Letters to the Editor
-
TomHere
Smiling in your Saturday sleep.
TomHere fell out of the swivel 'gadget' chair.
TomHere bumped his head and guess what?
Kitt went to the health food store for his sore.
Kitt bought TomHere a bag of stale 'Fritos' for Goldfarb's GOP pals to share. stupid. Who is winning here? If you are here, lock the door. Go send someone out for some Pizza Pie for a lousy Saturday dinner.
I'm checking back out.
I'm gonna call the fbi!
Warrantless snoopers.
I'll go get some kvetch.
Glenn may be so cranky?
DCLaw1? Who surveils here?
I know it's not you or Glenn.
-
DCLaw1
This is, obviously, not to say that there isn't a great deal of exploitation, violence, and abuse in the sex industry - particularly in criminalized markets.
even though you say this quite plainly and quite clearly your post will be seen, to some, only as a misogynistic screed inferred to say that all prostitutes are out of the realm of concern
their 101-style of arguement does not allow them to see this issue with any kind of a critical eye
-
bucky1
We all can see every word here and it is on record forever in the archives. Read that slowly little one, and whine to Salon if Glenn will not help you out on this.
-- bucky1
As I told you, I don't "whine" or alert Glenn or Salon when you post the foul comments you post.
I don't know if you are feigning utter density, or if you really are that dense, but my complaint addressed at you had to do with the way you include everyone ("we all") into your foul opinions. It had nothing to do with the fact that your foul opinions can literally be read by "we all".
Seeing how you have consistently failed to understand the definition of the word 'grammar', perhaps you aren't feigning utter density.
-
LWM
Shouldn't you be busy plastering this comment section with links about how Obama is a racist and a bigot because of Farakkhan and his preacher and whatnot? You know, the way you spammed these pages with them about Ron Paul? Or do you only do guilt by association smears about Ron Paul since Obama is perceived as one of the "good guys"?
But why would a true believer bigot buster like LWM apply an equal standard to both sides? That's right, he won't because he is a little establishment loving toadie with a selective memory who will stoop to whatever low he can to distract people away from his love of the status quo and his bigoted warmongering.
LWM is a hypocrite and a loyal supporter of the status quo and the warmongers that guide it? Who would have thought?
-
Bork principles?
The Richard Reeves (back when) criticism of Bork seems the best fit . He's an authoritarian . That's his "principle". Authority> individuals. Every time .
ps I'm glad that the public decided to keep this public.
http://www.summitpost.org/area/range/368791/paria-canyon-vermilion-cliffs-wilderness.html
http://www.summitpost.org/image/149286/150395/nice-undercast-from.html
( & the overwhelming majority of what's on the site, and similar)
The second link,(I did volunteer work there - so no free ride) and most of the NY sites , are public via the state Constitution , enacted during a constitutional convention . How's that situation fit in/viewed by Libertarian theory ? (Really - just curious)
-
Kitt. Yas'all?
Yuse isa' about the only dang male,
who makes me smile when I read ya's.
-
@bucky1
LWM will sit here all day posting links about how Ron Paul is a racist and using them for his guilt by association nonsense. Yet, I don't see him spamming his stupid hyperlinks regarding Obama is his supposed bigotry and racists connections. He is merely a blind partisan who worships the warmongers and the status quo. A tired, scared old man who is afraid that if anything really did change, it might interfere with his old man routine and he might not be the bettter for it. It is actually fairly boring trolling him because it is always the same thing, him playing apologist for warmongers, the military, and the American Empire Project.
LWM doesn't have a formal education? Why doesn't that surprise me?
-
joshuanoyes
even though you say this quite plainly and quite clearly your post will be seen, to some, only as a misogynistic screed inferred to say that all prostitutes are out of the realm of concern
I know - luckily, others' lack of critical faculties or rationality is not my problem.
-
Foul comments
Frankly I see many of the regular commentariat making foul comments from time to time. Not all by any means, but certainly a plurality and probably a majority.
I've done it myself, most recently to tina schrier. Although I must plead extreme provocation in her case and I don't think I'm alone in that, she seems to have rubbed more than a few of us the wrong way.
If we all engaged in a bit more self-reflection it probably would help the level of discourse here.
-
Just watch, bucky1
Should LWM's hero not get the nomination, Warrior Princess Hillary Clinton, and Obama is the nominee, don't expect so much as a mousefart from LWM about Obama's supposed bigotry and racist connections.
Better yet, expect LWM to claim all the Obama racism stuff is merely "right wing propaganda", which we all know is A-OK when smearing someone LWM doesn't like, e.g. Ron Paul. He has even linked "Mainstream Libertarians" like the drunken idiot warmonger Eric Dumbdero in order to smear Ron Paul.
IT is so much easier to not take him seriosly when one realizes what a hypocritcal closed-minded self-serving warmonger he really is.
-
I can't decide
If your are just obtuse, unbalanced or both. But that's not my problem.
You claim that Dr. Paul is a racist
I happen to think he is but I said we'll probably never know.
even though thousands upon thousands of people say you are wrong.
Thousands upon thousands of people still think George Bush is a great President. Thousands upon thousand of people who voted for him twice don't think he's so great now. What's your point?
People in his district who are of all races claim he is not. Yet a fellow like you can say any lie and claim you do not need to back it up.
Is Austin (the guy from the NAACP speaking as a private citizen) in his his district? Okay Bucky, back that up. Sounds like a baseless assertion to me.
You don't live in his district and you have no clue what the demographic make up is. No one can be sure since the 2003 redistricting. Paul's district is now larger than Massachusetts with 675 miles (1,100 kilometers) of Gulf of Mexico coastline between Houston and Corpus Christi, Texas, covering some 22 counties. It is Texas. I have friends who live in Texas. I doubt you've ever been there. They can't get me to visit, and they really try.
Paul lives in Lake Jackson:
As of the census[1] of 2000, there were 26,386 people, 9,588 households, and 7,344 families residing in the city. The population density was 1,386.0 people per square mile (535.1/km²). There were 10,475 housing units at an average density of 550.2/sq mi (212.4/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 86.24% White, 3.88% African American, 0.39% Native American, 2.50% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 5.19% from other races, and 1.79% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 14.70% of the population.
There were 9,588 households out of which 42.6% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 64.7% were married couples living together, 8.5% had a female householder with no husband present, and 23.4% were non-families. 20.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 7.3% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.74 and the average family size was 3.18.
In the city the population was spread out with 30.6% under the age of 18, 7.6% from 18 to 24, 30.2% from 25 to 44, 21.7% from 45 to 64, and 9.9% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 34 years. For every 100 females there were 95.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 93.3 males.
The median income for a household in the city was $60,901, and the median income for a family was $69,053. Males had a median income of $60,143 versus $30,398 for females. The per capita income for the city was $25,877. About 5.4% of families and 6.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 6.5% of those under age 18 and 6.7% of those age 65 or over.
This comment from a fellow wiki editor concludes this tawdry episode in American politics for me:
The newsletter controvery section has been repeatedly removed and eviscerated by Ron Paul's enthusiastic supporters, who want as little negative information about Paul as possible reaching the public. It's a miracle frankly that the section still exists, and the fact that it does is testimony to the tenacity and honesty a few hard working Wikipedians interested in preserving some semblance of balance in this article. Still, the section as it stands right now says almost nothing about the controvery. Laughably, it starts out with a DENIAL of the charges without first stating what the controversy is about. If you are retired and can spend 16 hours a day waging war with the Paulbots, or have access to a small army who can assist you, you might be able to insert some truthful details into this section. But if you try to do it while living a life on a normal schedule, you might as well forget it. With Ron Paul's political career ending and his campaign in a state of collapse, this wikipedia page is sort of a shrine for the Ron Paul people to gather around. And if it makes them feel better to build this little lonely island tribute to their hero, I'm inclined to let them have it. Ron Paul is a fringe figure fast fading from memory. Ultimately, it makes no difference if Nazi sympathizers build a tribute to David Duke, totalitarian communists build a shrine for Joseph Stalin, or the ultra-rightwing builds a temple for worship of Ron Paul. It's their business, their cult of personality, their obsession. I vote to let them delete the newsletter section completely so the fantasy feels even more real to them than it already does. -asx- (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)