Letters to the Editor
-
It really has nothing to do with whether anyone...
If anyone can't see the logic of the usefulness of 'anon' postings then besides the fact that you're a pack foul mouthed name calling jackals who get off yelling and taunting the 2 or 3 people who don't agree with you, in lieu of actually having a point, you are are duller and crazier than I thought you were.
--Anonymous
agrees with you, but rather whether you bring any intelligence to the discussion. You seem rather lacking in that regard, but do continue to be afraid, as it seems to help your cause - at least in that "our own reality" in which you live. Whine on as you see fit.
-
Don't worry Anonymous
If anyone can't see the logic of the usefulness of 'anon' postings then besides the fact that you're a pack foul mouthed name calling jackals who get off yelling and taunting the 2 or 3 people who don't agree with you, in lieu of actually having a point, you are are duller and crazier than I thought you were.
--Anonymous
Relax Anon. These are not our real names either. El Cid is not who you think he is. Neither are others. Can't u be more imaginative and pick a "handle"?
-
Belaboring the obvious
Those of you who remember the unfortunate accidents which befell The New Republic and Commentary, are well aware how it is that Kirchick comes to be described as a liberal. Out of regard for our posterity, please hold your peace. The young must learn these things for themselves. Unsolicited explanations are always odious.
All we need to say is that if Alan Dershowitz, backed by a consortium of anonymous donors, should happen to buy the Nation in what looks to be its coming fire sale, those he'd appoint to its editorial staff would inevitably be described as liberals for the next forty years. This would, of course, suit Professor Dershowitz right down to the ground, no matter the violence it would do to common sense.
(Apologies -- and respect -- to Professor Santayana.)
-
Pa-fuckin'-thetic
Golden Boy, like that yappy little terrier next door that you'd just love to twist head off, continues with his silly little game: "Wave your hands!" He says, whatever that means.
"I suppose you folks think that if you post enough times, the facts I put to you will be forgotten."
Read that again, folks, just for the sheer stupidity at play here.
"If you post enough times" -- yep, you've posted your silly little identical post three times already. "post enough times" indeed. And yes, they'll be forgotten because, like you, they are silly.
"PS I see totallyblase has just posted in support of Hamas. This has become a very enlightening thread."
It would be if you'd follow it . . . .
-
Oh no there's a clear difference
You treat names like brands. You rarely think beyond that. You see a name of someone you don't like and that's that. They're an asshole & your words are pearls of genius freshly dropped from the divine lips. So at least with a group name you either have to actually read the post or STFU. See below, even someone tried to get their rocks off insulting 'anon'. Name calling is like a drug for some people. They can't lay off. It's a side effect of being part of a pack or mob. Which is what you are.
-
You forgot your favorite post: "Let's blame the Jews!"
there are no threats there is no terrorism
9-11 was an inside job. By the Garment Workers Union local 12. Just for being mad at them we should give all Muslims a pony and a million dollars and perhaps elect them all offices across the US, by default. Then the world would love us and bow at Liberal's dirty sandals.
Go with what works for you, brother.
You're convincing the multitudes AND you're making all of Salon look like fools.
Probably.
-
But, But, But, I Just Demanded We All Talk About Ward Churchill!!!
As for Ward Churchill, perhaps he really is as marginal as many of you are making out. Pantanal posted something very similar to Churchill's analysis a few days ago, and I know I've struck a nerve there by his or her spastic responses, but focus on the facts I just posted. Or not... they are very uncomfortable for you, after all.
In order, then:
(1) Yes.
(2) Maybe, you'd have to read pantanal & deal with his degree or not of spastitude. You've struck no 'nerve' with me, just sort of amusing. I regularly hear arguments from all sides that 'we' deserved 9/11, including from various & sundry irritated persons of non-U.S. origin, unhinged small businessmen, the far right or Christian or militia loonies.
(3) Well, it's hard to know exactly what to make of the status of "unindicted co-conspirator" to CAIR (which itself doesn't seem to be a central factor in this blog) beyond the latest news in the trial, which apparently is this (though I gather this whole trial is a big, big thing for the FrontPageMag stinkoes and the Sean Hannity brigades):
From "Closing arguments in Holy Land trial set for next week", By JASON TRAHAN in The Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/crime/stories/DN-holyland_12met.ART0.State.Edition1.4225465.html
Judge Fish is still expected to rule at some point on a request by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. On Aug. 16, it filed a request to have its name and hundreds of others purged from the government's unindicted co-conspirator list.
CAIR, which says it is a prominent Muslim civil rights organization, says its reputation was sullied by inclusion on the list. The list carries no criminal charge but enabled the government to introduce statements and documents involving co-conspirators at trial without their being considered hearsay.
In response, Holy Land prosecutor Jim Jacks pointed out that CAIR's request was filed nearly a month into testimony. By that time, evidence linking CAIR to Holy Land was already made public.
Among the revelations during the trial was that CAIR's founder, Omar Ahmad, and current executive director, Nihad Awad, participated in a 1993 Philadelphia meeting with Holy Land leaders and Hamas activists.
"The Philadelphia meeting took place before CAIR was established and before Hamas was designated as a terrorist organization by the State Department," CAIR chairman Parvez Ahmed said.
"Also, the views expressed by some participants in the meeting, if accurately reported or translated, are not necessarily those of Omar or Nihad. To associate Omar or Nihad or CAIR with the views of participants of an open-to-the-public meeting in Philadelphia, which took place a decade ago, is an un-American guilt by association."
So, maybe the "unindicted co-conspirator" label is serious, and maybe it's not.
(4) No, none of the 'facts' are uncomfortable for anyone here. Note that none of the allegations, whatever their criminal or reasonable seriousness or truthfulness, have anything to do with terrorist operations in the US regarding flying imams, Ward Churchill, and planes, unless someone introduces evidence that Hamas was planning to channel the aid they or related organizations received in Occupied Palestine back for terrorist operations in the U.S.A., which certainly is a potential thing to keep monitoring, but doesn't seem too directly relevant to alleging that flying imams were a threat to U.S. airline passengers.
In any case, you were funnier when you were stamping your feet about Ward Churchill. Good luck with that on some other blog.