Letters to the Editor
NotOrbitBoy
Published Letters: 499 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Funnier than a Dilbert Cartoon: ProfessorEmeritusPeterB's post
[Read the article: The FBI's plan to "profile" Muslims]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At first I thought Prof Pete's post was sarcasm, a joke, coming from a right-winger. Then I checked his other posts, and personal link.
How ironic; ProfPete laments the loss of reason, then argues that censorship is a good idea.
And by what criteria will posts be evaluated? ... ProfPete, don't you recall questions like these being raised by the ACLU whenever freedom of speech rights were challenged?
Let me guess, someone like yourself should deign what is, or is not acceptable, reasonable. Certainly you could do a good job, since you are not a product of "southern interbreeding incest" bigots.
Un-freaking-believable,...almost. It's coming after all, from a liberal who thinks he understands logic.
-
Glenn is Right - still batting 0.001 however
[Read the article: Democrats' strategy: Strength through bowing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hardly ever agree with Glenn, but I do today.
The democrat leadership does not act on principle, they lack integrity.
Most politicians will waver in the face of a poll that tells them to do this, or do that. Why such a person is termed a "leader" is beyond me.
In any case, this lack of integrity is why democrats make such unappealling presidential candidates. You never know what you're going to get.
-
@P.D. ash
[Read the article: Democrats' strategy: Strength through bowing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From Glenn's column:
"Their rationale for doing that is that it prevents the Republicans from depicting them as "weak,""
According to you:
"In this instance, the Dems flew in the face of multiple polls that indicated that their constituency actually wanted something entirely different."
So if I hadn't used the word "poll", my average would have been higher? That is, if you can provide a poll that backs up your claim.
In any case, Glenn is suggesting that the dems are not acting on principle, but are acting in their self-interest. They lack integrity.
I suggest you spend some months reading this:
http://www.fecundity.com/codex/forallx.pdf
-
"He should admit he was wrong about the surge," - John McCain
[Read the article: Iraqi prime minister: Obama has "right time frame" for withdrawal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]McCain is challenging obama to admit he was wrong about the surge.
I challenge the editorial staff of salon to do the same.
McCain's Challenge:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=5415709&page=1
-
Idiotic Response to the McCain Ad
[Read the article: New McCain ad misleads on drilling]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One of the more idiotic responses to drilling proponents is the fact that new drilling will take years before we see additional oil on the market, . . . therefore, it's a bad idea.
The idiotic part of this argument is to conclude that only a course of action that provides an immediate result is worth pursuing. Idiotic for two reasons;
1) An alternative solution, one that does provide instant gratification, is not available.
2) Time passes quickly.
Had we drilled in Anwar when Bush proposed it, that oil would be on the market today. And before you give me the Anwar can only supply xx barrels of oil, we should also be taking advantage of other domestic sources; shale and off-shore.
-
@slancio103
[Read the article: Iraqi prime minister: Obama has "right time frame" for withdrawal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The reason I brought up the surge in response to this article about obama, maliki, and pulling troops from Iraq, is because the success of the surge is why pulling troops is now on the horizon.
You suggest it is simply a matter of paying off sunnis. I doubt that is the case.
Fellow salonista, Juan Cole describes maliki as "a Shiite hard-liner". If the success of the surge were due solely to payoffs, maliki wouldn't be in favor of losing his protection.
On the other hand if the success of the surge, and maliki's successful efforts to bring sunnis into the political process, and his cracking down on militias are the reason why violence is down, . . . moveon.org ought to be apologizing to General Patreus.
The success of the surge allows us (US and Maliki) to plan for withdrawal. Thank God harry reid wasn't running this operation.
-
@BunkoPony and @ReallyStrange
[Read the article: New McCain ad misleads on drilling]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]pony boy -
In response to your questions, and points raised;
1) The oil would be on the global market. The more oil that is on the market, the less its price. Econ 101.
By the way, I do not want the government to determine who can or cannot buy the oil, unless it became a security matter.
2) You state; "The only thing more drilling would really accmplish is to put off the inevitable."
I disagree. The other thing it would do is lessen our dependence on foreign oil (sourced by people who hate us, according to salon). By lessening dependence on the middle east, we increase our security.
Really Strange - you ask; "can't the same be said about developing alternative energy sources thirty years ago? You know, the last time we had a President who actually seemed to be interested in weaning us off the petroleum teat?"
Yes, of course it can. However, the best solutions to our energy problems will come from creative, free thinking, profit motivated private organizations, as opposed to the government, or self-appointed energy gurus, like large al gore.
A good example of that is the growth of wind power (which, by the way, is opposed by Ted Kennedy and RFK junior, when it interferes with their view from Hyannis Port).
-
A Flaw in the Analysis
[Read the article: How big will Democratic gains be this fall?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Good piece, except the analysts forgot to take this into account.
Democrats too dumb to vote: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-07-20-ballots_N.htm