Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: Stories: News+Opinion: Letters to the Editor

Re: “Letters to the editor

No one is being an elist. I have frequented Park Circle and the 'Old North Charleston' area quite a bit, as well as other clean, safe areas of North Chuck. As a FORMER RESIDENT of the America/Nassau St. area for nearly TWO YEARS, I will attest that downtown also has shitty streets. Our police chief is just not in denial about it. Noone is saying the N.Charleston chief is not working hard, but what I am saying is that he is in denial. It is NOT his sole responsibility but, the entire communtiy of N. Charleston's responsibility to come together and get your city's name off of that list. And no, I never walked around Nassau St. at night. My own neighborhood.

Posted by carrie on December 13, 2007 at 9:08 PM

Re: “Letters to the editor

I agree - N. Charleston has a lot of problems. Neighborhoods that use to be safe to live in (ie Park Circle) are ridden with crime. As someone who use to live in N. Charleston, I'm happy I moved!

Posted by Disco on December 12, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Re: “Letters to the editor

Wow, how elitist can you get?!? Perhaps you should take a walk around your fair snow white city, and do the same in North Chuck. You will find pockets of middle class, wealthy, and impoverished in both "Charlestons"...and fyi, I have lived in 4 places in North Charleston over the years, and 3 in Charleston...good and bad neighborhoods alike. Take a stroll down Nassau the next evening you have free and get back with us...you might just spot a loiterer or two in the your holier than thou city.

Posted by cary on December 12, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Re: “Letters to the editor

Craig, if you read Trish's post, you will see why more and more people are realizing that liberalism is not a philosophy. It is a mental disease.

Posted by hellhound4hire on October 24, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Re: “Letters to the editor

Craig D-- I wouldn't call those comments insulting of the current person holding the office of President. Americans should do what what one does in a democracy; hold your government, hold your administration to account for its words and deeds.

Posted by Trish on October 23, 2007 at 5:44 PM

Re: “Letters to the editor

Thumbs up Trish! Thanks!

Posted by billsail on October 23, 2007 at 9:46 AM

Re: “Letters to the editor

Trish, I hope that you feel better after getting all of that off of your chest. The point that you failed to realize...and probably still will, is that ALL politicians, Republican and Democrat do not have your, mine, or this Nations best interest at heart. Your above rant, although well thought out and backed up, proves an unfortunate point about you. This is, that you feel the need to belong to a certain political party or have the need to identify yourself with a generically labeled belief structure. I implore you to be an independent thinker and denounce the notion that you have to asside yourself with one of the two political parties. If we had more people willing to think outside of the box and demand that we get new leadership in Washington...i.e. new Senators, House Representatives, and a president that cared more about upholding the constitution and treating our united states like the republic for which we should be and not the socialistic oligarchy that we seem to be. Your passion and zeal is to be commended, but your focus could use a bit of adjusting. Defacing Pres. Bush and his administration while in office isn't particularly the most patriotic act, but I do understand the desire to expect better choices from our president. Under your current philosophy, I hope that you have also been as critical about your home state senator...Kennedy. He is the definition of crooked and is close to the worst thing that ever happened to our senate. ....I hope that you now see my point.

Posted by Craig D on October 22, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Re: “Letters to the editor

Craig D said: "don't be a stupid sheep or a jack_ss by isolating idiots and criminals only to the republican party." Really. Let me tell you what it means to be a Republican, then once your finished, you can analyze stupidity until January 2009 if you wish. 1.It means having blind faith and trust in the government. Today's Republicans support Bush's spying on Americans WITHOUT a court order. In other words, they support ANY President's right to spy on ANYONE he/she wants to WITHOUT a court order. I personally do not trust this adminstration or its brand of republicans as far as I can throw them. And I work for government. Hillary Clinton is coming in 2008. It will be interesting to see how today's GOP view this issue when the shoe is on the other foot. I would expect eavesdropping on her political opponents (as Bush has done); and the Republicans have no case since they have approved domestic spying under Bush. This is what happens when you think it is so wise with NO oversight of the President's spying. 2.It means you support torture. It also implicitly means that you are against the Geneva Convention and that you have no problems with Iran or North Korea (if we attack them) torturing our very own soldiers. It is their right since we ourselves are not obeying international law. The Geneva Convention was originally set up to protect our very own soldiers. You truly don't seem to care about the consequences when we sink this low. It also puts you on the same political side as such infamous and dubious characters as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. These two also very much support the practice of torture. Nice bedfellows to be with, huh! Today's Republicans think they are the party of God. Do you seriously think God approves of torture? 3. It means that you blindly oppose the closure of the prison at Guanatanamo Bay. Republicans believe Bush, who has claimed for years that the people imprisoned there as bad as they get. Never mind that some 173 prisoners have since been released (I guess they must not have been that dangerous). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay When Bush makes a statement such as “these prisoners are as bad as they get” it is important to also bear in mind the following: He also claimed that Iraq had WMD's. He also claimed that Iraq would use chemical weapons on the US troops. We all know that Bush Republicans were wrong to believe Bush, but hey, it's party loyality first right? If he was wrong so many times before, why trust him on this one? Either release the prisoners or put them on trial. Anything else is outright un-American. But, party loyalty first! The UN recently demanded that the US close the prison. The US told the UN to get lost. It has refused to allow the UN to interview the prisoners. This rogue nation type behavior is the same as the kind of stuff that Saddam Hussein pulled. Isn't it ironic? We have become just like him. We use his torture prisons to torture his people (which is what Hussein himself did). And now we thumb our noses at the UN (which is what Hussein himself did). Today's Republicans don't seem to mind that we have become a rogue nation and the consequences of it. 4. It means you believe the federal government has absolutely NO responsibility when a MAJOR disaster hits the United States. It has truly been appalling to read the number of posts who have defended Mike Brown, FEMA and Bush for their non-performance after Katrina. It begs the question, why the heck is ANY of our tax money going to FEMA if they have NO responsibility when a disaster like Katrina hits? 5. It means you strongly support the attack on Iraq as retaliation for 911. You believe this even though Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with 911. The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html You support the Iraq war, even though the war on Iraq took our focus off our REAL target, OBL and the AQ. Furthermore, you claim that our goals are noble in that we attacked Iraq in order to create a democracy there. If this is so, then why is the Bush administration trying to destabilize the democratically elected government of Venezuela? And if this is so, then why is the Bush administration refusing to deal with the newly democratically elected government of Palestine? It sure sounds like it is not democracy today's Republicans are after. Instead, it is the government abroad that can serve our interests, whether they are democratically elected or not. This is further evidenced by the United States now building permanent bases in Iraq. There are at least four such "super-bases" in Iraq, none of which have anything to do with "withdrawal" from that country. Quite the contrary, these bases are being constructed as little American islands of eternal order in an anarchic sea. Whatever top administration officials and military commanders say -- and they always deny that we seek "permanent" bases in Iraq -– facts-on-the-ground speak with another voice entirely. These bases practically scream "permanency." http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=59774 If we truly were there to liberate Iraq, why are we building permanent bases? We all know the reason. We are not there to liberate them. We are there for their oil. We have become what we always accused the old Soviet Union of; we have truly become an imperialistic nation. 6. It means you disagree with George Bush Sr's view on the world. He made the argument that Iraq's attack on Kuwait violated the basic rule that the world depended on. This rule meant that no country should never be allowed to attack another country.. The United States clearly violated this rule in 2003. 7. It means you think that the war on Iraq is going very well and that it is only the liberal media that is focusing on the negative. But you didn't seem to have any issues with the media before the war when the US media basically were cheerleaders for Bush's war. You blindly seem to ignore the ever-rising death count of our soldiers. The death count wouldn't go up if the war was going well. As Cheney claimed, “the insurgency is in its last throes”. Right! You also blindly seem to ignore that the so-called coalition of the bought keeps getting smaller and smaller. More and more allies are leaving. You also blindly seem to ignore the fact that unlike Gulf War I no other country is helping us pay for Bush Jr's war. We are stuck with giving blank checks to Iraq every six months. You may not understand the consequences of sending blank checks of $50 billion every six months; you will once the government is forced to raise your taxes to pay for Bush's war. Currently there are pro-war ads shown on TV. They are so misleading that locally one station refused to show them and another station made a report on the air about their outright false claims. http://www.startribune.com/357/story/240370.html http://www.startribune.com/357/story/252923.html Why would you have to lie for your cause if the war was going well? So, the Iraq war clearly is going badly. This is what happens when you attack another country without a broad international coalition and with no clue about how to handle the postwar. 8. It means you are against free speech. There was a Republican uproar a couple of weeks ago when there was mild criticism against Bush at the Coretta King funeral. Bush Republicans of today seem to believe in political correctness (PC) to no end. 9. It means you think George W. Bush has done a great job on the war on terror. You conveniently seem to forget that five years after 911 he still has FAILED catch to the mastermind behind it. As can be seen AFTER the unwarranted attack on Iraq, Al-Queda now has a presence even there. They didn't before (per the 911 commission). A common argument Bush apologists make is that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on US soil since 911. But what these apologists fail to mention is that Bill Clinton could have said the same thing five years after the first Al-Queda attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Furthermore, our very own intelligence failed to help two of our biggest allies in Iraq. Both the UK and Spain have suffered major attacks on their soil after 911. We have a no fly list. It means that if you are on it you are not allowed to fly. You are considered a security risk. It sounds good in theory. However, the Bush administration has managed to mess even this up. Once you are on it, you are unable to get your name off of it. Recently there was an example of a two-year old boy whose name was on it. There are also numerous examples of exemplary Americans who are against Bush who for no reason have landed on the list. James Moore, who wrote a book critical of Bush is one of the names who should not be on the list: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/branded_b_13272.html One wonders how many more political enemies of Bush are on it. And I don't hear any outcry from today's Republicans about this. This obviously does mean that when Hillary Clinton is President, Republicans won't have a problem when Bill O'Reilly finds his name on the list. Or Rush Limbaugh. Furthermore, right before the 2004 election we had a terror alert. There also was a terror alert right after the Democratic convention last year. Has anyone heard of any terror alerts ever since? The terror alerts have almost become a joke. Whenever Bush is in political trouble, we know what is going to happen to the terror alerts. 10. It means you are a complete hypocrite when it comes to the rule of law. It is brutally clear that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove not only broke the law when they outed a CIA agent. They were highly treasonous. Republicans only defense has been the Clintonian defense. In other words, they don't deny it happened but they are trying to find legalese loopholes around it such as that she wasn't really a covert agent (which is not true per the prosecutor and the USSC). Do today's Republicans realize that with their behavior a precedent has been set? It is now OK to out a CIA agent for political purposes. The Republican Congress has seen no need to investigate such an outrageous crime. As a matter of fact, Gibson on the Republican news channel FoxNews called Karl Rove a hero for having outed a CIA agent for political purposes. Hillary Clinton will now have the same right and there should be no complaints from the right. 11. It means that you believe that anyone who criticizes Bush is un-American, a traitor and unpatriotic. In other words, criticism against the President of the United States is very much frowned on by these people. It is rather interesting that they didn't seem to think this way when William Jefferson Clinton was our President. He was criticized to no end when we had soldiers at harms way in Bosnia. But that was five years ago. I am sure that when Hillary Clinton is sworn in in 2008 that today's Republicans will treat criticism against her that same way they are treating criticism against GWB. In other words, as our President, Republicans will call out those people who criticize Hillary as un-American, traitorous and unpatriotic. Right, I won't hold my breath… 12. It means that you think the President has the right to hold fake town hall meetings at tax payers expense. It also means that you agree that any people of the opposing view need to be escorted out from these very town-hall meetings paid for by the taxpayers. On March 21st, 2005, at a town hall meeting about President Bush's plan to privatize social security -- an official Presidential event paid for by your tax dollars – three Americans were forcibly removed from the audience before the event started without any explanation. Later it was confirmed by the Secret Service that the man who forcibly removed the “Denver 3” was not a Secret Service agent – an incident that has prompted the agency to launch a criminal investigation. The next day, Young, Bauer and Weise were told by the Secret Service that they were removed because the car they drove to the event had a bumper sticker that read “No More Blood for Oil.” http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/05/int05019.html Clearly, Hillary Clinton now has the right to do the same thing. I wonder how today's Republicans will feel in three years when they have to pay for Hillary's events and not have a right to be present. Imagine you getting kicked out of a Hillary Clinton event (that you helped pay for) just because you have a “W” sticker on your car. 13. It means that you believe in big government and big deficits. Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. This increase has resulted in the largest budget deficits in U.S. history, an estimated $520 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31 Bush is also the first President since John Quincy Adams to not veto a single spending bill! Back in the days of the “Contract with America”, fiscal conservatism and a balanced budget used to be Republican cornerstone. Today's Republicans do not care about fiscal responsibility. The more spending, the better! John McCain stated about a year ago that today's Republican Congress is spending like “a bunch of drunken sailors”. So true! But nobody is listening. Let the next generation deal with the deficit. Aahhh, the selfishness! Kind of like being for the Iraq war but not wanting to fight it... 14. You have no problem having the government spending your tax money to spend to pay off journalists. At least three journalists have been exposed as having taken pay offs from the Bush White house. By default, you will have NO problem if Hillary Clinton uses your tax money to payoff journalists to promote, say a health care reform package. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1401980,00.html 15. You strongly believe that a person's wish to not remain in a vegetated state forever is irrelevant. You instead believe it is the federal government's responsibility to decide for that person. This was shown in the Schiavo case where religious fanatics on the right made clowns of themselves when they tried to intervene in what the local courts had already ruled was a private decision. The rule of law does not seem to apply to today's Republicans. It only seems to matter when it comes to the sex life of someone from the other party. 16. You claim to be family values oriented, but you have absolutely no problem when the Republican Vice President Dick Cheney calls the Democratic Senator Pat Leahy OBSCENITY OBSCENITY OBSCENITY. And to top it off, Dick Cheney refused to apologize. How very Christian of him… 17. You support the elimination of the filibuster and thus any consideration for the minority view. Of course, this also means you will support it when Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Senate in 2008 eliminates the filibuster. And you will, of course have no problem with an up or down vote on a liberal pro-gay, pro-abortion judge. 18. You don't think corruption is a big deal at all. You think this, even though the corrupt politicians are cheating you on your hard earned money. Your best defense seems to be “Democrats does it do”. What a sad argument for a party that ran on getting rid of corruption with its Contract with America”. Very well, when the Democrats are in power and they have a scandal, I expect you to defend them and state “It's OK, it's not a big deal, Republicans do it, too”. 19. You don't think the President of the United States has any responsibility for just about anything. You have defended his Katrina responsive, his failed Iraq war which incredibly failed to include a post-war plan, his failure to catch Osama bin Forgotten etc etc. When Hillary Clinton takes office you better think twice before you start criticizing her for ANYTHING. The obvious rebuttal will be “why did you NEVER complain all the times when Bush messed up”? It is called lack of credibility… I haven't changed. I am still and will always be a Massachusetts born liberal democrat. But all the blind followers of Bush who jokingly call themselves Republicans have indeed changed and have distorted into something deranged.

Posted by Trish on October 22, 2007 at 12:32 PM

Re: “Letters to the editor

Craig D said: "don't be a stupid sheep or a jack_ss by isolating idiots and criminals only to the republican party." Really. Let me tell you what it means to be a Republican, then once your finished, you can analyze stupidity until January 2009 if you wish. 1.It means having blind faith and trust in the government. Today's Republicans support Bush's spying on Americans WITHOUT a court order. In other words, they support ANY President's right to spy on ANYONE he/she wants to WITHOUT a court order. I personally do not trust this adminstration or its brand of republicans as far as I can throw them. And I work for government. Hillary Clinton is coming in 2008. It will be interesting to see how today's GOP view this issue when the shoe is on the other foot. I would expect eavesdropping on her political opponents (as Bush has done); and the Republicans have no case since they have approved domestic spying under Bush. This is what happens when you think it is so wise with NO oversight of the President's spying. 2.It means you support torture. It also implicitly means that you are against the Geneva Convention and that you have no problems with Iran or North Korea (if we attack them) torturing our very own soldiers. It is their right since we ourselves are not obeying international law. The Geneva Convention was originally set up to protect our very own soldiers. You truly don't seem to care about the consequences when we sink this low. It also puts you on the same political side as such infamous and dubious characters as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. These two also very much support the practice of torture. Nice bedfellows to be with, huh! Today's Republicans think they are the party of God. Do you seriously think God approves of torture? 3. It means that you blindly oppose the closure of the prison at Guanatanamo Bay. Republicans believe Bush, who has claimed for years that the people imprisoned there as bad as they get. Never mind that some 173 prisoners have since been released (I guess they must not have been that dangerous). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay When Bush makes a statement such as “these prisoners are as bad as they get” it is important to also bear in mind the following: He also claimed that Iraq had WMD's. He also claimed that Iraq would use chemical weapons on the US troops. We all know that Bush Republicans were wrong to believe Bush, but hey, it's party loyality first right? If he was wrong so many times before, why trust him on this one? Either release the prisoners or put them on trial. Anything else is outright un-American. But, party loyalty first! The UN recently demanded that the US close the prison. The US told the UN to get lost. It has refused to allow the UN to interview the prisoners. This rogue nation type behavior is the same as the kind of stuff that Saddam Hussein pulled. Isn't it ironic? We have become just like him. We use his torture prisons to torture his people (which is what Hussein himself did). And now we thumb our noses at the UN (which is what Hussein himself did). Today's Republicans don't seem to mind that we have become a rogue nation and the consequences of it. 4. It means you believe the federal government has absolutely NO responsibility when a MAJOR disaster hits the United States. It has truly been appalling to read the number of posts who have defended Mike Brown, FEMA and Bush for their non-performance after Katrina. It begs the question, why the heck is ANY of our tax money going to FEMA if they have NO responsibility when a disaster like Katrina hits? 5. It means you strongly support the attack on Iraq as retaliation for 911. You believe this even though Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with 911. The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html You support the Iraq war, even though the war on Iraq took our focus off our REAL target, OBL and the AQ. Furthermore, you claim that our goals are noble in that we attacked Iraq in order to create a democracy there. If this is so, then why is the Bush administration trying to destabilize the democratically elected government of Venezuela? And if this is so, then why is the Bush administration refusing to deal with the newly democratically elected government of Palestine? It sure sounds like it is not democracy today's Republicans are after. Instead, it is the government abroad that can serve our interests, whether they are democratically elected or not. This is further evidenced by the United States now building permanent bases in Iraq. There are at least four such "super-bases" in Iraq, none of which have anything to do with "withdrawal" from that country. Quite the contrary, these bases are being constructed as little American islands of eternal order in an anarchic sea. Whatever top administration officials and military commanders say -- and they always deny that we seek "permanent" bases in Iraq -– facts-on-the-ground speak with another voice entirely. These bases practically scream "permanency." http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=59774 If we truly were there to liberate Iraq, why are we building permanent bases? We all know the reason. We are not there to liberate them. We are there for their oil. We have become what we always accused the old Soviet Union of; we have truly become an imperialistic nation. 6. It means you disagree with George Bush Sr's view on the world. He made the argument that Iraq's attack on Kuwait violated the basic rule that the world depended on. This rule meant that no country should never be allowed to attack another country.. The United States clearly violated this rule in 2003. 7. It means you think that the war on Iraq is going very well and that it is only the liberal media that is focusing on the negative. But you didn't seem to have any issues with the media before the war when the US media basically were cheerleaders for Bush's war. You blindly seem to ignore the ever-rising death count of our soldiers. The death count wouldn't go up if the war was going well. As Cheney claimed, “the insurgency is in its last throes”. Right! You also blindly seem to ignore that the so-called coalition of the bought keeps getting smaller and smaller. More and more allies are leaving. You also blindly seem to ignore the fact that unlike Gulf War I no other country is helping us pay for Bush Jr's war. We are stuck with giving blank checks to Iraq every six months. You may not understand the consequences of sending blank checks of $50 billion every six months; you will once the government is forced to raise your taxes to pay for Bush's war. Currently there are pro-war ads shown on TV. They are so misleading that locally one station refused to show them and another station made a report on the air about their outright false claims. http://www.startribune.com/357/story/240370.html http://www.startribune.com/357/story/252923.html Why would you have to lie for your cause if the war was going well? So, the Iraq war clearly is going badly. This is what happens when you attack another country without a broad international coalition and with no clue about how to handle the postwar. 8. It means you are against free speech. There was a Republican uproar a couple of weeks ago when there was mild criticism against Bush at the Coretta King funeral. Bush Republicans of today seem to believe in political correctness (PC) to no end. 9. It means you think George W. Bush has done a great job on the war on terror. You conveniently seem to forget that five years after 911 he still has FAILED catch to the mastermind behind it. As can be seen AFTER the unwarranted attack on Iraq, Al-Queda now has a presence even there. They didn't before (per the 911 commission). A common argument Bush apologists make is that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on US soil since 911. But what these apologists fail to mention is that Bill Clinton could have said the same thing five years after the first Al-Queda attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Furthermore, our very own intelligence failed to help two of our biggest allies in Iraq. Both the UK and Spain have suffered major attacks on their soil after 911. We have a no fly list. It means that if you are on it you are not allowed to fly. You are considered a security risk. It sounds good in theory. However, the Bush administration has managed to mess even this up. Once you are on it, you are unable to get your name off of it. Recently there was an example of a two-year old boy whose name was on it. There are also numerous examples of exemplary Americans who are against Bush who for no reason have landed on the list. James Moore, who wrote a book critical of Bush is one of the names who should not be on the list: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/branded_b_13272.html One wonders how many more political enemies of Bush are on it. And I don't hear any outcry from today's Republicans about this. This obviously does mean that when Hillary Clinton is President, Republicans won't have a problem when Bill O'Reilly finds his name on the list. Or Rush Limbaugh. Furthermore, right before the 2004 election we had a terror alert. There also was a terror alert right after the Democratic convention last year. Has anyone heard of any terror alerts ever since? The terror alerts have almost become a joke. Whenever Bush is in political trouble, we know what is going to happen to the terror alerts. 10. It means you are a complete hypocrite when it comes to the rule of law. It is brutally clear that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove not only broke the law when they outed a CIA agent. They were highly treasonous. Republicans only defense has been the Clintonian defense. In other words, they don't deny it happened but they are trying to find legalese loopholes around it such as that she wasn't really a covert agent (which is not true per the prosecutor and the USSC). Do today's Republicans realize that with their behavior a precedent has been set? It is now OK to out a CIA agent for political purposes. The Republican Congress has seen no need to investigate such an outrageous crime. As a matter of fact, Gibson on the Republican news channel FoxNews called Karl Rove a hero for having outed a CIA agent for political purposes. Hillary Clinton will now have the same right and there should be no complaints from the right. 11. It means that you believe that anyone who criticizes Bush is un-American, a traitor and unpatriotic. In other words, criticism against the President of the United States is very much frowned on by these people. It is rather interesting that they didn't seem to think this way when William Jefferson Clinton was our President. He was criticized to no end when we had soldiers at harms way in Bosnia. But that was five years ago. I am sure that when Hillary Clinton is sworn in in 2008 that today's Republicans will treat criticism against her that same way they are treating criticism against GWB. In other words, as our President, Republicans will call out those people who criticize Hillary as un-American, traitorous and unpatriotic. Right, I won't hold my breath… 12. It means that you think the President has the right to hold fake town hall meetings at tax payers expense. It also means that you agree that any people of the opposing view need to be escorted out from these very town-hall meetings paid for by the taxpayers. On March 21st, 2005, at a town hall meeting about President Bush's plan to privatize social security -- an official Presidential event paid for by your tax dollars – three Americans were forcibly removed from the audience before the event started without any explanation. Later it was confirmed by the Secret Service that the man who forcibly removed the “Denver 3” was not a Secret Service agent – an incident that has prompted the agency to launch a criminal investigation. The next day, Young, Bauer and Weise were told by the Secret Service that they were removed because the car they drove to the event had a bumper sticker that read “No More Blood for Oil.” http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/05/int05019.html Clearly, Hillary Clinton now has the right to do the same thing. I wonder how today's Republicans will feel in three years when they have to pay for Hillary's events and not have a right to be present. Imagine you getting kicked out of a Hillary Clinton event (that you helped pay for) just because you have a “W” sticker on your car. 13. It means that you believe in big government and big deficits. Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. This increase has resulted in the largest budget deficits in U.S. history, an estimated $520 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31 Bush is also the first President since John Quincy Adams to not veto a single spending bill! Back in the days of the “Contract with America”, fiscal conservatism and a balanced budget used to be Republican cornerstone. Today's Republicans do not care about fiscal responsibility. The more spending, the better! John McCain stated about a year ago that today's Republican Congress is spending like “a bunch of drunken sailors”. So true! But nobody is listening. Let the next generation deal with the deficit. Aahhh, the selfishness! Kind of like being for the Iraq war but not wanting to fight it... 14. You have no problem having the government spending your tax money to spend to pay off journalists. At least three journalists have been exposed as having taken pay offs from the Bush White house. By default, you will have NO problem if Hillary Clinton uses your tax money to payoff journalists to promote, say a health care reform package. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1401980,00.html 15. You strongly believe that a person's wish to not remain in a vegetated state forever is irrelevant. You instead believe it is the federal government's responsibility to decide for that person. This was shown in the Schiavo case where religious fanatics on the right made clowns of themselves when they tried to intervene in what the local courts had already ruled was a private decision. The rule of law does not seem to apply to today's Republicans. It only seems to matter when it comes to the sex life of someone from the other party. 16. You claim to be family values oriented, but you have absolutely no problem when the Republican Vice President Dick Cheney calls the Democratic Senator Pat Leahy OBSCENITY OBSCENITY OBSCENITY. And to top it off, Dick Cheney refused to apologize. How very Christian of him… 17. You support the elimination of the filibuster and thus any consideration for the minority view. Of course, this also means you will support it when Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Senate in 2008 eliminates the filibuster. And you will, of course have no problem with an up or down vote on a liberal pro-gay, pro-abortion judge. 18. You don't think corruption is a big deal at all. You think this, even though the corrupt politicians are cheating you on your hard earned money. Your best defense seems to be “Democrats does it do”. What a sad argument for a party that ran on getting rid of corruption with its Contract with America”. Very well, when the Democrats are in power and they have a scandal, I expect you to defend them and state “It's OK, it's not a big deal, Republicans do it, too”. 19. You don't think the President of the United States has any responsibility for just about anything. You have defended his Katrina responsive, his failed Iraq war which incredibly failed to include a post-war plan, his failure to catch Osama bin Forgotten etc etc. When Hillary Clinton takes office you better think twice before you start criticizing her for ANYTHING. The obvious rebuttal will be “why did you NEVER complain all the times when Bush messed up”? It is called lack of credibility… I haven't changed. I am still a conservative (just not a Bush Republican). But all the blind followers of Bush who jokingly call themselves Republicans have indeed changed.

Posted by Trish on October 22, 2007 at 12:28 PM

Re: “Letters to the editor

BlueGrits, don't be a stupid sheep or a jack_ss by isolating idiots and criminals only to the republican party. It's pretty clear that the vast majority of all politicians are self serving criminals. Think for yourself and you'll see that most professional politicians aren't in it for you.

Posted by Craig D on October 18, 2007 at 2:38 PM

Re: “Letters to the editor

Great letter. Very much highlights the arrogance of the people that are elected to office. The problem I see here is that not only is DeMint arrogant, but this arrogance is only matched by his ignorance. The people who voted him into office apparently have no issue with having their intelligence insulted as he knows they'll believe his lies. South Carolina has the lousiest educational system in the country and has so for years. Yet we produce adults from this very system who are allowed to vote. The result of the votes from these people are DeMint, and the rest of the criminal republican party.

Posted by BlueGrits on October 11, 2007 at 8:48 AM

Re: “Letters to the Editor

Are you capable of understanding facts? The election was stolen- twice. You may love Bush, are a Bush apologist and a "bushie" but many of us see the incompentent idiot for what he is. And yet there is an entire coterie of believers, yourself included, who think wading into the pit of alligators with a piece of parchment and a smile on your face has made things so much better because your man bush is in charge right? He was elected "fair and square" right? Regardless of how he got there matters not any longer. Your bushie buddies in Washington made the most astonishing series of mistakes, proved themselves incapable of adjustment until far too late, and have produced the worst foreign policy debacle in the nation's history. Are you down with that? Mission accomplished, right? At least the one we were told about, but there always seems to be a new one. Not surprising when you're lurching from tragedy to disaster without the vaguest clue what you're doing, and when you refuse advice from those who might have some idea about the situation. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in a foreign land, we have corrupted the Army effort with privateers at 10 times the cost, all in the name of demonstrating how the volunteer army is such a success. We have instituted the most Constitution crushing regime in the past hundred years; we have ceded near dictatorial powers to the Executive, all in the name of war-without-end, we have decimated our standing in the world community, and we have made ourselves less safe in the process. And that's only the beginning of the list. I don't like Bush because he is, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, a calamity wrapped in a disaster inside a train wreck. He is an idiot, incapable of seeing any side of a discussion but his own, and is a hapless pawn in the grip of some truly evil people in the Republican party, specifically Cheney and Rove, who have no more care about democracy than does my dog. It's people like you that make South Carolina appear as if it only has a population of a bunch of myopic backward thinking goobers who strive to upgrade to a doublewide.

Posted by BlueGrits on September 20, 2007 at 6:45 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor

BlueGrits. Ok, I will go over this ONE time so even agenda driven pinko liberals can understand it. You may not agree with it, but do you research and you will find out it is true. The five supreme court justices that stopped the fiasco in Florida did what was right. A. they stopped a parial recount of Southern Florida. A recount of all of Florida and military absentee ballots were not being allowed by the democrats and the Florida Supreme court. In my opinion a partial recount was attempted becuase Gore's people (led by his National Campaign Chairman, and former Chicage mayor John Daily son) Daily had the fix in those four counties in southern Florida where the democrtas could "buy" the elderly vote. Remember chads, partial chads........... B. Even the New York Times, Time, Newsweek and the Atlanta Counstitution and Journal, after their recounts admitted that Florida won the popular vote. So Bush did win the popular vote and is actually your president amd mine. C. Kathleen Harris did what her state office legally required her to do. D. The NAACP claimed voter intimadation during the election. But, when challenged were not able to produce one single person to prove it. E. All you pinko's think that Bush and his people can make honorable people do whatever they want. Well it is unfortunate that you apperantley have never met people who will do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do. Not everyone has a political agenda, or can be bought. F. Get over it, President Bush is legally and lawfully the President of the United States. He won the game (electorial college) fair and square. So move on!!!!!!!

Posted by southernman on September 18, 2007 at 8:40 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor

George Bush is the LEGALLY ELECTED (not appointed like pin heads say) _______________________ Dear Southernman- O'lielly-- you don't know the law do you? In 2000 Bush was appointed to the office of President by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court voted along partisan lines in making this decision. Had the outcome of the election been based on the number of votes cast in Florida -- rather than the political manipulations of a low-level party hack (K. Harris) -- then Bush would not have been President. To say that Bush was "elected" President in 2000 is to ignore historical reality -- and ignoring realtiy is akin to being delusional.

Posted by BlueGrits on September 18, 2007 at 8:48 AM

Re: “Letters to the Editor

Bluegrits, I see the problem. You have a hard time with reality. George Bush is the LEGALLY ELECTED (not appointed like pin heads say) President of the United States and you can't or won't admit it. I know the truth hurts, but it will also set you free! Grow up, get over it, move on!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by southernman on September 17, 2007 at 8:47 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor

You know, I'm kind of sick of people who choose sides in the great political match and then bash the other side over a bunch of stereotypes that may or may not be true. Thanks for destroying democracy folks. I'm sure you sit around and talk about terrorists taken away our freedom when you're part of the great herd that is taking away more of our freedom than any terrorist.

Posted by native on September 17, 2007 at 7:19 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor

Here is the difference, when there "problem" is found out we expell them out of the party." ______________________________ No you don't. The biggest problem still occupies the oval office.

Posted by BlueGrits on September 17, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Re: “Letters to the Editor

hbinwid, I assume you must be a liberal. I will spell this out so even a LIBERAL can understand it. Yes, there are some people in the Republican party that are gay and druggies. Here is the difference, when there "problem" is found out we expell them out of the party. The democrats welcome pediophiles and druggies into the party and then call them main stream some of the senior democrats have driven off of bridges and left a pregnant women in the car for fourteen hours before reporting it. So, certainly the democrats are in no position to judge anyone about anything. Oh, less I forget they even have a impeached president in their party that is looked at as a hero!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by southernman on September 16, 2007 at 7:40 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor

Wonderful post. However, I wouldn't mind the bridge being named "Father of Coke Head Bridge." After knowing some Ravenels, that could be changed to 'Head(s).' Also, Southern Man, why do you stick up for these guys and attack those that attack them? Instead of bashing those 'leftist pinkos,' admit that your party has a major cocaine and homosexual problem. It might make you feel better just to admit it.

Posted by hbdinwid on September 16, 2007 at 9:48 AM

Re: “Letters to the Editor

This joke has been out way too long to have it in a letter to the editor now . Try something original. I'm sure there are many streets and bridges with the names of drug dealers, murderers and lord know what else these days. Just too many of these are named after people and not people one would expect to be remembered by someone other than their own family and friends. What happened to street and bridge names such as sunrise ln. or sunset ln.?

Posted by proud2bme on September 15, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2015, Charleston City Paper   RSS