Letters to the Editor
EMStoveken
Published Letters: 391 Editor's Choice: 44
-
This is the nonsense that will sink the Dems . . .
[Read the article: Clinton is "almost like ... the Al Sharpton of white people"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The national conversation should be about social class. Let's face it, we are a nation that has become so divided between the haves and the have-nots that I am regularly stunned that we have no erupted into full class warfare. And while the more progressive party is the one that would (theoretically) work the hardest to improve life for those living paycheck to paycheck, we consistently lose out on message to the Republicans.
The Republicans win on this issue because they understand the social niceties of skirting the heart of this issue. They do not talk to the poor about how the poor are suffering, since that is somehow seen as condescending and elitist. Instead they talk about how Dems are going to tax us all into oblivion and take away your guns and make you get abortions and let Osama bin Laden sodomize your daughters.
They don't talk about how shitty the lives of most Americans have become, because that reminds people of the fact. That makes people feel bad and obviously if you say something that make someone feel bad it is because you are some sort of elitist who doesn't care about the little guy.
Whenever Republicans talk about money or the economy. They give the same speech to the poor as they do to the rich. "I will let you keep the money in your pocket." And they say this ignoring the fact that some people have only change in their pockets and too little in the bank to cover their bills.
They give speeches of wish fullfillment. "I will fight the 'Death Tax' so that you can pass your legacy onto your kids." Ignoring the fact that the average person's assets would barely be affected by the Estate Tax.
They frame the conversation in a way that says: "This is not your fault. If government would just leave you alone, each of you would be spectacularly wealthy." But they NEVER stress the calamity of their present situation since doing so would highlight the fact that the Republicans are just another group of rich white guys running things from on high.
By avoiding direct talk about money they make themselves emminently more desirable on the "drinking buddy" front, and avoid the much-deserved label of "elitist"
-
Sometimes Bush manages to make me giggle . . .
[Read the article: Bush seems to attack Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is it just me, or does the use of the completely ridiculous Nazi parallel ring as even MORE overtly manipulative in light of the venue?
That said, let me lend the sound of my hand smacking my forehead to the cacaphony.
Prescott Bush = Big Hitler Fan. Let us not forget that the Business Plot Coup would have also resulted in an alliance with Germany.
The comparisons to Germany are much more evident when looking at the invasion of Iraq than the sabre rattling of Iran.
I have no doubt that if Iran actually invaded a sovereign nation, that no one (not even Obama) would say "Oh if only I could talk to them."
Typical nonsense from a man with no sense of reality, history or accountability.
-
Someone explain to me why Repugs are against this . . .
[Read the article: California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First off, the court "imposed gay-marriage on" the people of California? Really? All single men are required to marry dudes? Are they going to come into the homes of Christians, take their guns, give them abortions (regardless of pregnancy), then drag them to city hall to marry people of the same sex?
Besides, aren't the Republicans always saying that Government should stay out of our lives? Don't take my guns, don't take my money etc etc etc? Last I checked, it's not like gay married folks were running around robbing liquor stores with their shiny wedding bands. If it doesn't hurt them, then why do they care?
Second of all, I thought they didn't want the Government fucking with churches? I mean, if you tried to make churches pay their share of taxes, there would be hell to pay. So why do they think that it is suddenly the job of GOVERNMENT (oogie boogie!) to determine who can and cannot receive a religious sacrament?
The government stating that two people of the same gender can not receive the sacrament of marriage would be like telling Jews that the Bar/Bat Mitvah must be put off until the 18th birthday since that is the legal age of adulthood.
So that rules out the whole specious "sanctity" argument. It isn't the job of the Government to keep anything sacred; only legal.
The only aspect of "marriage" that the government should care about is the merging of two individuals into a single socio-economic unit. Marriage, in the legal sense, is nothing more than interpersonal incorporation. Two lesbians can start a business with no problem, right?
More typical hippocrisy from the nutball right. But will any of the Democratic mouthpieces take this logical stand? Of course not. That would mean engaging the enemy in a meaningful way. Better to just sit idly by and let them rally the base with baseless arguements which go against their own stated ideals.
-
Now!
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If the Dems could just loudly and publicly take this kind of fight to McCain, we may actually be on to something here.
-
@Xanthro
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons: Churchill
Let's not pretend that Churchill always advocated Jaw Jaw instead of War War.
I fail to see how the quote supports your assertion. Great line from Churchill, however.