Letters to the Editor
Kitt
Published Letters: 3142
-
Anon#whathefugever
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No, Kitt
Don't know if you're male or female, but if you're a guy, imagine trying to cinch something up as tight as you can on each side of your scrotum without getting any part of the scrotum and penis under the straps. There's just no extra room for anything else for any normally proportioned guy. And the process of strapping up this way exaggerates everything else.
Look at pictures of other fighter pilots in flight suits and G-suits. YOu'll see the same thing.
--Anonymous
I used to play baseball. Sometimes I needed to Wear a cup and jock. That didn't cause any of the problems you are describing. And like I said, the cup became one with me because it was suited to fit that way. What's the difference between that and a codpiece.
Maybe we need to change Codpiece's name to Cuppiece?
-
anoncodpiece
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]More proof of a silly obsession
And for those who think Bush wore a cod piece, look at the other pilots who were in the jet with him
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/images/2007/05/01/bush_in_flight_suit_at_air_base.jpg
Do you think Bush ordered them to wear cod pieces too?
You people are just too stupid but willing to believe whatever little lie comes your way.
--Anonymous
None of those guys in the pictures have the ridiculously big bulge that Bush has. You're blind if you can't see that. Weird that you'd post those pictures thinking otherwise.
-
Little Brother
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]PS: I also have a hairy back, more's the pity.
-- Little Brother
Hey, I quoted only that last part for brevity. I thought your whole entire post was some right on funny good honest shit, man.
-
anonygetaname
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So much for your theory that it was all image and theater, but as I said, you're all so willing to fall for simply lies.
--Anonymous
All codpiece speculation aside, for you to call us ignorant due to us seeing that whole idiotic spectacle as anything but "image and theater" is one of the most ironical statements I have ever heard. It was image and theater. And the doughboy payed for it in the end. Mission Accomplished, indeed.
-
C&C of Civilians?
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's the militarization of America, stupid. Gary Willis writes, "When Abraham Lincoln took actions based on military considerations, he gave himself the proper title, “commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” That title is rarely — more like never — heard today. It is just “commander in chief,” or even “commander in chief of the United States.” This reflects the increasing militarization of our politics. The citizenry at large is now thought of as under military discipline."
In fact, George might indeed be the C-in-C, but only of the military, not of us poor slobs who are civilians . .
Yes, that is especially bothersome when I hear a Congressman or Senator say, "He is my commander and chief". No, he isn't.
-
Anonymouscoward
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt, Michael Ledeen and the "bomb Iran crazies"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'll give you this clue, though: I'm a Marine who hates Scott Ritter because of the way he disgraced the uniform. That should be enough information for you, but I doubt it.
Why in the hell should that be enough information? Especially coming from someone who claims to be a marine but goes by the name of 'anonymous' over the internet. And that someone is acting all full of itself while it argues with someone who goes by his full name. What a coward you are!
-
Anoncoward
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt, Michael Ledeen and the "bomb Iran crazies"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cowardly?
Is there some new benchmark that says you're some kind of coward unless your Salon screen name includes your full legal name and your snail mail address and your cell phone number?
Posting pseudonymously (displaying an invented screen name, like most Salon users) isn't brave, but so what? There are reasons to use a nom de guerre.
Posting anonymously - hiding your Salon screen name - isn't cowardly.
Rude? Yes. Confusing? For sure. Annoying? You bet. Immature? Could be.
Cowardly? No.
--Anonymous
That would depend to some degree on what it is you are offering under the no-name of anonymous. No matter what we who take names call our selves, our posts are carried and listed for all to read. You, on the other hand, are anonymous. A nobody. You can be a prick over and over again, and there will be no way to follow your patterns or get a take on what you're about by reading you prior posts, because they can't be read. And so, especially when you get all up in people's faces like you've been doing, that's Cowardly. You bet.
-
Shooter the Official
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is your wakeup call folks. You are now officially at the bottom of the barrel. It's up to you as to whether it gets better from here, but it's going to be a hard slog. You may be sure this episode will be banked and withdrawn on a regular basis as an example of liberal hypocrisy and bile. Good luck, you'll need it.
-- shooter242
So shooter242 is the official who declares the level of the barrel to which one is in?
Shooter, you blew your wad years ago. You left yourself with no where but up to go in the category of hypocrisy, bile, banking/withdrawing and so on. It isn't even "up to you" to save your own sorry ass anymore because it's just too damned late for you. There is no way you could redeem yourself now without help from someone who knows you in person to help back up your sincerity. That's how low you are and have been for years on the boards I have seen you post on.
So for you to come a lecturing...what a pathetic joke.
-
Title
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How Small-Mind Machismo Became the Fore-Front of Right-Wing Punditry.
(Arm-Chair Warriors Exposed)
-
William Timberman
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Mark Hemingway tried this in a bar, some faggot would probably lay him out. Trying it in the National Review must have seemed a lot safer. It wasn't, for which I think Glenn deserves praise, not condemnation.
-- William Timbermam
That, and the rest of your reply to whomever that was you were replying to, was pretty much what I said 30 pages back in reply to someone with the same take as the person you replied to.
How was that for a mouthful. A friend of mine named Janice teases me from time to time about my run-on sentences.