Letters to the Editor
NotOrbitBoy
Published Letters: 499 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Help for Mikey
[Read the article: Slamming Wesley Clark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow Joan, have you read what the salonistas are suggesting, implying, and or believing? You really think it is in obama's interest for this debate to continue?
This is the gift that keeps on giving .... THANKS SALONISTAS!
To mikeyfil: If you really want to know the answers to your questions, (and I suspect you do not) do some research outside of salon.
"Why are we not allowed clarification or debate on McCain's military service?" You are allowed all of the clarification you want. Make an effort. It's out there. Don't expect salon to feed it to you, it is contrary to their interest.
"How many planes DID he destroy?" This is an interesting one. Please read about each of the crashes McCain was involved in. Consult with aviation experts, get access to the crash reports. Look at the death rate among Navy pilots in that era (it's dangerous job, more dangerous than it is today). You will learn that the way you framed your question makes you look bad.
"How did his superiors view his abilities?" Read John McCain's military record. It contains numerous examples of the opinions of his superiors. Nothing is stopping you from learning the truth, other than your yourself.
"Does he bear any responsibility for the USS Forrestal disaster?" He tried to save his shipmates. Read about it. Please.
"What possible mental problems does McCain have as a result of his torture/imprisonment?" I don't know, but I don't think they are as severe as rev. wright's mental problems.
"acting as if all questions regarding these issues are somehow off-limits" Off limits?
You don't get it mikey. These are the questions that McCain wants to be asked.
Start Here, follow the sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
-
@FaulknerJr
[Read the article: Slamming Wesley Clark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's not the people that grind him down, it's the rational thought. The arguments put forward.
He's incapable of dealing with it in a reasonable manner. Read his most recent post as evidence of this.
-
@FaulknerJr - Dork is an irrational response
[Read the article: Slamming Wesley Clark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Agree with you re. my use of the term dork.
Disagree with most everything else you wrote.
For starters, I never belittled obama's work as a community organizer.
T. Suarez asked an interesting question, that being, what qualifies obama to be president?
Given wesley opinion regarding what does, or does not qualify one, that is a pretty straight forward question.
Did you read the responses?
Suggestions that McCain, as a result of his incompetence, crashed multiple aircraft.
Suggestions that McCain is responsible for the fire on the Forrestall.
Suggestions that McCain is a traitor.
Suggestions that all of the injuries McCain suffered as a POW were a result of his ejection from his aircraft.
Suggestions that McCain's co-operation w/ the North Vietnamese propagandists are part of some type of cover-up.
I tried to respond to these tin hat conspiracy theories with sourced, factual material. I challenge you to provide a factual basis for any of these suggestions.
I don't mind you calling me out on the dork comment. I mind the one-sided application of your principles.
-
You're Kidding, . . . Right?
[Read the article: Are Democrats backpedaling on abortion rights?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"his apparent ignorance of the moral basis of a pro-choice position"
And what evidence or argument is offered by the authors in support of the idea of a moral basis for abortion?
Answer: None.
-
What I Learneded At Salon
[Read the article: Aug. 8, 1974 vs. July 9, 2008]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1) Hardly anyone knows what the telcos did, but, we know that it was highly illegal, and that the constitution is being eviscerated.
My advice to you is to find presidential candidates other than McCain and Obama. Vote Nader. The only thing Nader will eviscerate are U.S. Corporations....or you could vote NotOrbitBoy. I got some great ideas. Like, "change".
2) Some guy on a train heard NSA types talking about the 7 words you can't use.
They were talking about George Carlin, not the NSA, dork.
Question for the salonistas;
Is this issue going to raise congressional approval ratings back above 10%, or cause them to sink further?
-
@LWM
[Read the article: Aug. 8, 1974 vs. July 9, 2008]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Per your request, I'm asking again.
Rasmussen Report:
Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance
-
@GoodCelery!
[Read the article: Aug. 8, 1974 vs. July 9, 2008]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cease and desist from revealing my constitutionally protected family secrets. Else I'm gonna sick a big bad lawyer on you...you don't work for a telco, right?
-
obama - Just Another Politician
[Read the article: Today's coverup of surveillance crimes and Barack Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]obama gives a great speech, in that regard he is a standout.
Other than that, he's just another politician. The only "change" in obama is his appearance.
A superficial and shallow way to judge a man, isn't it?
-
Half of Juan's Argument, Contradicts Juan's Argument.
[Read the article: The FBI's plan to "profile" Muslims]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And don't blame me for the schizophrenia.
If Juan wants to argue that racial, ethnic, or religous profiling is illegal, fine. That is an understandable argument, one that will get a lot of support.
Juan goes too far when he suggests that such profiling will not help identify potential terrorists, at least not according to Al Qaeda and the San Francisco scientist that Juan cites.
There have been numerous stories of Al Qaeda working to recruit westerners, caucasians, precisely because they believe that racial profiling is an impediment to their goals.
So either Al Qaeda and Dr. San Fran are wrong, OR, profiling will make us (most of us) safer... take whatever position you want, but be honest about it.
Links:
“…dressed in western clothing, drawing little notice…”
http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/1580.html
Is Al Qaeda recruiting to get past U.S. security?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/130155
Al Qaeda is training fighters that "look western"
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN3032631620080330