Letters to the Editor
orbitboy
Published Letters: 1203 Editor's Choice: 100
-
Is he capable of anything but strawman arguments?
[Read the article: "Mission accomplished," the electoral edition]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Who among the Democrats is celebrating prematurely? Got any names, perhaps? No, because there aren't any. Yet he gets up there and says it is so, and now it will be repeated among the Republican throng as though it is the truth. He says it's the truth because it is to the Republicans advantage for it to be true. But it's not. I am so sick of his BS...
-
"Gee, we don't know what happened...
[Read the article: Correction of the Day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]we did an exhaustive search for 'Lieberman stay the coarse' and nothing came up."
-
I don't understand
[Read the article: Jean Schmidt: From calling out "cowards" to eating crow]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why can't you use video of something that happened on the House floor? Is it too much like the truth?
-
Blame the Victim
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox and the cruelty within]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is textbook Republican/authoritarian behavior. They do it reflexively without even thinking. Anyone who feels pain that they don't feel must be a charlatan. Anyone advocating a cause that they don't believe in must have an "agenda" and must therefore selling snake oil. I've seen this all my life. Blame the poor for being poor. Blame the refugees for living in a dangerous/untenable environment. It goes on and on and on....
-
To Chuck Clarke
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox and the cruelty within]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We aren't arguing with Rush's claims, nor the points you brought up because they are irrelevant red herrings. The issue isn't whether the research is legal or not. Nor is it whether you are for it as long as it's privately funded. The relevant point is this:
Which candidate is FOR federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and which one isn't?
-
Elephantman
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox and the cruelty within]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is a perfect example of how Republicans--especially those who still support Bush--don't really have an understanding of how democracy works. They have no problem making a mockery of the constitution as long as it gets them what they want.
-
Bush like a compulsive gambler
[Read the article: The president's message: Be very afraid]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I saw a hilarious post yesterday from a guy comparing Bush to a compulsive gambler.
"Who cares if you've lost your house and your car? If you walk away from that craps table now, then the crooked casino owner has already won! If you really care about your family's future, you'll stay until you win everything back and then some."
-
To RLArmstrong:
[Read the article: Katherine Harris is keeping tabs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I live in Austin, Texas, and I sincerely wish I could tell you just how wrong you are about Harris' chances of being elected in Texas. But unfortunately, you are correct. I'd love to be offended, but I can't. Everytime I think about trying to criticize the voters from some other state for who they've elected, I think about who Texans have elected and realize that I'd better keep my mouth shut. (Well, about that subject, anyway...)
-
I don't care how you spin it
[Read the article: White House: Kerry insulted the troops. Kerry: No, I insulted Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kerry's comment isn't anywhere near as contemptible or stupid as "Bring 'em on." How soon the neocons forget....
-
Hey Jarhead
[Read the article: White House: Kerry insulted the troops. Kerry: No, I insulted Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'd like to hear your defense of "Bring 'em on."
-
Kerry need not apologize
[Read the article: White House: Kerry insulted the troops. Kerry: No, I insulted Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After reading all about this in War Room and other places yesterday, I finally got the chance to actually see the tape of Kerry's comments last night. Anyone who doesn't or didn't realize that he was poking fun at Bush has got to be an idiot. If you make a joke TOO obvious, it isn't funny anymore. Demanding an apology from Kerry is ludicrous. I think people people who didn't get the joke should be apologizing to Kerry for being so thick.
-
I'm sure Cheney has a perfectly good reason
[Read the article: Cheney's secrets: Safe until after the election]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]for meeting with whoever he meets with and for shooting whoever
he happens to shoot. It shouldn't be any business of ours, right?
-
Why did this have to come out on a Saturday?
[Read the article: A November surprise from within? Military newspapers say: Fire Rumsfeld]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Once the Saddam verdict comes in tomorrow, this will be forgotten. Which is a shame.
-
Oops, My bad
[Read the article: A November surprise from within? Military newspapers say: Fire Rumsfeld]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I should have seen that the release of this story will actually be on Monday. Sorry for that oversight. But I still think it will be overshadowed by the Saddam story.
-
What I don't understand is...
[Read the article: An inevitable tightening or a cause for panic?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]how there could be such sharp shifts in such a short time span. Nothing particularly dramatic has happened in the last few weeks news-wise. So what's making folks change their minds back and forth in such a short time frame on such important issues in which people tend not to change their minds so much? Who are these people still on the fence, waffling back and forth? I don't get it. I can understand the person who is fed up with Bush and refuses to vote Republican until he's gone. I can also understand the authoritarian Republican who just supports Bush no matter what (well, to SOME degree I understand it) But the people I cannot fathom for the life of me are those who after the last six years are STILL more or less undecided?
-
"turnout operation"?
[Read the article: How to watch the elections]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Conversely, if by 8 p.m. Eastern, the Republicans have held their losses to, say, three seats, then the Democrats will once again be reeling from the hidden power of the GOP's turnout operation. "
Isn't it about time we started refering to the Republican "turnout operation" with the proverbial quote marks?
-
"most keenly feel war"
[Read the article: Rove: Iraq matters, at least to those crazy kids]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow! Imagine that? Or as we say in Texas, "who'd a thunk it?"
-
I've been thinking about this point all day
[Read the article: GOP claims voting problems in Ohio. Is it a concession?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That after the Republicans lose, they are going to float a post hoc argument that the loser (i.e., "them") can't be the party who cheated. The point to consider in Ohio is this: How on god's green earth can/could the Democrats have cheated with Ken Blackwell as the Sec. of State?
-
Bear in mind...
[Read the article: The morning after: The GOP reacts]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The news reports from a few weeks ago that the Republicans chose not to craft a plan in the event that the Democrats won the House and or Senate. Looks like they'll have to start planning now, right? It will be interesting to see if their lack of planning works as well as their lack of planning has worked in Iraq.
-
What this tells me
[Read the article: Rumsfeld resigns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is that it wasn't so bad that Rumsfeld totally screwed up in Iraq and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. No, that's not why he had to go. Why he REALLY had to go was because he cost the Republicans the 2006 mid-term elections. Some priorities in this administration, huh?
-
Forget Lieberman, folks
[Read the article: Rumsfeld resigns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"President Bush nominates former CIA chief Robert Gates as defense secretary to replace Donald Rumsfeld."--CNN
-
My My!
[Read the article: Bush on the vote: "A thumpin'"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Another reporter asked the president about a book-reading contest he's having with Karl Rove. "I'm losing," he said. "Obviously, I was working harder on the campaign than he was."]
Temper, temper!