Letters to the Editor
Kitt
Published Letters: 2940
-
@LGF'wad
[Read the article: The Weekly Standard's "9/11 Generation"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If, on the other hand, your question is are people being called cowards and soft and basically traitors because they advocate a foreign policy of appeasement and self-abasement, then the answer is: Yes, in conservative circles, though they're being celebrated in Salon and such.
Best not to join in if you can't follow the conversation.
--Anonymous
I figured since you don't know what to call yourself I'd help you out.
Now, on to the post. Your strawnam-made-up-labels are a distinction without a difference. Only a pathological liar would foolishly try to pass it off anything else and think they had won some kind of imbecile's delight of a game.
People here keep joking about LGF needing to send better trolls. Personally, I could do without that, but I can see why people make that joke. You're troll work is in need of a lot of help.
But, I'd just as soon you take your nonsense elsewhere.
-
kelly o
[Read the article: The Weekly Standard's "9/11 Generation"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Just another big pussy Chickenhawk."
-- kelley o
I was with ya till that last sentence, kelly o. I guess you missed the conversation earlier? We've been trying to diminish the easiness with which that word 'pussy' is so commonly used as an insulting epithet. Just a reminder and something to think about.
-
Bebop-o
[Read the article: The Weekly Standard's "9/11 Generation"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Kitt, Mercy. If I was rude to you, I'd ask you to forgive me, sorta, O, something like this?
Bebop-o, you weren't rude to me so no forgiveness is needed.
I'll remind you, though, that I'm a guy. Therefore, if we were to meet I would proudly share a firm and meaningful handshake with you, and one of those hugs that most of us guys generally always end with mutual, simultaneous back slaps.
Then I'd tell my story of having met bebop-o to my two grown daughters and to others who I'm close with.
-
@xititj99
[Read the article: Further politicization of the U.S. military's public statements]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...While I agree with what Glenn is doing in principle (i.e., greatly desiring the Petraeus interview), on the other hand, you must realize this:
You will only get propaganda-laden anecdotes & diatribes from Paetraeus.
I think Glenn Greenwald is well aware of how Patraeus would attempt to frame the interview. The outcome of how an interview is perceived to have come off to listeners and readers does not depend only on how the interviewed dodges, ducks and or throws tantrums. Much of how it is perceived comes across based on the expertise of the interviewer. Since I believe that Glenn Greenwald is very astute in that department the interview would very possibly shine much light on the evasions of Patreus, and, thus, bring us much closer to the truth of the matters going on in Iraq in our name.
Remember, Petraeus has a war based on lies to protect.
Who could forget?
He also has a war that is wildly unpopular with the American people to protect; he has a president who is wildly unpopular with the American people to protect.
So let him try. Just because he has all of that to "protect" doesn't mean he would be capable of doing so under the stark light of reality, and a real interview by Glenn Greenwald being put before him.
So when/if you ever ask Petraeus a real question in lieu of tossing him a Hewitt-esque softball, he'll probably fly off the handle & accuse you of being a terrorist sympathizer.
-- xititjur99
I don't think he would do that. Only because it wouldn't come off so well. Not because he has any scruples about it. He can try using the old terrorist sympathizer canard if he so chooses, of course. But if he were to try that I suspect he would only increase his long list of examples of his being a propagandist rather than a 'straight shooter'.
-
@sic semp
[Read the article: Further politicization of the U.S. military's public statements]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It also cites police who said only about 400 or 500 showed up, not 1,500."--sic semp
You've never heard of the police grossly understating the size of the crowd in attendance at a protest rally before?
You're coming here pretending to be the voice of reason among "ninnies" or "Salonistas" (or whatever) but yet you don't know that police purposely and regularly understate crowd size? Geez.
-
sic semp
[Read the article: Further politicization of the U.S. military's public statements]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And you've never heard of propagandists overestimating the size of the crowd? Happens all the time.
In light of the completely one-side reporting and highly selective choice of what images to show in the Beeb report, I choose to believe the police on this one.
Just look at the photos, too. No way there's 1,500 people in that square.
-- Sic Semper Morannis
A few very heavily cropped photos, and one that appears to be at the end of or the beginning of the day...and you come to a conclusion of the size of the crowd based on that?
Gad! You're easily mislead aren't you? Or, it could be that you, rather than the people who show up at protest rallies, are a propagandist. One way or the other, you're a fool to think that you can judge by those photos what the size of the crowd was. And you're a fool to think that you could pass off your opinion of who was closer to the truth as fact based on those photos.
-
Bucky
[Read the article: Bush's 2001 condemnation of Russia's human rights abuses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It was not what I said at that point in time; but with you, it has become apparent that it is your problem. In other words, you proved it by all the wiggling after the original exchange. Fool.
-- bucky1
You never cease to amaze me with how you think the bullshit you write in comment posts such as that one could possibly be believed by anyone but yourself.