Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 2149 Editor's Choice: 7
-
The Dixie Chicks actually merit further discussion
[Read the article: Limitless wrongness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because at the end of the day, they decided that the best course of action was to say what they believed proudly because anyone who remained offended was a lost cause.
Besides, honesty makes it easier to keep your story straight.
-
War is our job.
[Read the article: Limitless wrongness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Considerrng then that the war part of the war was over in a matter of weeks, that would suggest that the military is indeed big enough. The problem (IMHO) isn't the total size of the military, its the overreliance on expensive hardware over boots on the ground. And, as was pointed out, a poorly chosen non-mission. You'll notice that GE and Raytheon didn't suffer much from the effect of the "peace dividend"
-
I don't expect you to stop believing this.
[Read the article: Limitless wrongness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The freedoms this country have and enjoy exist BECAUSE we have a strong military to protect and defend it
But the freedoms this country have and enjoy exist because its a desirable state in which to live and if we were to lead by example, the world would inevitably follow. But by thinking that we, by virtue of having a large military, have a right to control what goes on in the rest of the world, well then we're pretty much by definition, enemies of freedom.
Iraq, of course has brought the paradox into sharp releif. Democracy and Freedom only come from the end of gun when you happen to be on the stock end of it.
-
Fought for freedom
[Read the article: Limitless wrongness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Of course the same people who fought for freedom, then put in place a Constitution designed to preserve that freedom. In it they stipulated that there be no standing Army and that if Congress found it necessary to raise an Army, in no case would it be for a period of longer than two years without renewal. They knew that if an executive came to believe that the Army was his to do with as he saw fit, then foreign adventures would be the inevitable result, leading to a loss of freedom for everyone.
Smart fellows, those Americans.
-
Telling....
[Read the article: Limitless wrongness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]because I believe we should have a large standing all-volunteer army ready to fight evil in the world for peace
Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.
So who gets the privelege of deciding who is "evil"?
Because, if there's one hard and fast rule about human nature, it's that I am good and you are not. That the situation is precisely mirrored from the other side is the tragedy of our existance. Our goodness is not guaranteed, it needs to be earned. And one of the ways we earn it is by confining our acts of war to people who actually threaten us.
Too bad we managed to forget this important lesson right when the "decider" hit office.
-
Just a reminder
[Read the article: Limitless wrongness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
than when the discussion of traitors come up few fit the bill better than our resident trolls. After all, it's the Constitution which binds us together.
-
Does that principle really need to be explained?
[Read the article: Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Um yes.
It is instructive to remember the degree of panic that gripped people in the immediate aftermath of 9-11. There were a lot of actions undertaken which in light of more measured consideration were falt-out wrong. Incarcerating thousands of people for having funny names and familly members still living in the ME comes to mind as one of the more blatant overreactions.
But it's precisely BECAUSE we react emotionally and irrationally, that following the law is even more important.
I don't think levying a multimillion dollar fine against a huge corporate entity is really going to hurt anyone much. But as Glenn points out, its the process of investigating what happened in the heat of 2001-2002 that has everyone, Dem and Repub alike doing their damnedest to sweep the whole matter under the rug.
Which of course widens the speculative possibilities. What the HELL are they needing to hide so thoroughly?!
-
Thread danger......
[Read the article: Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I tend to lose interest when we get to blanket denunciation of Corporations. The problem though is the same one that infects governments: the ability to engage with a clear conscience in acts which would be indisputably immoral if engaged in by individuals.
I'd also prefer if the thread doesn't desend into a Pauliac vs the World.
People who like Ron Paul do so for noble reasons - he compares favorably to the RWA's in charge of the Republican party. People who hate him also do so for noble reasons. He is, after all, a card carrying member.
I've always maintained we should work to save the Constitution first and not worry about health care plans etc. until that's accomplished.
-
Why you can't understand the difference baffles me.
[Read the article: Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Um, because there is no difference.
Being "at war" doesn't negate a single word of the law or Constitution. Both are written with the acknowlegement that states of war exist and are no less binding as a result.
Why you can't understand that doesn't baffle me.
Your a moron.
-
I'm not here to educate you.
[Read the article: Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Then why are you here?
Your absolutely wrong AND dangerously stupid.
-
And last time I checked
[Read the article: Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We were engaged in a rather vigorous trade relationship with the Chinese. Was there some reason I was supposed to think that was a bad thing?
-
that they have been "at war with us since 1979.
[Read the article: The art of neoconservative innuendo]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Devalued meaning:
There was a time when the phrase "at war" actually had a meaning. Unfortunately ever since some clever soul coined the phrase "cold war", the meaning of the word has been draining out of it until it now means little more than "permission" as in permission to kidnap, permission to torture, permission to kill indiscriminantly. All of which were granted because some students took hostages in 1979?
Say it ain't so!