Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 839 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Aycharaych
[Read the article: Anatomy and significance of Monday's FISA victory]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A cry for help can take many forms, those who are negative want to see help on the horizon too, but in their eyes the cavalry isn't coming over the hill any time soon if ever.
Fine, sure, I understand that. But that's quite apart from the maudlin, destitute wallowing of people who refuse to recognize any positive development, and decry every effort to effect change as pointless and stupid because "the System is totally rigged, man!"
Atrios (whom I quoted) points out quite incisively that it's pretty ridiculous for these despair addicts to spend so much time staring into the abyss just so they can pop everyone else's balloons every time progress is made.
-
kovie
[Read the article: Anatomy and significance of Monday's FISA victory]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes.
Politics is a purely human invention, subject to the sentiments of people. It is a "reality" that can be fully defined by the wildfire of intelligent passion. It is all about initiative and boldness. Being politically "safe" is not leadership, and rarely all that politically safe anyway.
I'm off. Have a great day.
-
Snark
[Read the article: Harry Reid's pro-life stance vs. Ron Paul's ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hmmm. I wonder if the point of this post will be violently misconstrued, and an endless Ron Paul pro and con debate will ensue?
And Glenn, how can you support Ron Paul for President, which you clearly indicate you do with this post, when that man is in favor of blah blah blah...
And how can you not equally support Dennis Kucinich, who is the only reasonable choice for President??? Why are you part of the conspiracy to keep Kucinich from being elected???
-
"...Ron Paul ... Harry Reid ... hypocrisy ... ABORTION..." "AGHHHHHHH!!!"
[Read the article: Harry Reid's pro-life stance vs. Ron Paul's ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When I sarcastically mentioned this morning that this thread would turn into a raving Ron Paul For President debate, how stupid I was not to realize it would turn into a raving abortion debate. Ugh.
-
I sincerely mean no thread-jack
[Read the article: Journalistic balance vs. truth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But have you read the story about the right-wing kid who faked his own assault at Princeton, in order to make it seem like conservatives were violently persecuted there?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/the-conservative-persecut_b_77561.html
Low hanging fruit...
-
Back on topic
[Read the article: Journalistic balance vs. truth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While it galls me that the Republican obstructionism is being downplayed by the MSM, it also galls me that the Democrats are being cowardly in these battles.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but the latter explains the former. A significant reason (admittedly not the only reason) why the media has not characterized Republian filibuster threats as obstructionism is because the Democrats in power are failing to unequivocally characterize it as such.
Witness Exhibit A just this week: the FISA showdown with Senator Dodd. How did Senator Reid portray the path ahead? "Well, gee, the Republicans told me they'd filibuster any amendments to this awful bill, so why don't we all avoid any unpleasantness by unanimously consenting that 60 votes will be required to make any changes."
That's like saying, "Ho hum, Jimmy told me he'd beat me up for my lunch money at noon, so I might as well voluntarily give it to him every morning." Can't then complain that people thought you legitimately owe Jimmy money.
And we wonder where the media got the idea to frame GOP obstruction as some new Senate rule that 60 votes are needed to get anything (Democratic) passed.
We don't need "new" leadership. We just need leadership.
-
Oh come on
[Read the article: Harry Reid's pro-life stance vs. Ron Paul's ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, nuance is for wimps. Why say something clunky but accurate, like "coordinated effort to use intelligence, law enforcement, diplomacy and military force to prevent terrorist attacks by certain specific groups of non-state actors" when you can just say "War on Terra!!" instead. It's so convenient! Rolls right off the tongue! What could be the harm?
Why say Republican Party instead of Party-That-Is-Against-the-Right-to-Choose-and-In-Favor-of-Wars-of-Aggression-and-Racism-and-a-Lack-of-a-Social-Safety-Net-and...? "Republican" unfairly implies that members of that party are the only true republicans, and favor republican democracy more than others! Such mindless, biased shorthand.
What to do with "Democratic Party," which suggests that members of that party are against any anti-democratic institution that protects minority rights, such as the courts. Damn that loaded term!
Oh, and we'd better not say "American" to refer to people from the United States, because that ignores the fact that "America" refers to both north and south continents in the Western Hemisphere (other than Antarctica, which spans both hemispheres), and reveals an ethnocentric tendency to ignore Spanish-speaking, indigenous populations in that hemisphere, fixating only on the imperialist North American nation between Mexico and Canada. Oh crap, we'd better not say "United States" either, because that implies wrongly that the states are united on all matters, and that no other countries have unified sub-provinces within them.
Help!
-
katandmoon
[Read the article: Harry Reid's pro-life stance vs. Ron Paul's ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First of all, in case it matters (it shouldn't), I myself fit more in the pro-choice camp, and I do regard the issue as important. That said, this really bothers me:
Since you can't get pregnant, and will thus never have to face the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, you have the luxury of considering the subject of reproductive rights a purely academic one. Sure must be nice!
Where do the millions of pro-life (or, worse, "academically" distant) women fit in this egregious set of assumptions? Are they all infertile?
And what to think of women who only become pro-life once they actually face the dilemma of choice (like "Jane Roe" herself)? Could they not also condescendingly sneer that a pro-choice man could never truly understand the rightness of the pro-life position, because he has never, and will never, have to confront the possibility of killing something that lived within him?
Oh God! I've slipped into the abortion vortex!
-
BryanSamo
[Read the article: Harry Reid's pro-life stance vs. Ron Paul's ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Against all better judgment, I plunge on...
Actions have consequences and if you choose to have to sex shouldn't you acceptable responsibility?
If you choose to drive a car, isn't it entirely your fault if its badly designed brake system causes you to get into a horrible accident?