Letters to the Editor
ezhik2
Published Letters: 164 Editor's Choice: 1
-
What stops him?
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh! Great!
Then we do not have a problem at all. Nothing stops St. O. from going on Ophra along with the PP representatives and giving their side of the story. Why didn't they do it already?
Who stopped Obama's campaign from stapling copies of this article to his 'I am a Christian Leader' leaflet?
dataguyx, be a dear, start sending e-mails to every single potential voter in every single future state primary, especially the one within the Bible Belt.
And while you, Obama's supporters, are at it, don't forget to explain that you do not actually see the words 'observant Muslim' as an insult. Listening to you one may imagine somebody accuse him of roasting babies for human sacrifices.
-
Lies? What lies?
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There were no lies. We just had a simple misunderstanding.
Who knew that in Illinois ‘present’ means ‘no.’ I didn’t. I would love to see any proof, or any explanation of why they bothered to have ‘yes’, ‘no’, and ‘present=no’ instead of, let’s say, ‘yes’ and ‘present,’ but I am fine with blindly believing your explanations.
Who knew that Obama went so much further than just standing for his convictions? Who knew that he manipulated the state legislative process to let his more timid colleagues to get away with a ‘no.’ So sneaky! He is not shy to tell us that he is a ‘uniter,’ a ‘Christian leader,’ a proud owner of the most liberal voting record. He should not be too modest to advertise his being so clever about being pro-choice without actually voting pro-choice.
-
Why not?
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But questioning Obama's fundamental commitment to women's rights (when he had the approval to begin with from NOW) during a fierce campaign like this--just strikes me as striking below the belt. And not a great moment for women.
Why sould not we question a candidate's commitment to anything, inluding women's right? I don't care about kosher feminism, non-kosher humanism, approvals from NOW, Ophra, or Santa, or the sensitivity of anybody's under-belt regions.
Please help me find 'Reproductive Issues,' or 'Women's Rights' among under the 'Issues' on Obama's web site. I would love to see any proof of his commitment to either.
-
Why?
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton: The Asian-American choice]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why should any first generation immigrant vote for a candidate who list on his web site among his priorities:
Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants
Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.
Bush is more immigrant-friendly than Obama.
And why would Obama change the system which served him well? He was born a citizen, raised by his white American mother and grand-mother. Meanwhile, his inconvenient muslim daddy had to return to Kenya.
All of the above would be fine if only he would not lie so much about his ...'diversity.'
-
Sorry...
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry, but 'present.' I mean, 'present=no'. The parents of girls who are 18, or 21, do not 'need' to know. They may 'want' to know, but these is their problem and a matter of their relationships with their children, but not of the state's judiciary system. Same is true for a child who is considered old enough to give consent to any other treatment.
-
Horse's mouth, please
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear JL,
Please help me find 'Reproductive Issues,' or 'Women's Rights' among under the 'Issues' on Obama's web site. I would love to see any proof of his commitment to either.
Or just admit it is not among the 'Issues' he cares enough to place on his web site.
Either would be acceptable.
-
Daddy knows best
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and you had better not get in the way of a normal family relationship with our children
Nothing prohibits a child of any age to go to his parent first even if the state does not make parental notification mandatory. Quite the opposite, parental notification (or notification and consent) laws are getting in the way of established family relationship. It forces a child to go to a parent to whom she, apparently, is not otherwise comfortable to talk. And he (or she) does not have to be openly, or actively, or sexually, abusive. They may be just opressive.
-
How would I know
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@ doloresflower
How would I know and why would I care why and if 'feminists' want to 'get' Obama? Or why Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, is giving explanation on NPR years after the event?
I just see that Hillary cares enough to address the question of women's right on her web-site, and Barry doesn't. I also understand that Barry Obama was one of those who 'didn't want to vote pro-choice anymore, because they knew these were being used against them in their campaigns.' Fine with me. Why should he risk his future campaigns? I don't blame him for placing this issues on his D list, way below McCainesque proposal to chase illegal immigrants. I am fine with it. But why does his campaign has to lie and wiggle? Just admit it. It will not even hurt him considering his most active supporters. We already have one Obamite who supports parental notification laws.