Letters to the Editor
-
Scientician
That would most likely be Justice Ruth "I dissent" Bader Ginsburg.
-
@ farnsworth
Less than half of the students ever look it up though. In some classes it is less than ten percent. It is not surprising that the vast majority of people choose to react without knowledge of the facts.
Yesterday I told a RWA I know to learn how to use google. Here is his response verbatim:
Google..............wow, what an unbiased source. Why don't you go for broke and just quote Moveon.Betrayus.
Who is an owner and on the board?
Al Gore
It just never ceases to amaze me the mental gymnastics these folks have to go through in order to justify remaining ignorant. They are quite willful about it. I had to go to the trouble of quoting other wingers at him to prove my point, and even then he probably thought I was just making it up.
You just can't win.
-
@Aycharaych
I don't mind that you are here posting. I like a lively and contentious thread and OT comments are often the most interesting but if you keep making the thread about you, you could end up like David Sugarman or Gary Owen. Gone.
Word to the wise.
-
cops on the prowl and look out for...reasons to write revenue for Dept. of DOD's revenue gains. It's a fact. It helps the faltering economy? Maybe.
DOD will nab some nude cyclist, and weight-lifters?
You've observed those GOP's curling dumbbells in inner-beltway's rushy-hour traffic?
But, most importantly, watch!
Avoid The Fines for bad-breath?
Offense? You do not show enough dang joviality?
Just do one of those pre-fight pump-jerks moves?
Just observe the boxers-ring gop padded handshakes?
What GOP's and fake-neoconservative, huh, O lost souls!
-
L.W.M.
I think there are some conservatives with conscience out there. I honestly do, even if they are a small minority. John Dean, for instance. They are just not part of the GOP at this time.
I concede this is possible with the stipulation that these intellectually honest self-described "conservatives" do not meet the modern conventional defintion of the term, and as you say are not even considered "conservative" by the actual conservatives in power within their movement.
Certainly there can be long debates about the exact defintions, but I'm confident that by and large we must judge their ideology by their actions and the results.
Or to put it in left wing context, if the left-wing were so badly off the rails as the right currently is, the existence of intellectually honest communists or anarchists would not redeem liberalism. Actually, to this point I note that almost to a one, the worst Democrats who enable the meme that the "two parties are identical" are to a person the self-described centrists, moderates, and conservatives who eschew the label "liberal" most directly. I find this mollifying and reassuring. All that is most broken about the Democratic party are the parts tainted with conservative ideals.
-
@Aycharaych
You got what you deserved on the other thread. You showed up at a wake and wanted to talk about THE DRUG WAR. People ignored it. There were some others who, like you, were trying to springboard their own topics, but Joan Walsh was clearly pouring out grief, and people were trying to figure out what to say. Try it sometime, it isn't that easy.
-
Principled Conservatives -- Bah ha ha ha
The fact is that every single 'principle' that conservatives claim to espouse is in fact a duplicitous con. 'Judicial activism' would be high on the list, if there weren't so many other contenders -- 'Free Markets' tee hee, oh yeah sure, that's what we have 'free markets'.
But to focus on the issue: Judicial Activism. Funny how court rulings allowing the federal government to hold American citizens in solitary confinement for YEARS without ever being found guilty in any court (i.e. a violation of the right to a speedy trial) doesn't strike 'Conservatives' as 'judicial activism'. Funny how Supreme Court rulings that American citizens have no standing to challenge warrantless invasion of their homes (violating the first amendment) doesn't raise the alarm of 'judicial activism' over at Right wing HQ. The recent court decision making it illegal for California to establish emmisions standards was a two-fer -- it was an act of right wing judicial activism that also exposed the lie of states rights as some kind of 'principle'. Another good one is all the court rulings supporting federal intercession in states attempts to decide drug laws for themselves. If that isn't judicial activism in favor of using the power of the federal government to interfere in the rights of the states, and of the individual (which of course drug laws have always been) I don't know what is. But you don't hear any hew and cry from 'principled conservatives' about the importance of states rights or 'getting the federal government off the back of the citizens' (another right wing con) AT ALL about those issues. The silence on the Right about the states right to decide how it's own citizens will be treated on purely local matters is deafening. And the idea that drug sales (which are illegal) fall under the 'interstate commerce' clause, is all by itself one of the most hilarious examples of judicial activism we have ever seen.
The Roberts court has already distinguished itself as the most pro-business, pro-executive power court in the nations history -- working aggressively to implement an extravagantly laissez-faire legal environment and overturning the intent of legislation written before anyone on the court was even born. Every opportunity they have to expand the power of corporations, and expand the power of the executive, they have taken, despite the clear weakening of their own power that has resulted. They have already made numerous decisions that were clearly as far in the direction of 'letting corporations do whatever the hell they want', as they could possibly get away with. And have yet to act in any meaningful way to apply well established legal limits to the activity of major actors in our system such as the executive, and corporations. Funny, I haven't heard any complaints about 'judicial activism' from the conservatives about any of that.
'Conservative Principles' is the greatest lie ever told. There are only two kinds of conservatives: opportunistic con-artists out for themselves, and suckers. There is nothing more pathetic than an actual 'principled conservative' for they are neither insightful, nor well informed (any thorough understanding of any so called 'principle' yields the discovery that it just don't work like that, and (as I said) 'free markets' is by far the easiest to demonstrate this about. It is an excercise in sophmore economics to disprove the efficient market hypothesis, and anyone over the age of 6 has actual experience of that fact. The issue of externalities being another big obvious factor that is playing a major role in politics today, even as 'conservatives' (with PRINCIPLES) try to tell us all that 'externalities don't exist' -- that isn't a principle, it's a lie, and a stupid one. For the Republicans in the room, I will now explain that the issue of externalities is the fundamental economic concept that underlies the issue of global warming. While I'm at it, I think I should also point out that 'Republican Values', and the notion that the Republican party is working for 'morality' are also equally hilarious.
You want to know why this country is in trouble? It's because the political discourse in this country has been entirely subverted by self serving lies, and the people have become so ignorant that they are simply unaware of how stupid most of these lies are.