Letters to the Editor
-
Shooter..
Oh I'm sorry. Your jibe about Bork being a liberal because he sued someone, was just sarcasm? A mislaid witticism as it were? A meaningless jest at someone elses expense? An opportunity to amuse yourself with someone elses misfortune?
Yep you sure shot Bork a good one there you yuckster you.
Keep up the good work.
Heh..
The target of the sarcasm was you..
Like I said, sarcasm impaired.
As I have already pointed out, Bork brought the misfortune on himself with his lack of awareness of his surroundings and his clumsiness.
Then Bork tried to blame another for his own carelessness.
-
Thanks LWM for the Wikipedia Tibet link
That link you provided was an eye opener for me. If all that info is accurate and it seems to be well documented, then it once again shows the poor, error-ridden information provided by the M$M. Because the current Dalai Lama is such a gentle, wise man we have been led down the primrose path that the terrible Chinese have destroyed a gentle, peaceful culture. The Parenti piece “Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth,” shows how myths propagated by an M$M that is too lazy to do any real research or journalism cause even intelligent people to be so badly misinformed. I urge everyone to read this:
http://www.swans.com/library/art9/mparen01.html
-
@shooter242
Take public education for instance. I don't have kids in the system so the education tax I pay gains me nothing directly while providing free schooling for other children.
My point is thus proven, except that I forgot that you could probably not understand even the gross, unambiguous parts. The above statement is not an example of the free rider problem.
-
Elephantman
In other words, after soliciting the advice of an expert whom he trusted, Obama rejected the advice and promptly reverted to the standard, doctrinaire liberal-Democrat position. Thanks for the heads-up.
Obama at least had the intellectual honesty to listen to the opposing side, he even solicited an opposing view.
There is no evidence that Ctheney or Bush ever do that.
-
Thanks for the heads up, Elephantman
In other words, after soliciting the advice of an expert whom he trusted, Obama rejected the advice and promptly reverted to the standard, doctrinaire liberal-Democrat position.
Considering Obama was seeking an alternate viewpoint on the issue at hand - which has already been established as blatantly illegal - and not advice?
Clearly you can't read the very source you cite.
Standard, doctrinaire position of your crowd. Again, thanks for heads up.
Now will you please crawl into a deep, dank hole somewhere and just pass away? This is getting tedious.
-
Oh come on...
I don't mind if Obama runs as a liberal, the spiritual nephew of Bobby and Teddy Kennedy. Hell, that's why Obama is so well-liked by the Salon readership, right? If he were more moderate, you wouldn't like him so much, right? You don't like black leaders unless they are liberal Democrats in any case!
So please just don't try to sell us the crap that Obama is somehow transcendent, that he offers some kind of moderate third way. He doesn't. He's a Cook County Democrat, and a special breed of Cook County Democrat at that; a black southside-Chicago Alderman.
Is there any policy basis to regard him as anything but a pretty stock liberal Democrat?
-
Whoa, are you guys off topic....
In other news, evil-broadcaster John Gibson got dumped from Fox. Hopefully, we are witnessing a trend of stoogy right-wing 2nd string demagoguery in decline...
-
Who are you talking to,
Elephant Man?
And what have you been reading?
Whose radio show have you been listening to?
Oh, never mind.
-
You've already lost the argument, Elephantman.
Is there any policy basis to regard him as anything but a pretty stock liberal Democrat?
From the article you originally cited:
This is the Barack Obama I have known for nearly 15 years -- a careful and evenhanded analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple points of view.
..Obama has a genuinely independent mind, he's a terrific listener and he goes wherever reason takes him...The Obama we know is no rhetorician; he shines not because he can move people, but because of his problem-solving abilities, creativity and attention to detail... He is most comfortable in the domain of policy and detail."
I'll take this over your crowd of Know-Nothings, warmongers, profit-hungry speculators, and messianic nihlists.
You and yours are obsolescent and going extinct. Accept it. Embrace it. Make it your own.
Now if you'll excuse the rest of us, we've got work to do back in the real world.
-
@GC -Neem?
Soybean rust, eh? That a virus , or fungus ? Constantly finding new uses for it . It is the best, and about the only sure solution for mealy bug .
-
@RMP
Because the current Dalai Lama is such a gentle, wise man we have been led down the primrose path that the terrible Chinese have destroyed a gentle, peaceful culture.
The culture the Chinese have been trying to destroy was not modern. Many non-modern cultures are not gentle, and Tibet was an example. The Chinese invasion wasn't either peaceful or gentle, and the current claims that Tibet has always been a part of China are, quite simply, garbage. The treatment of the Tibetans (and the Mongolians, the Uighurs, and everybody else) under the Chinese hasn't been a gentle stream of Maoist bliss, either. The idea that Kublai Khan was a Chinese emperor first and a Mongolian Khan of Khans second is based on the Chinese rewrite of history to presume that all territories it has claimed are autonomous regions filled with indigenous Chinese ethnic minorities and that therefore the Yuan dynasty wasn't a period of foreign rule at all, but merely rule by a minority group. It's all crap.
-
No, I'm not talking about sitting around with him having a beer with Obama and two or three of the Nobel laureates at Jimmy's Woodlawn Tap...
...I'm probing what kind of cabinet would he appoint, what kinds of judges. What kinds of policies would there be under an Obama Administration. I am dead serious when I suggest that it would not look much different from a Kennedy presidency.
I am only very slightly interested in what Obama says. I have a good idea of what he would DO as President.
Look, the guy votes in the Senate the way that Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin vote. That is appalling, at least to me. Not to his ward in Hyde Park, of course. Just to a majority of the electoral college.
I'm not trying to villainize Obama. I'm just trying to de-mystify the guy.