Letters to the Editor
-
@ Jim Montague
JimC's not smoking crack. He's nibbling on a 6 foot tall chocolate Jesus. No one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan act. It's one of those quaint old laws from a bygone era, like the Constitution and the Geneva Convention.
-
Robert F. Turner
He looks like a doughy soft in the middle and all around the edges neocon.
http://www.law.virginia.edu/lawweb/Faculty.nsf/FHPbI/4459
-
JimC
You simply need to elevate your discourse. Without appearing disingenuous, might I suggest some political science courses at your local University? Once you learn the distinction of what the repercussions are for trying to prosecute the third ranking member of government might be, while the opposition controls both the Senate and the House, you might be able to join this conversation and profitably learn from it. Until you do, coming here and voicing opinions of the lowest order of wingnut trolls will just earn you scorn. I might add, and most justifiably too.
-
Hello? Mattel Quality Control?
Can we get our money back? We bought some of your Chatty Cathy The Bloviator dolls, as advertised on CNN, for our nieces for Easter, but when we pull their strings, they only say "Logan Act! Logan Act!" and "Neville! Munich!".
-
not a conspiracy nut....
Glenn wrote, way back there...
Why did the corporate bosses allow such stories out? Everyone who has an Overaching Unifying Theory about how things work can always take contrary evidence and use it to support their theory (they do that to create the illusion of a working press, etc. etc.).
*********
I should have been a little more thoughtful in my initial post. I am not a conspiracy theorist by any means. I don't think anyone meets with anyone to plan much of anything...unless you're talking about the mutants in Cheney's office.. {g}
Rather, I know that reporters have supervisors--editors--and those editors have supervisors. In short, in general, MSM runs like any other business. *If* those supervisors thought that their reporters' work was substandard (that, for instance, it parroted GOP talking points..or White House talking points without any analysis at all), those supervisors--those editors--would make some changes.
The fact that these reporters editors do nothing, begs the question: why? If it's so obvious to us that much (not all, but much) of MSM's work in reporting the news is arrogant, lazy, and simply wrong, howcome it's not obvious to the editors? That's not a political issue either: that's a technical issue. An issue of basic craft.
So, my question remains, or, rather, my question is this: who benefits when reporters parrot GOP talking points? Who benefits when reporters in MSM treat the right-wing fringe as mainstream? What reasons do professional reporters have for doing lousy work? I'm sure those reasons are overdetermined...as the shrinks say...but, in the end, someone is evaluating the work of these reporters on a daily basis. As a matter of business. Why are the editors falling down on the job so badly? Just askin'.
-
The Logan Act Ploy--When All Is Lost, ESCALATE!
The latest mutation of the Pelosi FauxScandal (TM) is illustrative of a generalized pattern of wingnut behavior. To wit: once you've gone and made a total, unmitigated jackass of yourself, and folks are really starting to notice, that's when you roll out the nuclear option and escalate your stupidity to stratospheric levels.
The logic here is unassailable, really. It's like a gambler doubling down after he's already lost the car, the wedding ring, the house, his life insurance, and the children's college fund.
And so we're treated to the spectacle of a thousand babbling voices who just hours ago couldn't tell the Logan Act from a loganberry pontificating on how Pelosi violated it (despite explicitly stating that she was not authorized to set or change policy), while Saint Newt, of course, did not (even though he expressly deviated from, and sought to obscure, if not undermine long-standing US policy).
America! What a country! The cartoons come to you!
-
Huh?
Cheney, on Pelosi's message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad:
"It was a non-statement, nonsensical statement and didn't make any sense at all that she would suggest that those talks could go forward as long as the Syrians conducted themselves as a prime state sponsor of terror."
Uh ...
-
RE: Logan Act - Jim Montague
So we've already reached the phase where you dismiss me as some troll and give me some advice on how to be more on par with your superior level of thinking.
Why would prosecuting the 3rd ranking person for violating the Logan Act be any worse than say a Presidential (top ranking person) Impeachment for perjury? The fallout wasn't so great then why would it be any different now?
Breaching Constitutional boundaries by branches of government are not taken lightly nor should they.
-
As seen from the "Not Pelosi's Democratoc Party" faction
At least my view from it ...
While finding the Post article and the Anglo-Dutch "Liberal" thug Cheney and his thugs contemptible, I can also include Feinstein, Boxer, and most surely their plant Hon. Speaker Pelosi in that category.
Feinstein and Boxer, due to their known connections - through their husbands (?) - to the same interests as Cheney and the Anglo Dutch Liberal colonialists.
Pelosi, due to her irrelevant insult of Jimmy Carter - that he does not speak for the Democratic Party - in response to the release of his latest book. Who said he would even suggest that he was speaking for "Her Majesty's" Democratic Party ? Why would Carter insult himself in such a way ?
The intelligencia and the man on the street in ISrael agreed with Carter's assessment. Olmert (and as always Netanyau) seems to want to ignore this contempt for the Bush administration.
But by ignoring the man on teh street and the intelligencia Pelosi casts her lot with Olmert - and apparently Cheney.
Is this a wonderful - if transparent - game, or what ?
It is in this regard - that Pelosi does not act on the interest of Americans (as agents of revolution against the Globalists) - that she can be shoe-horned into the same ugly category as Gingrich. She just brings feminine touch to the collection.
-
A troll? A small quibble.
Paul, I respect and admire you. Let me say that straight off, for I get a lot from your posts. (You give a lot.)
I do have a small quibble: I followed Hankrest's (I may have the name slightly off) line a bit yesterday. I actually thought his original point was a good one, if a bit trivial, and, given the fact that this column is in large part dedicated to accuracy in language, the dialog was somewhat instructive.
My question: Was Hankrest the problem or was the problem our response to Hankrest?
I'll admit, his tone seemed rather hostile at first, however, he seemed to grow more circumspect later.
I have not read over the entire line, so I offer the questions as real questions, not as assumptions.
However, I think it's important that we are careful when we use the word 'troll.' This forum could lose credibility if writers did not feel free to question.
My own take is that trolls are those who keep showing up to provoke and provoke, and generally succeed in doing so. That they succeed maybe something for us to consider . . .