Letters to the Editor
Brian - Seattle
Published Letters: 308 Editor's Choice: 8
-
@jebldmm
[Read the article: My failed lesbian romance]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm wondering the same thing.
I'm almost done with letters or comment sections. Name a web site and they want your "opinion" yet it seems society is just becoming worse from it.
@Ann Bauer - Thanks for sharing your story. I enjoyed it. Best of luck to you.
-
I think we knew he would but it's still not great
[Read the article: Obama opts out of public funding]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wish he never made that pledge but again, I would like to see an evenly run campaign and not one where you can basically finance yourself or take huge contributions. So in a sense, it was one thing I truly liked about him but the fact that he didn't follow through is disappointing.
This decision was inevitable and it's because Obama clearly thought he had no chance of beating Hillary early on when he made that statement. He was standing up making the good fight and low and behold, things changed. It is something of principle though. I don't like that he did it and I do think it hurts his character. McCain is right to call him out on it.
You can try and spin this any way you want but the simple fact is he took an idealist position and it ran right up against reality. He never imagined he'd come up with as much cash as he has and it's all about beating the republicans in the fall, nothing more. He really had no choice considering what we are up against. I don't like it honestly, but who in 2 weeks will talk about this? No one. I'm sure most voters don't even know what this means.
This might be the nature of the game but I'm still conflicted about it. I would rather he be able to come up with a better explanation that he did or not take it at all. Oh well.
-
But when Hillary did this crap it was being "scrappy"?
[Read the article: Pipe down, Cindy McCain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Come on Joan, that's a double standard and defeats all your sexism posts on Hillary earlier in the primary. "Catfight"? I thought you didn't like terms like that?
Keep your story straight.
-
@Joan's response to "catfight"
[Read the article: Pipe down, Cindy McCain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Jesus, do you think I was using cat fight seriously?
It has nothing to do with my sense of humor, it has to do with respecting the wishes of people I communicate with. But with you Joan, how do we know? I use the term bitch and sure enough, you probably find it horribly offensive but I have a friend that thinks it's cool because it means you are a badass woman. You use catfight as a joke but all your posts till now assailed the sexism in the media and how Hillary was treated so poorly. Because we are not personal friends, I can only assume using such a term is NOT appropriate for joking. The fact you had to explain that you were not using it seriously shows you know that it would offend people.
Sorry, but you aren't doing yourself any good by trying to defend yourself here. Just admit you screwed up.
-
Ideologue?
[Read the article: Pipe down, Cindy McCain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope I'm not being lumped into this group but I just thought the use of "catfight" was hypocritical. That's all. So being consistent and expecting your writers to be is out of bounds? Why is it ok to attack Cindy McCain and use such terminology when it's not ok to attack Hillary in the same way?
If we are just going to be biased and only attack "people we don't like" then let me know because I'll ask for my subscription back. I'm aware this is a left biased magazine but I thought it was at least somewhat objective. But perhaps I am an ideologue for expecting higher standards from people I consider more well informed on the issues.