Letters to the Editor
ljwalker53
Published Letters: 559 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@ Xrandadu Hutman: Disingenuous Or Thick?
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's Texas-size moment ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How is it that you still can't see or call a "sexist" comment a sexist comment; or, more appropriately: why is it that you can't and won't call these comments what they are?
Of course, if you really want to debate sexism and why several of the comments I used as examples are such, we could talk about how sexism is ingrained in the attitudes, from which the words and/or phrases follow. Would you understand it, then?
And about the so-called "ad hominem" attacks against you: how can they be ad hominem when based on previous experience with you -- (dismissal/denial/denigration/downplaying) comments made about HRC and her record -- they seem to have merit? Is it ad hominem to say that you act like a 16-year old when you in fact do (name-calling, baiting, generalizing, using red herrings and straw men)? Or ad hominem to make a comment about what "seems to be the doughnut hole that is your brain..." when I haven't seen any indication that you understand or acknowledge one word of any of the points I have called you on before? Nor that you seem to have changed your behavior, at least based on several posts between us over a good hour-plus about a week ago? Is it ad hominem when I tell you that your knowledge and understanding of feminism is "about enough to fit into a sperm cell", when it is my personal experience with you (and with many, many other Obama followers) over how you vilify Sen. Clinton through the language you use and your constant dismissal/denial/downplay of her long and distinguished public service record?
Since it appears that you want to continue to twist words and take no responsibility for past "comments" or conversations that have been POINTED OUT as sexist and/or as race-baiting, filled with fallacies -- and on several occasions filled with outright lies -- there are no arguments, honest or otherwise, that I can make.
Frankly, I should never have taken your bait to begin with, so that's my error.
It does give more credence to my point, however, that there seem to be an awful lot of so-called "progressive" men in the Democratic Party who are just as sexist as their 60s and 70s progenitors.
-
@ John Anderson: There You Go Again...
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's Texas-size moment ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm only debasing/denying/discrediting/downplaying Sen. Clinton's experience during Bill's presidency, not her other experience. The First Lady is not an elected official...I don't believe she had security clearance, she wasn't at the meetings etc.
If you aren't debasing/denying/discrediting/downplaying Sen. Clinton's "other" experience, why do I never see you or any other Obama follower bring it up in posts about "experience"? It seems to me that nearly every single time her experience is brought up Obama's followers conveniently "forget" to mention the other 27 years of experience, which is quite expansive.
You subtly misrepresent people's arguments...
I don't think so. I respond to what I see in the posts.
sophisticated, feminist garbage is still garbage.
Sadly, you have just proved my point about so-called "progressive" men.
-
@ Renegade Iconoclast: Had To Laugh...
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's Texas-size moment ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This IS pretty petty stuff, ain't it?
-
@ Xrandadu Hutman: Ad Hominem Attacks
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's Texas-size moment ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Gosh, hutman! I am just SOOOOO SORRY about the ad hominem attacks. Don't know what came over me.........I'm only human. CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME? If not, I'm just going to kill myself. I just can't stand it that a man would think of me in such a negative way. And, having that "temper tantrum", while it felt SOOOOO good at the moment, brings me such shame. PLEASE DON'T LEAVE! PLEASE DON'T LEAVE! I really do like/love you, hutman. What can I do to make up for my bad, bad behavior? Is there anything I can do for you to make up for how badly I've treated you? Can I iron your socks? Your shorts? Wash your feet? There must be SOMETHING...ANYTHING I can do to show you that I NEVER MEANT TO OFFEND YOU OR HURT YOUR FEELINGS.
Oh, oh, wait! I think I know what will make you happy and make you like/love me again! I'll support and vote for whomever you tell me to, because you are ALWAYS right about those things. Oh, how could I not have seen this before I criticized you?
-
Much More Than "Tiebreakers"
[Read the article: A non-paranoid's guide to superdelegates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, I think the notion that superdelegates are tiebreakers does a big disservice to these 'delegates' and to the democratic process of selecting a Democratic presidential nominee.
As Geraldine Ferraro pointed out in an excellent piece today in the New York Times, superdelegates are and should be the leaders who determine who is the best candidate to take the mantle of leadership in the Democratic Party, not simply act as "tiebreakers".
This notion ignores the fact that in many primaries and caucuses, Republicans and Independents have a "say" in determining our nominee, which isn't necessarily an honest indication of what Democrats want.
Here is the link to Ferraro's article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25ferraro.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th
-
Why?
[Read the article: Is it really time to count Clinton out?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary Clinton gets a bad rap for fighting on. What's wrong with letting this process play out? As long as it continues the voters get a chance to weigh in and we get an opportunity to see what Barack Obama is really made of. To suggest that the process be nipped in the bud and voters be denied their opportunity to express a preference doesn't serve the process well. Last time I checked, it IS still a democratic process.