Letters to the Editor
NotOrbitBoy
Published Letters: 306 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Another week, another dose of paranoid conjecture
[Read the article: Will the real Colin Powell stand up?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Two quick points.
1. It's interesting to see Richard Armitage, the guy who leaked Valerie Plame's name to Bob Novak, mentioned in a positive light. I remember reading that whoever leaked Plame's name was guilty of things like treason, endangering fellow spies, and they were in every way despicable. . . . except for Armitage of course. Liberal logic at its finest.
2. Interesting to see the shot at the Weekly Standard. Were it not for the Weekly Standard, more people may have continued to believe the Baghdad Diarist garbage put forth by the New Republic.
If Salon wants to make a case for or against policy, why not rely on some facts? . . . instead of conspiracy theories created out of whole cloth, tailord for raving Bush haters.
-
Bent Over - Another example of liberal logic
[Read the article: America under surveillance]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ok Bendy, you're for Hillary.
I read all the reasons you hate Bush. What I can't understand (apparently due to my ignorance of liberal logic) is why you would support Hillary.
Hillary voted for the war in Iraq.
Hillary warned of the threat from WMD and Saddam.
Hillary linked Saddam with Al Qaeda.
She did all of this on the floor of the United States Senate.
Hillary held positions consistent with Bush.
You're brain must hurt.
-
They're not coming, they're HERE.
[Read the article: The Islamists are coming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn can make a good case that the likelihood of the complete takeover of America by Islamist extremists is unlikely. That it's paranoid. Irrational.
I think the same is true regarding salonistas who claim our constitution is being shredded, due to NSA intercepts of suspected terrorist phone calls.
On the other hand, the existence, tolerance, and lack of criticism towards islamic extremists is clear. Read Christopher Hitchens article for a specific example. There are others.
Why can't the left take off their "I hate bush blinders" and see islamic fundamentalism for what it is? When will they criticize it? Demonize it?
Do we have to wait until there is a Democratic in the oval office?
You call that leadership?
Hitchens:
http://www.slate.com/id/2171745/
-
Thanks for the confirmation Iokannan
[Read the article: The Islamists are coming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. I was not comparing Islamic extremism and NSA intercepts. I was comparing the reaction to each. The notion that sharia law will become the law under which we are governed is paranoid, and irrational. I compare that paranoid assumption with those who claim our constitution is being shredded, such as yourself.
2. I didn’t claim anyone here supports Islamic extremism. I claim there is little to no condemnation of it (your recent response excluded). I suspect that the lack of criticism is due to bush hatred. . . . None of the salon columnists want to say anything that may play into bush’s hands. The truth, and principles, don’t matter to them. It’s just about getting bush.
3. Rather than call Hitchens a drunk, I suggest you read his columns. Salon columnists will not provide you with an alternate point of view. This is a way to get past your blinder problem.
4. Whether or not Islamic fundamentalism is monolithic is beside the point. Its intolerant views are the point.
5. You confirm your narrow view with: its nowhere near the threat to American society the current Administration poses . . . Tell it to Salman Rushdie.
-
Salonista - defined
[Read the article: The Islamists are coming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Salonista = A follower of Salon who agrees with the editorial slant and bias of Salon. Logic does not come easy to salonistas. Examples of their behavior can be found in their letters. A typical salonista will respond to criticism of their position with foul language, name calling, and irrational arguments. In other words, an emotional response.
Salon columnists play into the hands of salonistas by triggering these emotional responses. Unfortunately, base emotions are the ones that are targeted.
This makes life relatively easy for the columnists. All they need to do is criticize Bush, Cheney, or any Republican leader, and do so in a pejorative manner. Further inflammation of these emotions is accomplished by suggesting that the salonistas themselves are threatened. A suggestion that the columnist is more enlightened, or intellectually superior, is commonly employed. This last point is done with no precept of modesty. It gives the salonista the belief that he or she is also intelligent.
Rather than relying on arguments based on a series of facts, and explaining why those facts lead to a conclusion, salonistas will frequently claim to know the motive of their opponent. The most villainous motives are assumed (not proven) and put forward as reasons for the actions of their opponents. In other words, the opposite view is demonic, and any suggestion otherwise is evil . . . sounds like Pat Robertson, doesn’t it?
Salonista idiocyncracies:
1. salonistas think that posting as anonymous is cowardly, but posting as “cocktail fruit” is not. . . . hence the name NotOrbitBoy (I stole orbitboy’s cool name, thanks orbit). This also serves as an example of a salonista’s difficulty with logic.
2. salonistas think that foul language proves something other than what it truly does.
3. salonista’s fear of our government has never been explained in the form of an actual action against them. I believe their fear is due to a long standing abuse of marijuana, . . . but I must admit that I have no evidence of that.
-
Hey Joe, when you gonna slam Edwards?
[Read the article: Giuliani's dangerous bluster]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just read an article that describes John Edwards' investment in the Fortress Investment Group. This group provides subprime loans, among other things.
Edwards has criticized subprime lenders, describing their practices as "shameful".
According to Edwards, Edwards has been taking advantage of the poor.
Will Joe Conason write about Edwards hypocrisy before or after hell freezes over?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118728685546999884.html