Letters to the Editor
-
Hilarious
After more than five minutes of gay talk, CNN cuts to another audience shot of Chuck Norris, restoring a straight vibe to the proceedings.
BTW, thank you for watching so I didn't have to.
-
Love Sanctuary
Sanctuary City. Sanctuary Mansion. If Romney had been faster on his feet, he would have responded to Giuliani's "sanctuary mansion" shot by bringing up Rudy's "love sanctuary," in which Rudy kitted out the city's "Emergency Command Center" in the 2nd World Trade Tower with a water bed and embroidered sheets and towels for his horn toad trysts. Mitt could have explained to the TV audience that just days before 9/11, while Rudy's estranged wife, Donna Hanover, was preparing for her lead role in the "Vagina Monologues," Rudy was doing Judy Nathan, his future wife.
-
Youtube Debate
Michael writes a good one as usual.
-
Thank you very much
Thanks for the write up. Excellent as always, but I think I can save you some trouble.
Next time, the only question I really have is this: Did a meteor crash onto the stage, or not?
-
Obvious Omission
I am disappointed that you failed to mention the obvious plants in the questioners, which included easily verifiable campaign operatives for both Hillary Clinton (the homosexual man) and John Edwards (the abortion advocate).
Had such partisans been planted in a democrat debate, I believe it would have been mentioned, and the host of the debate vilified as obvious partisans. Why no outrage? Is that supposed to be journalistic integrity?
-
Flags n' Guns
"That's not a flag that I recognize so that I would hold up in my room." Romney has a room?
Probably the same room where he keeps Josh's guns.
-
What were Ron Paul's conspiracy theories?
The lead headline in this article is "Ron Paul's conspiracy theories" but the only quote from Ron Paul was "It's not so much as a sinister conspiracy," Paul says. "If we look for it, you'll realize that our national sovereignty is under threat." Where's the beef?
Is this an articulated conspiracy theory (and if it is, is it illogical or implausible, or MORE implausible than anything else reported by men who would occupy a position formerly held by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt, or John Kennedy)?
Or is Ron Paul merely articulating his (very rational and well-founded) opinion that the Bush Administration is capable of hiding MAJOR policy decisions from the American People and avoiding open debate and the democratic process whenever possible. Is there any real doubt that the Bush Administration does its best work in secret and then lies about it when find out? "To Deceive is to Rule" seems to have replaced "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum" as the National Mottos.
Ron Paul seems "strange" among this group only because he says what he thinks and everyone KNOWS that he is not trying to make up issues for purposes of distraction, and that he only says what he really believes.
Could Fred Thompson really be so retarded as to have said overturning Roe v. Wade "should be our No. 1 focus right now?" One wonders if he has ever read the decision or even knows what he's talking about.
Whether one is "pro-life" or "pro-choice" as a matter of religious or moral preference, Roe v. Wade (like Griswold v. Connecticut and Lawrence v. Texas) is firmly rooted in the civil rights traditions of this country, supporting individual autonomy and privacy.
Ron Paul happens to be pro-life, as a matter of religious and moral belief, but he is more openly and absolutely and firmly committed to individual autonomy and privacy and to the preservation of civil rights than ANY OTHER CANDIDATE, Republican or Democratic.
Does this make him a worthy target of ridicule?
Obviously, and without any doubt Ron Paul is a radical. The Latin root of radical is RADIX---meaning ROOT---Ron Paul is interested in going to the root of the problem, that heart of the national catastrophe that is America today.
Is any other candidate interested in the pattern of governmental lies and deception which has PERMEATED the Bush administration, which began in the Clinton administration, with roots going much further back than that?
Will Clinton or Giuliani or any of the rest of the candidates promote honesty or integrity beyond what we've "enjoyed" over the past eight years?
All Reflective and THINKING American People know that their government is run by liars and cheats, that there are more frauds in the halls of the White House and Congress than have been incarcerated in all the prisons in the "land of the free" which is now among the most repressive countries in the world, with the largest per capita prison population in the world.
Our courts uphold the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. All members of the Executive and Judicial Branches have absolute immunity when they violate the Constitution, when they lie, when they deceive the American People.
The web is tight and almost impermeable.
Ron Paul stands for RADICAL change and Radical Change is what is needed and necessary in this Country.
It doesn't matter if we individually agree with Ron Paul's stand on abortion or immigration or anything else. We can see that he stands out as a candidate of honor and integrity who should not, must not be ridiculed or belittled as a "conspiracy theorist" when all that has happened over the past ten years is that we have been ruled by a DOGMA based entirely on conspiracy theories.
There is absolutely no justification for the current status quo in America OTHER THAN the government's massive web of conspiracy theories as justifications for everything from the nearly universal suppression of freedom of speech (and control over all of the mainstream press, which is what makes the internet so valuable, including Salon.com) to the violent and rapacious abuses of due process of law which have come to be so characteristic and routine in our courts and administrative processes.
We all understand what maintaining the status quo means. It means a continuation of the moral vaccuum that started with Daddy Bush (President #41), continued all through the 1990s, and has reached its apogee in these six years since 9/11.
Ron Paul appears to stands for REAL CHANGE and a REAL alteration of the status quo.
He stands for honesty and morality, precisely because he is less sophisticated in the ways of manipulation and deceit than the other candidates.
What other candidate can say anything of the kind?
If you're going to accuse Ron Paul of Conspiracy theories, articulate why HIS conspiracy theories are less plausible, more paranoid, or less intelligent than those customs, practices, and policies of fear mongering which now permeate every level of National, State, and Local Government.