Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
Mumbai, the NYT's revisionism, and lessons not learned The Times' Editorial Page blames the Bush administration for "blessing" the military coup against Hugo Chavez without mentioning that it did the same. Why does that matter?
The letters thread is now closed.
  • Heru

    Sorry, Heru, it was all in good fun. You should have more of a sense of humor about yourself(-selves, I suppose if you want to county Bucky1, your previous incarnation). But with this sort of response, I'm afraid you'll have a tough time getting off the wheel.

  • rrheard

    Let's be fair. I don't call him names. Don't let the ferocity of his response color my posts.

  • @AKA Smith

    if you had wanted a leftist, you could have supported Kucinich.

    It is not absurd when people say that they have been lied to, yet if they have been lied to and could have easily discovered the lie, then one has less sympathy. However, when one has been told the truth yet refuses to believe it, that is not just a failure think. People should be ashamed to conduct their choices on the basis of faith and then claim that the facts eluded them.

    -- AKA Smith

    To whom, specifically, are you addressing that lecture to? We all know you can find anecdotal cases of what you are going on about. But don't you think you're blowing your case about "disappointed leftists" who supposedly were and are fooling themselves about Obama. Trying to hold his feet to the fire or even just trying to set his feet on fire is not the same thing as mistaking him for what you say that "leftists" were and are mistaking him for.

    I, for one, voted for him quite well knowing his record and who and what he is about. I don't think I am an unusual "leftist" in that regard. I believe that the vast majority of those on 'the left" who voted for him had and have a more than reasonable idea about who and what he is about. And please, knock it the hell off with the Kucinich dead letter. The guy couldn't get elected. That means that he was not someone we "should have voted for". I wouldn't have liked having John McCain as President. Who you?

  • -- omooex the liar continues ...

    Sorry, Heru, it was all in good fun.

    That is a fucking lie from a little piece of shit. You have been wanting to start something for weeks. Now is the time you bigot.

    I told you what happened. If you don't believe, then fine. But you want to be the drama queen and make this comment area all about you.

    We can do that, you asshat.

    How is that black skin that you voted for working out for you? The others voted for a man, not a skin color.

  • is your gift for hijacking every thread -- rrheard

    What?

    And where were you when he tried to start something for days on end without me saying anything?

    No biggie then, eh?

  • Let's be fair. I don't call him names. -- omooex

    Another f'ing lie.

    When a bigot like you says a man is not telling the truth, then he is in fact calling the man a liar.

    You are the liar. But then, your biggest fault is being a racist.

  • Oh!, ethics_professor

    Please make a note to put those two on the "A" list.

    Thank you so very much.

  • heru-ur/omooex

    Can we just recognize now that nothing constructive will come of continuing this exchange and agree to cease now?

  • omooex, all I'm saying is that given how long we've

    all watched this go on, taking sides would be pointless. Don't allow yourself do be baited. Period. Personally I think Heru has an irrational fixation with the idea you may have voted for PE Obama based "in part" on his skin color. So did a lot of people. There are valid arguments for why at this point in time in human history, skin color isn't necessarily an inappropriate "part" of someone's rationale for voting for PE Obama. Heru wants to believe in the ideal whereby no human being is "evaluated" on the amount of melanin in their skin . . . so do I. But that isn't the world we live in and there is something to be said for the very realworld good that symbolic representations of certain values can yield. If Heru doesn't understand that, he's not being intellectually/emotionally honest and isn't living in the real world.

  • GG

    Agreed. Ceasing... ... ...Ceased.

  • MR. GREENWALD SCORES AGAIN

    Wow. Ole Glenn knows how to wake everybody up. I was asleep for a couple of years. No wonder Chavez despises us. Nixon and Kissinger all over again and somehow I missed it. Even the responses are worth reading. I do not know how you do it, but for heaven's sake, don't stop.We need the NYT, but it needs to be called to account from time to time. I thought Judy Miller was bad.

  • I vow. LAST POST. I promise No posting for the rest of the year. Delete? It is okay, and `It don't matter. Klytus enters.... (naked)

    ~

    Why wear a mommy brassiere, a ankle bracelet,

    and a colorful crown of jelly beans? Gold Mums.

    O. Kvetch. Ay. A new name for a Klytus Hostess.

    Klytus consume many stale 'Hostess' fruit cakes.

    Vegans do kvetching? No eat a bony duck soup.

    Ambrosia. Yummy, a fouls odor is Hugo Chavez?

    Hugo smell what? Jello? No. French Fries? Sulfur.

    Jello has no odor. You can jiggle and shake here.

    Baked sweet carrots, sweet potato, honks Klytus?

    Free sticky bumper stinkers at Jebbie's bog swap.

    Melodrama K. needs a drunk to sit on a keyboard.

    Klytus. Go ponder. O wonder if poodle is leashed.

    You and dead ducks wear no panties. Call quacks.

    You manage a bird-mate, date club? Hug a bears.

    Klytus is a yellow big bird who eats child sea saws.

    Sop. Cease. Bless, resist. Ay, refrain. Embellish UT.

    Klutus. Ya forgot to enter a stage scene with threads.

  • GG

    heru-ur/omooex

    Can we just recognize now that nothing constructive will come of continuing this exchange and agree to cease now?

    -- GlennGreenwald

    I agree, and I agreed on that point a long time ago, and asked that the other fellow never address me and that I would return the favor. This seems the best course.

    Over the course of the last several threads, I think I have posted on topic or at least with substantial comments. I do not think the other fellow can say the same. He has only been after starting a dust-up so as to cause this very conversation.

    As you yourself have seen, to not engage him is to be a continual target one's self. Hence, I think you will have to ban one or the other of us --- both, most likely.

    I am not going to be a target. I will not address him other than to respond to attacks. What will *you* do?

Most Active Stories

Read More

Letters Help

Daily Delivery

Salon headlines in your mailbox