he's full'o'sh*te. Because we were not the ones claiming to be "The party of responsibility" and the ones that were going to come to "clean Washington up".
You want your hypocrisy writ in 144 pt. type, there ya go.
Cheers,
-
@ jspring1
[Read the article: The Bush administration's terrible luck with finding documents]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Of the 1261 words in Greenwald's article, he only wrote 153 of them. The rest were merely quoted from various news sources, cut-and-pasted into place. Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V! That's what I call some hard-hitting analysis.
Yeah, Glenn oughtta just go to two word posts with links to pages that say what he's afraid to say personally himself. That oughtta satisfy the "concern trolls" here, who of course are the one and only audience of interest. "Heh. Indeed."
Cheers,
-
@ Paul Dirks
[Read the article: The Bush administration's terrible luck with finding documents]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've been known to worry that I spend too much time reading and commenting on blogs and that it takes up time that could be better spent. But counting words?! Get a life!
echo "<CTL-V>" | wc -w
Cheers,
-
@ bebop-o
[Read the article: The Bush administration's terrible luck with finding documents]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]BTW, I'm overdue in saying it (certainly compared to the others here), but: Yes, I'm a fan of your posts too. You bring an element here to the "intellectual discoure" that ties it inextricably to the humanity and reality of our lives, and tehers it firmly to the "possible" and the "beautiful". And what's most wonderful is that, for the discerning (which doesn't include the likes of "shooter", "Jack", and "daleyrocks"), you leave little sparkles of diamond, little flashes that show a profound wisdom and knowledge inside the prose. Carry on, my friend!
Cheers,
-
@ shooter242
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can say though, that a blog that is 100% disparaging about a group, be it [...] Republicans.... it's a sure sign of prejudice.
Ummm, you misspelled "perspicacity" (or was it "honesty"?)
Cheers,
-
@ shooter242
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Jonathan Hoag]: Of course people are prejudiced, would you consider a blog which was 100% disparaging of Nazis to be prejudiced? I would.
I'd say this is a good demonstration of hate speech. Alluding Republicans to Nazis is vicious.
You misspelled "accurate". Or was it "instructive"? Or "perspicacious" once again?
We're still trying to find just one teensiest smidgen of something worth lauding in the PNAC/neocon/maladministration/RepuCongress miasma we've been drowning in (the folks in NOLA, literally) that's not total crapola. You certainly haven't offered anything. So, yes, the comparison is apt. Both rotten to the core.
FWIW, there used to be some Republicans of honour. You've taken to knifing them in the back if they dare to criticise Der Führ... -- ooopsy, The Deciderator -- so they don't live long. Don't blame us, Shooter. It was you and your buddies that shat up your bed.
Cheers,
-
SusanMc
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Then, in 10,000 years or so some other creatures will be top dog (probably cockroaches; they can live through anything).
Mark Graham has it covered: "Their Brains Were Small And They Died", lyrics here:
http://www.mudcat.org/@displaysong.cfm?SongID=7212
One of Mark Graham's many fine songs.
Cheers,
-
@ shooter242
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry, but I don't think you are being honest. Let's revisit...."Of course people are prejudiced, would you consider a blog which was 100% disparaging of Nazis to be prejudiced?" Did you pick a popular negative depiction of Republicans by accident. Nah, not a chance.
Of course not. It's a pretty apt analogy. You folks are just a few brown shirts short of a Kristallnacht.
Cheers,