Letters to the Editor
-
@adnoto
nothing except trying to get people who argue with mentally retarded authoritarian trash to WAKE THE FUCK UP.
Allow me to suggest that the way you're going about it is not working. People generally don't respond well to being talked down to. As one that agrees with you (based on the content of previous posts), I'd recommend you try a different tack.
Unless, of course, you're just here to vent... in which case, you know, you're kind of on thin ice criticising others for coming here to vent.
-
Your broadside is a dud, Elephantman.
Pinky, here is how "they treat us."
They hijack our airliners and fly them into downtown buildings.
"We" bomb their homes and prop up the dictators who repress and murder "them".
They blow up our troops and contractors while we attempt to fix their electricity grids and oil pipelines.
"We" invade their countries and treat "them" like animals.
They blow up our citizens while they sit on commuter trains.
"We" tread on their traditions, destroy their culture, and don't even bother to learn their language.
They behead our security forces, and burn their bodies.
"We" drop bombs on their neighborhoods and ignore their cries for help.
They kill our reporters and chop their heads off on videotape.
"We" round "them" up and lock them away without either trial or review, practicing torture upon them based upon 'intelligence' that is anything but.
AND YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT OUR HAVING 'WATERBOARDED' THREE OF THEM?
AND YOU THINK ALL THE ABOVE GIVES ANY OF US THE RIGHT TO BEHAVE LIKE SAVAGES?
Oh, and to the Salon reader who lives in Mahattan and whose spouse is a first-responder there...Could you please remind Pinky that Michael Mukasey, a neighbor of yours, has a bit of knowledge and experience in the legal war on terror, as he was the presiding U.S. Distict Court Judge in the (first) World Trade center (bombing) attack case?
I wouldn't cross the street to so much as spit on Mukasey now, never mind acknowledge he comes from here. You're also not helping yourself here given the first bombing was treated precisely as a law enforcement matter and was resolved without resorting the sort of morally-bankrupt idiocy Bush has been spouting since he came out of hiding on 9/14.
-
Again
I am left to conclude that no one in the senate is really serious about any of this, even Dodd. Sure, they give nice speeches. But if they believed what they were saying they would do something. Stage some acts of creative civil disobedience in the senate to bring attention to such an important issue. If soldiers are willing to die for America, why can't these people even embarass themselves in front of their colleagues for America? I spit on all of them.
-
@ GRIMONE
I have before me a letter from former Secretary Albright asking for money to support the DSCC's drive to elect more Democratic senators this year.
Albright's a DLC/hawk. She can kiss my red rosy before I'll give a red cent for her DINOs, and even then, I'll give her nothing....
Cheers,
-
Clinton lost my vote today.
Even though Obama new that his being there wouldn't change the outcome, at least he went through the motions to show up and vote against amnesty.
What's next -- retroactive immunity for George III ?
If she is the Democratic nominee, then I will write in Ralph Nader.
-
Allison:
Yes, it does seem that our Senators and House members are simply uneducated. How else to put it? They don't understand The Constitution of the United States. It's not that complicated. It's really quite well written and not all that difficult to understand, if one just concentrates while reading it. After that, heck, everything has an outline. What more do they need? In this instance they clearly didn't understand (or maybe haven't read) the outline or even the cliff notes.
-
The Senate is no longer needed since they now rely on the House for anything important
Our (and my senator) Dem Assistant Majority Leader’s reply on my plea for impeachment:
Dear RMP:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the actions of the Bush Administration and proposals to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney. I appreciate knowing your views on these matters.
Removal of the President, Vice President or other federal officials by impeachment is one of the most serious constitutional responsibilities delegated to the Congress. Impeachment procedures are used very infrequently. This legislative mechanism has been reserved for carefully investigating and trying allegations of serious misconduct on the part of the President, the Vice President and civil officers of the United States. The House of Representatives has the Constitutional authority to determine whether to impeach and to draft articles of impeachment. Should the House vote to impeach an official and specify the grounds upon which impeachment is based, the matter is then presented to the Senate for trial.
On January 10, 2007, Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives calling for the impeachment of Vice President Cheney for his role in disseminating questionable intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. The resolution has been referred to the House Armed Services Committee for consideration.
I am troubled by many of the actions of this Administration. The American people are also concerned, as demonstrated by the mid-term elections. The new leadership in Congress is working for a new direction for our nation while reinstituting the Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch that has been sadly missing in recent years.
I will keep your views in mind as the fact-finding continues. Thank you again for sharing your views. Please feel free to contact me again with any concerns you wish to share.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
-
@Elephant ...
Your insistence that this vote is "...for telcom lawsuits ..." is willfully belligerent and argumentative.
I have no horse in the race of whether or not a telecom gets successfully sued in a civil court.
But under no circumstances do I want to be told that American citizens are being barred from legal recourse and redress against misconduct undertaken solely on the basis of the say so of a nameless bureaucrat. Do you remember "Trust ... but verify."?
Did not the Republicans lay claim to being the "...party of Law and Order..." for the last 50 years? Was that only when it was convenient?
I do not want, and will fight against, enactment of laws which explicitly indemnify people from wrongdoing on the basis of an unelected official offering them a free pass to engage in activity which, we are told, is not reviewable by court nor congress.
This is not about politically framing this argument to make it more appealing to a segment of the electorate. This is not about positioning the ad slogans or capturing a cheap thrills newscycle in order to succesfully re-brand the issue for a margin of positivity. This is not about voting "for telecom lawsuits," god dammit, and if you are mendacious enough to refuse to look at that in order to score cheap points off the "loyal opposition," then you will have proved Adlai Stephenson correct: "In a Democracy, people usually get the government they deserve."
I have nothing to say about the lawsuits currently in progress, so please shut the fuck up about them, unless you plan to bring up an argument that is not completely superficial.
In general, please take your attempts at argument by soundbite elsewhere.
Should you choose to engage on less demonstrably juvenile terms, by all means, do so.