Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
@ shooter242
[Read the article: Iraq: American public opinion vs. a "small but powerful group"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... he's stated that Congress has the right to defund the war. It is that action of Congress that is required to stop the war.
Sheer nonsense and sophistry. The Constitution doesn't give Congress plenary power only to fund (or not) wars that the preznit declares. Congress is given plenary power to declare wars, and that decision in firmly in their hands. Why "shooter242" thinks that the only way they may stop a war is by defunding the war (or worse yet, defunding the military as a whole) is beyond me (outside of his desire to invest the Dediderater-In-Chief with uncheckable powers regardless of what the Constitution actually says). I think it incumbent on "shooter242" to explain why, when Congress has the power to declare wars, Congress should be assumed, absent any evidence or argument as to why this should be so, to have no powers to do the inverse.
FWIW, Congress has the power to declare a war but to also not fund a military (or to provide only for a military armed with only plastic knives and forks). Not that they'd do it, but they could. Insisting that the "funding" is inextricably tied to their war-declaring powers (and that the latter is a manifestation of the former) is a total misread of Article I of the Constitution.
Cheers,
-
@ sysprog
[Read the article: Profiles in Journalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"When one of the interviewers agreed and said that decision in Lawrence was 'maddening,' I knew I correctly answered the question," wrote the Regent graduate. The administration hired him for the Civil Rights Division . . .
- - By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 8, 2007
No. That's "maddening". I just finished "Imperial Life in the Emerald City", where the details were laid out of how the many useless College Republicans of obsequious loyalty, good 'connections', and no talent whatsoever managed to screw up any chance of 'success' in Iraq we might ever have had )disregarding whether we should have been there to begin with).
But, perhaps, despite the manifold disasters, we ought to be thankful: The Republicans have managed to outreach themselves and show to wonderful effect just how bad and how dangerous they are. With any luck, this kind of thing, when finally and fully exposed, will make them anathema to any normal person, and a "Third Party" for at least a generation, if not doom them to the scrapyard of failed regimes forever.
Too bad and so sad that so many lives had to be lost to make this manifest. When people begin to realise the enormity of the crimes, I wouldn't fault them from grabbing buckets of feathers and tar, if not coils of hemp, and heading to Washington.
Cheers,
-
An addendum t the last post
[Read the article: Profiles in Journalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What may make people really sit up and pay attention is when the housing market implodes thanks to the favouritism of the Republicans (and unfortunately too many Democats) for Big Bidness (read megabanks), foreclosures go through the roof, and the economy goes down the tubes. That will be hard to ignore. And it will hit across the nation and across the heartland. The idle dreams of the "Yeah, I can be a millionaire too" crew will be shattered, and people will see which side their bread really was buttered on. They will be mad.
Cheers,
-
@ shooter242
[Read the article: Profiles in Journalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lol. Are you insinuating that Democrat administrations don't have litmus tests? Of course they do. Grow up.
We are finding out what constitutes "competence" for Republicans ("You're doing a heckuva job" Brownie, Miers, Gonzales, and the fiasco in Iraq, not to mention the sinecures for College Republicans from the 'proper' ideological 'academic' mills).
You have evidence that the Democrats have done any such thing, out with it. Otherwise, STFU with your "Clinton! Clinton did it too!!!! <*Whauuuggggg*>" snivellng tu quoque.
Cheers,
-
"shooter242" is an eedjit....
[Read the article: The warped reality of our media stars]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"shooter242":
85% of respondents believe that extraterrestrial civilizations are visiting the Earth
http://exopoliticsjournal.com/vol-2/vol-2-1-Survey.htm Heh.
"1099 individuals participated in an online survey on possible extraterrestrial visitation to Earth."
Heh, indeedy.
As for this:
"This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone April 12-15, 2007, among a random national sample of 1,141 adults, including an oversample of African Americans, for a total of 206 black respondents."
Professional surveys generally correct for oversampling. They were nice enough to say what the raw numbers were. Demographic groups are usually weight-adjusted to general population prevalence; the main effect is to increase the variance (less df for the overall numbers) and thus confidence intervals.
Whatta maroon "shooter242" is....
Cheers,
-
Ooops
[Read the article: The warped reality of our media stars]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Gotta close tags. Gotta close tags....
Sorry.
-
@ shooter242
[Read the article: Iraq: American public opinion vs. a "small but powerful group"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Arne]: I think it incumbent on "shooter242" to explain why, when Congress has the power to declare wars, Congress should be assumed, absent any evidence or argument as to why this should be so, to have no powers to do the inverse.
Well let's see. In a war one wins, loses, or draws. Winning is a function of the Commander in Chief....
Oh, so an errant asteroid or the Soviet Politburo have justa a smuch power to "undeclare" a war as does Congress?
... A draw requires a treaty,...
So does a win or loss. WTF does that have to do with the price of tea in Sri Lanka?
... again the function of the executive to negotiate.
But Congress to approve. The preznit is just the point-man; the negotiator.
... Losing, well actually surrendering, isn't something the framers made provision for, as far as I know. I doubt Congress has that power ennumerated somewhere. Does that answer your question?
Not at all. Am I surprised?
Why is the question magically out of the hands of Congress once they first give the "A-OK"? Why, if Congress is competent and enabled to be the sole arbiters of whether a war should be declared, no longer compenent and empowered to call the war off?
Arne, you never fail to demonstrate on a regular basis that you have been, are now, and always will be, a dick.
Gotta love that argument, "shooter". I can live with being called a "dick". Can you deal with life as a Dubya-butt-sucking RWA eedjit?
Cheers,