Letters to the Editor - Letters

Letters to the Editor - Letters

There are 54 comments on the Honolulu Star-Bulletin story from Sep 26, 2009, titled Letters to the Editor - Letters. In it, Honolulu Star-Bulletin reports that:

A picture really does tell a thousand words. I didn't really understand why an elevated rail would work in Honolulu until I saw the photo of the Phoenix rail in last Sunday's paper.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

Yeah

Mililani, HI

#22 Sep 26, 2009
Kamaloboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to get a clue brother. The U.S military isn't a terrorist organization. You've obviously never served...probably on welfare and still has the nerve to complain about the government. Societal leech. As for being held...I think the coward Watada joined of his own free will. He got scared when he realized he had to actually go fight. It's understandable when his dad did the same thing in Vietnam.
lol! The British didn't seem to think so although Washington had a different take on it.
Disgusted Democrat

Honolulu, HI

#23 Sep 26, 2009
M. Rice would have been 100% correct is if she had substituted the name "Barrack Obama" everywhere she used the name "Glenn Beck".
Typical Lib Response

Mililani, HI

#24 Sep 26, 2009
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! So you're saying you can accept any of Obama's proposals or what non-conservatives offer?
That would be interesting indeed.
If they make sense to me, yes, I could. It's not about who originates the proposal, it's about what the proposal is.

But I don't think that's somehow a logical extension of supporting the freedom to watch or listen to TV/radio programs of your choosing.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#25 Sep 27, 2009
Typical Lib Response wrote:
<quoted text>If they make sense to me, yes, I could. It's not about who originates the proposal, it's about what the proposal is.
But I don't think that's somehow a logical extension of supporting the freedom to watch or listen to TV/radio programs of your choosing.
I see. I had it mixed up with you listening to Beck as entertainment as opposed to him saying anything factual or accurate.

In that case, you're right. There is no logical extension.
Typical Lib Response

Mililani, HI

#26 Sep 27, 2009
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>I see. I had it mixed up with you listening to Beck as entertainment as opposed to him saying anything factual or accurate.
In that case, you're right. There is no logical extension.
So how did the hip replacement in Canada go? Do you walk in circles now, just like how you reason things out to yourself?
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#27 Sep 27, 2009
Typical Lib Response wrote:
<quoted text>So how did the hip replacement in Canada go? Do you walk in circles now, just like how you reason things out to yourself?
Oh, I had other things that needed my attention.

As for my reasoning, it's still accurate unless as in your case, I miss understood your point. But I did correct myself as opposed to, say, you?
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#28 Sep 27, 2009
Typical Lib Response wrote:
<quoted text>So how did the hip replacement in Canada go? Do you walk in circles now, just like how you reason things out to yourself?
BTW, if you feel the need to continue to convince yourself I got a hip replacement, by all means continue to believe that.

I wouldn't want to burst your bubble or hurt your feelings.
LauLau

AOL

#29 Sep 27, 2009
Catch the bus!!!!!!!!
Pau

Pasadena, CA

#30 Sep 27, 2009
Typical Lib Response wrote:
<quoted text>So how did the hip replacement in Canada go? Do you walk in circles now, just like how you reason things out to yourself?
So much concern from the fanatical right is startling. I always thought they were impassive...

The the weaning off from torture and anti-intellectual buffoonery of the previous administration looks to have had a positive impact.
Liberal Delusions

Mililani, HI

#31 Sep 27, 2009
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>I see. I had it mixed up with you listening to Beck as entertainment as opposed to him saying anything factual or accurate.
In that case, you're right. There is no logical extension.
BTW, if you feel the need to continue to convince yourself I listen to Glenn Beck, by all means continue to believe that.

I wouldn't want to burst your bubble or hurt your feelings.
Liberal Delusions

Mililani, HI

#32 Sep 27, 2009
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, I had other things that needed my attention.
As for my reasoning, it's still accurate unless as in your case, I miss understood your point. But I did correct myself as opposed to, say, you?
So you're stating that Glenn Beck has nothing to say that's factual or accurate? Is that a fact, or just your opinion? Because if you're stating that as a fact, I'd like you to back that up with proof. If not, I'm going to have to call you a liar.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#33 Sep 27, 2009
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>BTW, if you feel the need to continue to convince yourself I listen to Glenn Beck, by all means continue to believe that.
I wouldn't want to burst your bubble or hurt your feelings.
lol! You believe what you want to believe. You listen to whoever you'd like to for entertainment. I have no problems with that. That's a personal preference.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#34 Sep 27, 2009
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>So you're stating that Glenn Beck has nothing to say that's factual or accurate? Is that a fact, or just your opinion? Because if you're stating that as a fact, I'd like you to back that up with proof. If not, I'm going to have to call you a liar.
lol! No. Not at all. You clarified your point as to whom and why you listen to certain people. I can respect that.

If you'd like to call me a liar, that's up to you. But you'd look pretty foolish correcting me on your statement, then me agreeing with you, followed by you calling me a liar don't you think?
Liberal Delusions

Mililani, HI

#35 Sep 27, 2009
Pau wrote:
<quoted text>
So much concern from the fanatical right is startling. I always thought they were impassive...
The the weaning off from torture and anti-intellectual buffoonery of the previous administration looks to have had a positive impact.
The Right has always had concern for people. That's why, for example, Conservatives have been shown to give more to charity than Liberals, despite the image that the latter would like everyone to believe. That's why the Conservatives care for the right of a helpless, unborn baby to live - whereas Liberals feel that the mother of the baby should be able to have the baby destroyed for any or no reason at all.

The Left feigns concern for everyone. In reality, the only people they have concern for are our enemies - terrorists who seek to kill Americans - and themselves. Liberals are living a lie, and that's why they're so angry. They're angry at themselves for their own falsehoods and hypocrisy. Liberals hate themselves, and they hate America.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#36 Sep 27, 2009
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>The Right has always had concern for people. That's why, for example, Conservatives have been shown to give more to charity than Liberals, despite the image that the latter would like everyone to believe. That's why the Conservatives care for the right of a helpless, unborn baby to live - whereas Liberals feel that the mother of the baby should be able to have the baby destroyed for any or no reason at all.
The Left feigns concern for everyone. In reality, the only people they have concern for are our enemies - terrorists who seek to kill Americans - and themselves. Liberals are living a lie, and that's why they're so angry. They're angry at themselves for their own falsehoods and hypocrisy. Liberals hate themselves, and they hate America.
lol! Anytime you'd like to post your source, I'd be interested in seeing it. I've heard this altruistic talk before about charity.

Speaking of feigning concern, how many civilians has the US and its allies killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? And while we're at it, let's include Pakistan as well.

Gee, and if liberals are so angry and hate themselves,I wonder why it's people like you who are complaining about the world?
Lefty

Waipahu, HI

#37 Sep 27, 2009
Kamaloboy wrote:
Many uniformed/ignorant people on here as usual. Watada = coward. His dad was a Vietnam coward and his son followed in his footsteps. I can't understand what these type of people think happens in the military...they are they to fight wars. And for all of you superclueless individuals that keep saying the war is illegal...get your facts straight. It was authorized by the U.S. Congress...hence it is legal. Hence you can't say you won't go because it's illegal.
Calling the war illegal or morally objectionable are just excuses for either cowardice or unwillingness to serve. It was manifest by all the draft dodgers in the 60's who spent these long years trying to convince themselves and everyone else that their "morally" based refusal to serve was somehow the opposing equivalent of those who did. Well, it wasn't and still isn't. Watada just wanted the prestiege of being an officer without living up to the obligation. He's a failure.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#38 Sep 27, 2009
Lefty wrote:
<quoted text> Calling the war illegal or morally objectionable are just excuses for either cowardice or unwillingness to serve. It was manifest by all the draft dodgers in the 60's who spent these long years trying to convince themselves and everyone else that their "morally" based refusal to serve was somehow the opposing equivalent of those who did. Well, it wasn't and still isn't. Watada just wanted the prestiege of being an officer without living up to the obligation. He's a failure.
You've concentrated on what being a good soldier is.

So tell me, what was the US fighting for in Vietnam?

And what was the primary purpose of the US invasion of Iraq?
Liberal Delusions

Mililani, HI

#39 Sep 27, 2009
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Anytime you'd like to post your source, I'd be interested in seeing it. I've heard this altruistic talk before about charity.
You've also seen the proof. No need to re-post it for you time and again. If you want to live in denial, then that's your choice.
Speaking of feigning concern, how many civilians has the US and its allies killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? And while we're at it, let's include Pakistan as well.
If you think military operations of that scale can be conducted in the absence of collateral victims, then you're either ignorant of reality, or in denial of it. The fact is that the military has gone through great lengths to avoid harming innocent non-combatants. And obviously, the enemy has used various strategies to exploit this concern. Even if it was only in its selfish interest, the military has every incentive to avoid civilian casualties.
Gee, and if liberals are so angry and hate themselves,I wonder why it's people like you who are complaining about the world?
Where are people like me complaining about "the world"? There is opposition to certain ill-conceived political plans that a few are trying to shove down our throats, and which will hurt our country. And I acknowledge that our world is far from being a so-called "perfect" place, and that we need to continue to seek to correct its problems. But on balance, I'm grateful and happy to be alive.

When do Liberals ever express sentiments like that? Your lives seem to revolve against always being *against* things. The truth is that like spoiled children, you can never be happy until you get everything your way, and until the world is "perfect" as you personally choose to define that.

The reality is that things will never be "perfect" in that sense, and because of that you are doomed to unhappiness for the rest of your lives. That's your choice, but not mine.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#40 Sep 27, 2009
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>You've also seen the proof. No need to re-post it for you time and again. If you want to live in denial, then that's your choice.
<quoted text>If you think military operations of that scale can be conducted in the absence of collateral victims, then you're either ignorant of reality, or in denial of it. The fact is that the military has gone through great lengths to avoid harming innocent non-combatants. And obviously, the enemy has used various strategies to exploit this concern. Even if it was only in its selfish interest, the military has every incentive to avoid civilian casualties.
<quoted text>Where are people like me complaining about "the world"? There is opposition to certain ill-conceived political plans that a few are trying to shove down our throats, and which will hurt our country. And I acknowledge that our world is far from being a so-called "perfect" place, and that we need to continue to seek to correct its problems. But on balance, I'm grateful and happy to be alive.
When do Liberals ever express sentiments like that? Your lives seem to revolve against always being *against* things. The truth is that like spoiled children, you can never be happy until you get everything your way, and until the world is "perfect" as you personally choose to define that.
The reality is that things will never be "perfect" in that sense, and because of that you are doomed to unhappiness for the rest of your lives. That's your choice, but not mine.
Well, if you're going to take the position that I've seen your “proof,” then you also must accept the fact that more liberals give, albeit not as much as conservatives on an individual basis. And as far as giving to “charity” is concerned, the church is only a charity according to law. Which is why they can afford to “give”$500 million away as hush money for sex with minors (and if you need my proof,“...You've also seen the proof. No need to re-post it for you time and again...“)

So now it appears that the killing of innocent women and children is acceptable for conservatives, as long as it fits into the political agenda of the right. Interesting how it now becomes justified as a true choice by government, who by virtue of your position has the only legal authority to kill them. And while we're at it, let's include the old, the sick, and anyone else who happens to be in your way.

It's rather funny how you talk about “ill conceived plans” while at the same time condoning the killing of innocent people in place we chose to invade. I'm glad you're happy to be alive. Too bad we don't give others the same choice (gee, that sure sounds like Nazis with Jews, doesn't it?) It's also funny how you feel non-conservatives need to get their way. Sure seems to me that's exactly what you're complaining about....not getting what you want. If you think I'm unhappy, fine. But if I were you I'd quit your whining because it's sending conflicting messages about you (well, maybe not so conflicting.)
Liberal Delusions

Mililani, HI

#41 Sep 28, 2009
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Well, if you're going to take the position that I've seen your “proof,” then you also must accept the fact that more liberals give, albeit not as much as conservatives on an individual basis. And as far as giving to “charity” is concerned, the church is only a charity according to law. Which is why they can afford to “give”$500 million away as hush money for sex with minors (and if you need my proof,“...You've also seen the proof. No need to re-post it for you time and again...“)
The ties between religiosity, Conservatives, and the charity they exhibit are worth noting, however the inferences that can be drawn are unclear - there are too many unknowns. What percentage of church donations goes to "church building," versus more secular but altruistic causes such as feeding the hungry, etc.? What percentage of both Conservative and Liberal charity, respectively, go to more "purely" altruistic causes - such as feeding the hungry - versus, say, art museums, private universities, etc.?

As far as the Catholic church hush money - it is outrageous if true, but I don't think you can fairly implicate or discredit Conservative donations to the church based on that. My guess is that I don't think many donors would be very happy about their money being used in that fashion, if they had any direct say in the matter.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Kahului Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Frank's Friendly Cars Maui Car Rental LLC (Jun '11) Feb '18 Big Al 2
Kula Music Thread (Dec '14) Feb '18 Musikologist 7
Lisa Otsuka alias Katie Huang.... (Dec '12) Nov '17 Big balls 5
Joe Groomes (Mar '17) Aug '17 Nancy Groomes 2
News Hawaiian Islands Weather Details & Aloha Paragr... (Feb '16) Feb '16 ben 1
News Hawaiian Islands Weather details & Aloha Paragr... (Jun '15) Jun '15 Treetop rider 2
News Tam Ho not guilty in Maui incident - Hawaii News (Oct '09) Feb '15 Frustrated 43

Kahului Jobs

Personal Finance

Kahului Mortgages