Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

bamage

Published Letters: 1329

  • Email from John Conyers just now...

    [Read the article: What's at stake today in the Senate's FISA filibuster vote]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Your help is urgently needed to help defeat a Senate bill to revise FISA, the warrantless wiretapping surveillance program and provide sweeping, retroactive immunity, requested by the president, for telecommunications companies that participated in this program.

    President Bush is insisting that the phone companies need this immunity or we would be at risk of future terrorist attacks. I remain unconvinced that this is the case and the House passed bill did not include this measure. As I mentioned in previous emails about this issue, if the president was serious about keeping us safe from terrorism while advocating for this immunity, he would long ago have provided us with the necessary documents for Congress to review this program.

    In the Senate today, the pressure is on from Republicans to end debate and force a vote to grant phone companies retroactive immunity before any details of their activities is revealed.

    Your help is needed now. Contact your Senators today and ask them to vote no on today's FISA cloture vote. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has an action page below that can help you reach your Senator now.

    https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?alertId=357&pg=makeACall

    Even after today, further efforts may be needed to make sure that a bad bill does not pass the Senate.

    Thank you for your help today and your continued support for a better democracy.

    Your Friend,

    John Conyers, Jr.

  • @Kitt

    [Read the article: What's at stake today in the Senate's FISA filibuster vote]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    I tuned in to C-span 2 and Cornyn's bloviating. Did I miss it.

    And BTW, either you're older than I, or you reproduced much earlier. I caught a terrific image of a deadpan 12 year-old doing an Amy Goodman imitation (thanks!), but then I thought... naaaaaaaaaah.

  • 48-45 again

    [Read the article: Today's FISA vote]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    8'(

  • GG on Democracy Now!

    [Read the article: Today's FISA vote]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Go listen:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/29/bush_urges_congress_to_grant_immunity

    or

    http://tinyurl.com/2pzdxh

    Thumbnail: Amy Goodman asks good questions, then lets GG answer w/out interrupting. GG erudite as hell, as usual. Too little time (6-7 min. @ end of show...)

  • WHAT!?

    [Read the article: Today's FISA vote]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Is this true?

    But IANAL, so take that with a grain of salt.

    Cheers,

    -- Arne Langsetmo

  • Is the "solution"

    [Read the article: What "bipartisanship" in Washington means]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    "more and better Dems", "throw the bums out", or some combo of the two? I am, obviously or not, open to alternative suggestions.

  • 'as everybody 'eard? O/T

    [Read the article: What "bipartisanship" in Washington means]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Edwards is out.

  • @GG Do you know anything about this?

    [Read the article: What "bipartisanship" in Washington means]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Via TPM:

    Reid: We're Working on It

    By Paul Kiel - January 30, 2008, 11:08AM

    So what's going on this morning with the surveillance legislation?

    Here's a statement we've just gotten from Reid's office: "Currently discussions are ongoing in an effort to determine how to move forward on FISA. Senator Reid is closely working with all Democrats including Senators Feingold and Dodd on this issue."

    That's another way of saying that he's not selling out on retroactive immunity, it seems. And no deal has been struck yet. We'll keep you updated as things develop.

  • And this does NOT sound good

    [Read the article: What "bipartisanship" in Washington means]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Via TPM

    Surveillance Debate Update: Reid Indicates Deal Struck in Senate

    By Paul Kiel - January 30, 2008, 10:21AM

    Last night, the Senate also quickly passed that 15-day extension to the Protect America Act. So it seems like the President will likely sign that into law.

    So what's next? In comments on the Senate floor this morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that after holding a meeting in his office at 6 PM last night, he called Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). He indicated that they may have struck a deal on how to proceed, but it wasn't clear if all the details had been hashed out, and he didn't indicate what the details of that deal might be. We'll keep you updated as we learn more.

  • Sharter28%

    [Read the article: What "bipartisanship" in Washington means]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    How's about you have a nice big cuppa STFU!

  • Some funny stuff

    [Read the article: What "bipartisanship" in Washington means]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Be forewarned - RUDE PUNDIT!

    http://tinyurl.com/2dhrqm

    "Requiem for Rudy"

  • More irony

    [Read the article: Enemies everywhere]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    From Sharter28% and his ilk

    http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2008/01/headline-here.html

    or

    http://tinyurl.com/2kha9h

  • 'bop, I've arrived at the ineluctable conclusion

    [Read the article: Enemies everywhere]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    That every single Right-winger, EVERY one, is seriously pathological.

    So don't "blame" GG, they all need to be shrink-wrapped.

    Much as it pains me to admit it, I understand why Glenn insists on allowing certain entities to spew their inane bile. Painful as it is, sometimes, what better way to disparage the likes of proximate wanker and Sharter28% than to let them impugn themselves on a daily basis?

  • This makes me happy

    [Read the article: Enemies everywhere]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Yeah, I know, many of you may not care. Just scroll on past.

    Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008 11:29 EST

    Obama breaks fundraising record

    A couple of sources, including the Drudge Report and the Washington Post, are saying that Barack Obama's campaign will report a January fundraising total of $32 million, a new record. This total includes contributions from 170,000 new donors.

    The Trail, a Post blog, says Obama campaign manager David Plouffe claims that the campaign's single biggest fundraising day came the day after Obama's surprise loss to Sen. Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary.

    Plouffe also told the Trail that the money will allow the campaign "to advertise in just about every Feb. 5 state at pretty high levels."

    ― Alex Koppelman

  • Proximate Wanker

    [Read the article: Enemies everywhere]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    I defy you to provide one example, even one, of (intentional) "conservative" humor.

    One that's even remotely humorous, I should say.

  • Wanker

    [Read the article: Enemies everywhere]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    You set yourself up as the humor arbiter.

    Give us an example of what you find funny.

    My contention is, part of your right-wing pathology is an inability to even recognize humor.

    C'mon. Prove me wrong.

  • brightstar

    [Read the article: Enemies everywhere]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Perhaps you'd be kind enough to more clearly delineate a few of those to whom you are referring.

    My anger is directed at the leftwing pinhead meat puppets posting all these anti-right diatribes, as if they or their side are somehow better than that.
  • Not generally, specifically.

    [Read the article: Enemies everywhere]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Can you point out a few comments/authors you've found "offensive"?