Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
@ the eedjit "nerdnam"
[Read the article: "Fringe liberal bloggers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As for Al Gore invading Iraq, I don't know why that's impossible....
It's not completely impossible (but improbable; see below). However, that wasn't what you were talking about. You were claiming that we would have supported him if he did. You were wrong.
... There's not that much difference between the parties ...
Others differ. Once again, you're wrong.
... and there's not a lot of coherent thought out there about how to deal with terrorists. There's really not a lot of coherent thought in this country about much of anything, really, when you get right down to it....
I can see why you'd say that from where you're sitting ... but I don't think it flatters you to advertise that fact.
... All we really have in this country is a Republican party and a "Me Too" party. Are they really all that different?
Most Democrats voted for the invasion....
Nope:
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1499
Not to mention, a vote for the AUMF wasn't a vote for the war. I think many thought Dubya might be more circumspect with his authority and use it to ... say ... talk Saddam into letting the inspectors in. I don't think that they thought it was open license to go to war on made-up stories and crappy intellignce, after Saddam had knuckled under and let the inspectors in.
... Most Americans supported the invasion of Iraq. The press supported the invasion. Many intellectuals supported the invasion. Our military and intelligence and diplomatic organizations didn't object (much) to the invasion. So why, exactly, do we think Al Gore wouldn't have done it as well?
Ummm, because it was a stoopid idea and would lead to a quagmire if not worse? (I pointed that out at the time; the evidence is there to see on UseNet).
You want a one-word answer for why Gore wouldn't have done it? Try "Feith". Gore had a distinct lack of "Feith".
Now that you've gone and been an eedjit more than your quota for the day, will you please leave?
Cheers,
-
@ anonymous
[Read the article: "Fringe liberal bloggers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn attracts them because he threatens the status quo.
We get to play with them for awhile then Arne eats them. He's an ogre.
"Troll", not "ogre". In the original sense of the word; I'm Norwegian:
http://www.eskimo.com/~tegan/blog/torvald/
Cheers,
-
@ Karen M (and the nutjob too)
[Read the article: "Fringe liberal bloggers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lieberman is in a downward spiral. If there was any doubt (not much), he just validated his position by quoting Bill Kristol. 'Nuff said.
Indeed, but I will put in my two cents anyway.
Lieberman is just paying back his backers and showing his true colours. I'm a hard-core liberal, and I preferred Lowell Weicker to him in that Senate race a while back. Lowell Weicker was the last of a dying breed; an honest Republican with integrity and respect for the rule of law. The Republican party apparatchiks couldn't stand that, so they threw Weicker under the bus when Lieberman challenged him.
In the 2006 race, Lieberman didn't win because of the Democrats; he won because the Republicans supported him (and dumped the Republican-endorsed candidate under the bus). Enough Democrats went for the "incumbent" (or the Likudnik, perhaps) to put him over the top. But most Democrats voted for Lamont in the general election. OTOH, a far greater proportion of Republicans voted for Lieberman over their own candidate. The Republicans even bused in campaign workers for Lieberman's campaign. Whatzisname the Republican got 10% or so of the vote. Guess who the Republicans voted for. Want to tell me which party here is dysfunctional? At lest the Democratic voter knew who the real Democrat was, and didn't vote for Lieberman in the primaries despite his "DINO" credentials.
Cheers,
-
@ healthyskeptic
[Read the article: "Fringe liberal bloggers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Was Lamont going to win? No.
If the Republicans had voted for the Republican on the ballot, yes.
But Dems don't get to tell Republicans who to vote for.
Cheers,
-
@ healtyskeptic
[Read the article: "Fringe liberal bloggers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And now who does he owe? The Republicans.
And who will he vote with more than before? The Republicans.
How does that help the left to lose more votes? Not at all.
Is Lieberman more powerful or less powerful now thanks to the fringe? More powerful.
No. What you think is "power" is blackmail. And there's just one way to deal with that.
And why should I give a flying f*ck about him? For the answer, just check out what you wrote above. I don't want that azo in the Democratic party. And I'll do what I can to make sure that he doesn't effin' matter. He can go join his buddies and stew in his minority position ... soon.
I don't make deals with the devil. You're free to do whatever it is that floats your boat. But don't expect plaudits from me for your "common sense". For that, you'd do well to read Tom Paine.
Cheers,
-
@ Karen M
[Read the article: "Fringe liberal bloggers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That campaign should have been a real lesson to Republican candidates on "loyalty" as defined by the Rove White House.
I don't disagree with you either, Karen. As you point out, being a Republican (and chosen by the Republicans in the state) doesn't count; for the Mayberry Machiavellis, what matters is how well you kiss Dubya's butt, Rove's balls, and whether you let the Deciderator-In-Chief rub your head.
All hail the Chimperor!
Cheers,