Letters to the Editor
NotOrbitBoy
Published Letters: 499 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Here's why, continued
[Read the article: Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the "Homeland"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Why not just have the National Guard and a plan for rapid deployment of regularly military forces, if necessary - the way Presidents have been able to do for the last 100 years?" - GG
Command: The National Guard requires consent, or cooperation of state Governors. As you recall from Katrina, the Gov. of Louisiana was slow to act, ... and no, I am not trying to pin it all on her.
Training: The information you provided states that there will be new training provided to these soldiers. This is no small point. I don't think you can expect to train National Guard units as effectively as a dedicated unit.
"Is there any limitation on federal power you believe in?" - GG
Yes. They took control of private property via eminent domain, in order to increase tax revenue. They smashed into Elian Gonzalez' home and pointed an MP5 at his head. They incinerated children at Waco, TX. . . . any of those applications of federal power cross the line for you?
"Is there any policy at all -- no matter how radical or unprecedented - that you wouldn't cheer for as long as you heard the word "Terrorism" uttered somewhere in the vicinity?"
It is correct to question all of these policies. I don't automatically "cheer" a decision if I hear the word terrorism.
I do, however, think that you are making emotional appeals in your writing. I think you are doing the opposite of automatically cheering, that being, automatically assuming that a dark evil force is soon to be unleashed....don't you see that echoed in the letters written in response to your posts?
Louisiana Governor - slow to act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Blanco
-
Don't like the economic turmoil? Don't listen to joe, and Don't vote for democrats
[Read the article: McCain proves he's unfit to serve]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We are in a current financial mess, in large part due to bad mortgages, the kind that Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac engaged in.
Barney Frank (democrat) repeatedly argued that Fannie Mae DID NOT NEED additional regulation and oversight, while John McCain argued that they did.
And look what we have today.
Joe, your "fitness to serve" lecture is a joke.
Media refuses to discuss Frank's involvement with Fannie Mae
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx
"The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see" - Barney (wrong again) Frank
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23617.html
Bush tried to introduce new regulation in 2003 . . . guess who opposed.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&scp=1&sq=%22barney+frank%22&st=nyt
McCain Urged Reform - 2006
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrmx002Fms20060525-16.xmlElementm0m0m0m
Joe Conason is unfit to write about this issue.
-
@audioscope
[Read the article: McCain proves he's unfit to serve]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No, audio, I'm not concerned about the $40k.
I'm concerned that Barney Frank's judgement was grossly in error. He stated clearly that Fannie Mae didn't need additional regulation, that there was no impending problem, and allowed the system to continue its downward path.
John McCain argued the opposite. He saw the potential train wreck coming (as did Bush). The democrats ignored the warning.
History has proven McCain right.
If you, Joe Conason, and most of the Salon staff, focused on the issues, rather than the personalities, you could learn something.
-
@bernbart
[Read the article: McCain proves he's unfit to serve]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Read, or remain lost in space.
2003 - Barney Frank says Fannie Mae is in fine shape.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23617.html
2003 - Bush wants to regulate Fannie Mae
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&scp=1&sq=%22barney+frank%22&st=nyt
2006 - McCain urges reform
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrmx002Fms20060525-16.xmlElementm0m0m0m
Thanks to gross mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we have the current financial mess. Had Bush and McCain's advice been heeded, we would be better off. The dumocrats ignored it.
-
@BubbleBaby
[Read the article: McCain proves he's unfit to serve]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I focus on past history because I think it is a better indicator of how a person will act in the future. A better indicator than the eloquent speech they give today, since the speech is often nothing more than a marketing strategy.
I wish obama had more actual actions or accomplishments in his history, but, unfortunately, his resume is nearly as thin as Sarah Palin's.
With regards to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Bush and McCain were right. The democrats, led by Barney Frank as head of the committee that oversaw these institutions, were wrong.
Can't change yesterday, . . . but I don't want to repeat it either.
I agree that we need need informed and conscious voters, as opposed to dead voters and idiots. Too bad salon doesn't cover policy as much as they do personalities.
By the way, I do not plan on voting in Barney's district, but hope to vote as often as I can elsewhere.
Voter ID is a policy that democrats loathe.