Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
@ Elephantman
[Read the article: The GOP is the party of the Iraq war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Thousands of Iraqi dead" is...
... the result of Dubya's (and the neocon cabal running the Republican party's) doings so far. No. Wait. Make that "hundreds of thousands".
Clear now?
Cheers,
-
Shooter browned his pants....
[Read the article: David Brooks' field trip to the White House]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I won't quote it; you'll have to look back in the posts to find out the exact moment Shooter shat himself ... if you care, that is. Why he would bother to tell us all about this feat escapes me, though. We didn't need the confirmation; we could tell by the stench.
Cheers,
-
Apparently "shooter042" is a gullible and credulous doof
[Read the article: The National Review mind]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Prize goes to the person that can sell him the Brooklyn Bridge the most times in a single day.
Cheers,
-
@ Elephantman
[Read the article: The National Review mind]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am wondering; is there a Salon-specific search engine that I can employ to count the number of Salon letter-writers who have openly advocated or mused about the assasination of President Bush, or Vice President Cheney, or who have categorized all Republicans (or should I say, all Republikans/Repukes/Repugs) as racist, facist, genocidal maniacs?
Go find one (or write one) yourself, azo. Do you have to ask your mommy to help wipe your butt as well?
Cheers,
-
Shooter has his sources....
[Read the article: How much credence should Gen. Petraeus' reports be given?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yep, John Boehner scribbling at ClownHall is an obvious, unimpeachable, non-partisan source..... But, just to make sooper-dooper sure, we ought to ask a second source. Hey, RNC, what do you think about that?.....
Cheers,
-
@ FauxName
[Read the article: How much credence should Gen. Petraeus' reports be given?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... no, and we really don't give a sh*te either. So why don't you take it to somewhere where some room temperature moron does?
Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
-
@ FauxName
[Read the article: How much credence should Gen. Petraeus' reports be given?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The thought occurs to me that you might just be trying to get a rise out of us, and consider it a "victory" when you do. Maybe it even helps you get your rocks off that you annoyed some people and got them to say what you might consider to be intemperate things. You ought to consider the fact that this is expected behaviour for, say, four-year-olds that giggle after they shock their parents with four-letter words. Why you would want to publicly get pissed on intellectually, though, is something that perhaps only Freud could answer. Feel free to elucidate if you want to clarify the situation for all and sundry....
Cheers,
-
So what's next?
[Read the article: Bush's magical shield from criminal prosecution]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Glenn, from the post]: Just contemplate what that actually means. One of the primary, defining attributes of a civilized society that lives under the rule of law is prosecutorial independence. Without that, political opponents of those in power can be prosecuted for political rather than legal reasons. And worse still, our most powerful political leaders are free to break the law with impunity because they control the prosecutorial process, which -- in this warped view of our republic -- means that presidents have an absolute power to block criminal prosecution of their subordinates who break the law, provided it was done at the President's behest.
Well, as the RW sycophants and apologists keep saying, in defending this view, there's always impeachment if things 'get out of hand'. Let's get moving. As someone famously said: "Bring 'em on...."; are we going to let some ragheads in Iraq show more spine (and more success) than Congress????
Cheers,
-
According to Shooter, "In Russia, Glenn would have been "disappeared" long ago."
[Read the article: Bush's 2001 condemnation of Russia's human rights abuses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... while here, people like Shooter are trying their damnedest to shut him up by any other means possible. If Shooter had something worthwhile and positive to say, rather than simply spouting RW Mighty Wurlitzer lies and trying to throw monkey wrenches into conversations here, he'd have his own blog and do it there, rather than piggybacking on Glenn's popularity ... and if he had anything interesting to say, people would actually go there and read it..... You're free to draw your own conclusions.
Cheers,
-
Some azo said:
[Read the article: Bush's 2001 condemnation of Russia's human rights abuses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Glenn]: * Authorities continued to infringe on citizens' privacy rights.
[Shooter]: Only if you call Al-Qaeda overseas.
Nope. That was always legal. What wasn't legal w/o a FISA court order was targeting you for all your calls when you call your landromat, brother, and pizza shop.
[Glenn]: Government technical regulations that require Internet service providers and telecommunications companies to invest in equipment that enables the [Foreign Security Service] to monitor Internet traffic, telephone calls, and pagers without judicial approval caused serious concern.
[Shooter]: Clinton program, called Carnivore.
Nope. Being someone intimately familiar with both the technology and the law (hint: I had a rather busy spell up until May 14th of this year), I can tell you that Shooter's an eedjit on this.
[Glenn]: * Lengthy pretrial detention remained a serious problem.
[Shooter]: Only if you're not a citizen.
Strangely enough, the Bill of Rights mentions "citizen" exactly ... ummm, lessee ... <*"wc -w BoR*"> ... ummm, right: Exactly ___ times! If Shooter was counting on his remaining neurones, he'd have run out of neurones to count on (the actual count is left for an exercise for the reader, but do take a guess beforehand).
[rest of Shoooter's pile'o'crap mercifully snipped for the miasmatic offal that it is]
Cheers,
-
"Abu Ghraib and Haditha were brought out by the Army brass"
[Read the article: Bush's 2001 condemnation of Russia's human rights abuses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Interesting spelling variant for "Sy Hersh"....
Or have there recently been some AF personnel changes tha I haven't heard of?....
Cheers,
-
Historical revisionism writ in 144 pt. screaming headlines....
[Read the article: The Weekly Standard's "9/11 Generation"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Glenn quotes the Weekly Standard]: Few of the leading lights of that generation joined the military. Most calculated how they could avoid military service, and their attitude rippled through the rest of the century.
Ummmm, right. Like Dubya, Cheney, Gingrich, Rove, Hastert, anonanonanonanon.... (Oh, yeah, Dubya "served" ... in what everyone at the time knew was an 'out' from doing time in 'Nam, the NG, in fact in what was known as the "Champagne Unit").
What a bunch of wankers ... if they think they can pass off this tripe.
Not to mention, nowadays we have the same damened Kollege Rebooblicans all hot'n'heavy for war and killing ... but busy stateside with their "other priorities".
Feh.
And then there's "shooter" (Eedjit-New Joysey). I'll contribute $10 towards a one-way for that big mouth coward's trip to Baghdad.
Cheers,
-
@ FauxName
[Read the article: The Weekly Standard's "9/11 Generation"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I haven't seen to many of you folks sign up for Vista or the Peace Corps either and yet you appear to know all there is to know about poverty and misfortune.
WTF do you know about what we do or have done?!?!?
STFU, you ignerrent, self-righteous azo.
Cheers,
-
@ FauxName
[Read the article: The Weekly Standard's "9/11 Generation"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Which is just a lot of hot air and arrogant noise apropos of nothing. The point is and I hope this doesn't zoom completely over your pointed little head, that simply not having done something does not automatically disqualify one from expressing an opinion or taking a position on something....
"Brave, brave Sir Robin, bravely turned his tail and fled..."
My point, as was clear from what I said, was that you have no idea as to what anyone else here may or may not have done, despite your assured claims to the contrary. I didn't say that people who have done nothing have no right to opine (nor did I say the contrary). Your 'rebuttal' here is simply prevarication, and a "red herring"/"straw man". You're a silly little twit and deserve only calumny if not simply outright neglect. You have nothing to say, never did, and never will.
Hope that's clear. It certainly is to everyone else around.
Cheers,