Letters to the Editor
swilldog
Published Letters: 184 Editor's Choice: 20
-
horse's mouth redux
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@ ezhik2: Someone friggin' spoon fed you the information you asked for, included the direct link from the Obama site, and that still wasn't good enough for you? Pardon the profanity on this, but fuck all this partisan scorched earth bullshit.
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.
-- ezhik2
Okay, Captain Shrill, let's hold your hand on this one.
Women's issues is not one of the "Issues" on the Obama site, true.
That's because, and you might want to be seated for this one, it's under the "People" section.
You can complain all you want about how it's hard to find, and god bless ya, I'll have to agree with you there. It's poorly organized.
You also could view it this way: The Obama campaign views Women's issues as being so important that they've built an entire section around it, rather than just an issues page.
Mind you, I'm sympathetic to the concern that it's not all that easy to find. But perhaps that's a criticism of the web site, rather than the candidate? Or we could just have it your way: the site designer for the Obama campaign website chose to organize things differently than you would have, therefore Obama is scum. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
-
owie
[Read the article: At least they didn't remake "Jeremy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That song makes the little lord baby Jesus cry.
-
psych 101
[Read the article: Paul Krugman criticizes Obama supporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Projection, much?
-
kinda weak
[Read the article: "No, You Can't"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I admire the effort on the video, but I found it kinda flat. *shrug*
Funny, tho, how quickly the angry Hillary people ran in here just to throw stones. Telling, that.
-
speaking of throwing stones
[Read the article: "No, You Can't"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]sajwan opines:
Dumb ass you came in here to throw stones at the video. (or should I call it a little condescending pebble). Please go ahead congratulate yourself again on how superior you are.
Physician, heal thyself.
-
a plea from an ardent Obama supporter
[Read the article: Clinton: "My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To those Democrats out there who claim they plan on sitting out the general if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, such as Jdorfma4:
McCain isn't the worst Republican and at least the man's honest most of the time. I'll weep the loss of free choice but I know he won't support torture (too much) and too much erosion of our civil liberties. He's not worse than Bush. He won't roll back the tax cuts but I don't see him granting new ones. All in all, at this point, he's better than Hillary.
Keep in mind that McCain just sided with the notion that waterboarding (i.e., torture) was legal if the CIA did it. Such conviction, this guy.
And to think that he won't sell us out (any further, anyway) on civil liberties, tax cuts for the rich and corporations, etc.; well, I'm sorry, but that's a whole bushel full of false hope. See the CIA-torture issue, above.
I can't stomach another 4 years of that conniving weasel. And America is not a monarchy, I'd really like an election without a Bush or Clinton on the ballot. We haven't had one of those since 1976. I think its time.
I'm generally in agreement with you there, but none of these concerns should trump the greater concerns: ending this horrible occupation (tip: it's an occupation, not a war -- we've loooooooooooong since won the war), civil liberties, fair economic and tax policy, investment in the collective commons, etc.
A McCain presidency certainly could be more moderate and willing to compromise. Or it could just as easily be an extension of the lion's share of Bush's failed policies, only this time executed with competency. I shudder to think of the outcome of that.
So my plea to the more die-hard Obama folks out there: Realize that not as good (Clinton) is far superior to not worthy of our vote (McCain), and that in as important an election as this one not participating is pretty much a vote for McCain.
Please don't sit this one out. And certainly don't support McCain, a man who would sell out just about everything.
Support Obama if that's your inclination (after Edwards dropped out, it's certainly been mine). Be passionate.
But if Clinton prevails, and if you hold dear the principles of democracy, please try to look beyond Hillary's flaws -- she's still light years better on the issues than McCain could ever hope to be.
-
in case you hadn't noticed, cythera45
[Read the article: Clinton: "My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Boy, the evasiveness of these Obamabots -- cythera45
Sweetheart, we're all ignoring you because you bring nothing to the table.
From what I've seen over the past week, you're either completely off your meds or you're a GOP agitator. Although, I should probably give you the benefit of the doubt: You could clearly be both.
[Apologies to the salon.com folks about participating in troll wars and such. I'm trying to play nice, but this is getting a bit out of hand, no?]
-
ticking time bomb scenario explained
[Read the article: Bill O'Reilly's tortured logic]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In the ticking time bomb scenario where it's against the law to waterboard or otherwise physically torture a suspect held in custody, the interrogators (and their superiors) have two choices: Abide by the law and risk the bomb going off, or resort to illegal torture methods to yield more expedient results. It's called taking responsibility for your actions.
Besides, if they torture and it turns out to have saved the day, then any court of law will likely show incredible leniency. And the Office of the President has the right to pardon the offender or commute the sentence. So any complaints about how this ties the hands of law enforcement is utterly bogus.
For all their talk about personal responsibility, these authoritarian GOP types sure do love to find ways to excuse dear leaders from taking it.