Letters to the Editor
sajwan
Published Letters: 487 Editor's Choice: 13
-
What was missed
[Read the article: Mike McConnell's clear explanation of FISA]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Gee, did I miss the part where the companies seeking immunity were NOT employers of McConnell?" - shooter
No you missed the part where Mcconnell was employed by the telecommunications industry which includes AT&T, or Verizon and others. Because he was not employed by all the companies in the industry (what a stupid basis for argument, but I'll continue) does not mean he does not gain from serving the industry. Or for the simple minded, don't you think AT&T and Verizon might favor Mcconnell in a hiring process if he saved them untold millions in legal fess and civil liabilities?
-
"it's no time for politics"
[Read the article: Ari Fleischer's misleading message]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Therefore, supporting the war is not politics but not supporting the war is politics.
And supporting the war is supporting the troops.
That these tropes play at all is astounding. Even after Pearl Harbor, where a sovereign nation attacked (not some amorphous entity called the enemy) there was political process that declared war on Japan and then Hitler. Starting a war against a sovereign state in no way a tangible threat is the ultimate political act. It is no time for politics? STFU.
Whether we engage in wars, whether we start wars, in general a nation’s war policy is not based on supporting the troops and should never be. Troops should always have a nations support, but that does not mean war policy should be based on that. In other words, should we invade Iran in order to support the troops? How about invading Pakistan? Is invading Pakistan more supporting the troops then invading Iran? When Japan attacked us, did we declare war on Japan in order to support the troops? It's just so fukkin stupid it boggles.
When a nation engages in war, it is sacrificing troops not supporting them and so through political process should be pretty goddamn sure it's war policy is justified.
-
Apologist Extraordinaire
[Read the article: Wango Tango]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A poster suggested that waving guns around and "inviting" Obama to suck on one and Hillary to fuk one is somehow defending his right to own guns. I am not so sure if Nugent went up to them personally and started waving around guns and telling them to suck on the guns and then fuk themselves with the guns would convince them that Nugent should in any way have the right to own a gun.
Nevertheless, giving benefit of doubt and taking this all as extreme theater or artistic expression, the question remains why alleged family value, rule of law conservatives would trot this guy out as their spokesman. Envy? Does Hannity and other chicken-hawks have a wet-dream to romp around themselves only in thong and machine gun accessories while screaming epitaphs at the evil liberals?
Moreover, musically he is a one hit wonder, guitar wise there must be about 7,000,000 guitarists out there better than he is.
-
Protect Israel?
[Read the article: The president's escalating war rhetoric on Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anonymous thinks Israel needs protecting.
What are the chances that maybe Israel already has enough nukes to bomb Iran back into the dark ages? And in the remote chance that Israel doesn't have nukes, the USA certainly does. So who's more a threat to whom, the countries with nukes or the country without?
Use some fukkin' common sense once in a while.
If Iran at some point gets nukes, are they really a threat at that point or just providing a deterrent to nuke crazy ass aggressive countries. Bush, of course the coward knows this, so topples or threatens to topple only defenseless countries.
-
Yeah Right
[Read the article: Dick Cheney's top aide: "We're one bomb away" from our goal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I believe that God keeps a watchful on our great nation (as our Founding Fathers proclaimed in the Great Seal of the US) and am very confident that such a catastrophe will not be allowed to happen...
-- nabalzbbfr
Yeah right. God is really focused on not allowing catastrophes like having a Democrat elected, or maybe not having the Yankees win another world series...
does naba really know not of the blasphemy he speaks?
Or is naba not a real person but a parody of a facist religious kook? A figment of some clever poster out there who likes creating absurd characters.
-
EZ Writing Method
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt, Michael Ledeen and the "bomb Iran crazies"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I realized that for Hiat writing editorials is incredibly easy. Copy and paste a war mongering piece of tripe editorial, do a search and replace, replacing one country's name for another, tweek a sentence or two and voila you're done. I thought I'd give it a try with troll repsonses:
Earth to Shooter. NO WMDS WERE FOUND IN IRAQ. Ritter was correct. What are you receiving in your tin foil cap? Are you suggesting that Saddam had to bribe Ritter in order to get him to tell the truth? Rhetorical question. Don't answer.
Earth to coward ananoymous. NO WMDS WERE FOUND IN IRAQ. Ritter was correct. How does dismissed sex offender charges change this? Rhetorical question. Don't answer.
-
NYWFOGA
[Read the article: Thompson proposes a new gay marriage amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The reason people "freak out" is the mistaken belief that if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry their own marriages would somehow be diminished..."
Well a man marrying a young nubile wife with big boobs is a much bigger threat.
How about all those older married men out there who see Fred Thompson as a great moral leader and follow his example and go looking to trade up for a newer younger wife. That's the real threat to marriage, right there.
I expect all righties in a fit of moral enlightment, rise up in the defense of marriage, and start a NYWFOGA movement. (no young wives for old guys ammendment).