Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 228 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@jebldmm - fine.
[Read the article: David Brooks calls Barack Obama a sojourner]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You may actually sincerely think you're "liberal-minded" But when you find little to nothing good to say about the Democratic candidate ****in the face of contrary evidence***, and you find little to nothing to criticize the conservative Republican ****in the face of even more contrary evidence***, you are not thinking like a liberal. You are not even looking at the evidence enough to be politically independent.
It's all about policies and getting things done. Obama has shown judgement and laid out actual polices and plans that can take this country forward than McCain. McCain has presented no coherent plan that is in any substantial way different from Bush's. We both know this.
...I realize that to many people "liberal" has become an authoritarian ideology in which any disagreement with the stated norms indicates that you are not "really" liberal,
Then you realize incorrectly. Or at least, that's not where I'm coming from.
Where I'm coming from is based in the facts. Not caring about liberal causes and liberal ideals means not being liberal-minded. Just like not caring about conservative causes and conservative ideals means not being conservative-minded. It's defined right there in the phrase! The only way this is "authoritarian" is if you find definitions tyrannical.
...my definition of "liberal" is more traditional - it includes the possibility of admiring some things about people while not admiring others and without agreeing with them on everything....
OK, fair enough.
But exclusively trashing one candidate while effusively praising the other one - and in both cases ignoring contrary evidence - is not liberal-minded. Even worse - it's simply ignoring factual reality.
-
@Jeb -
[Read the article: David Brooks calls Barack Obama a sojourner]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Where in my post did I say that I was voting for McCain?
Well, if you don't say you're voting for either candidate - but you have only bad things to say about candidate A and only good things to say about candidate B - then concluding you're voting for candidate B isn't that much of a stretch.
For the record, I have been voting in presidential elections since 1988 (based on your responses, perhaps the year you were born)
Born in 1969. 1988 was my first election also. I voted against GWHB.
...and have NEVER voted for a republican.
As both candidates truly suck...I will likely stick to the local and state elections in November
...which therefore means, DE FACTO, you are voting for McCain!
You can see that, right? Only one of them can win. I wish it were different. But I can't change reality. All I can do is face it.
I'd love to have a candidate like Al Gore - but that doesn't change the fact that Obama is FAR better than McCain. Purity trolling got us the past 7 years. Please be aware of this.
-
Typical purity troll discussion pattern
[Read the article: David Brooks calls Barack Obama a sojourner]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Person A: These are the candidates we have.
Purity Troll A: But the Democratic candidate's not perfectly ideal!
Person A: But his opponent is a nightmare who will push against everything you say you believe in.
Purity Troll A: But the Dem said and did some things I don't 100% admire!
Person A: Like what?
Purity Troll A:....uh...Well, he hasn't accomplished a single thing of things I do like!
Person A: Read this and get back to me. it's a list of things Obama's done - http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/21/164117/783?new=true
Purity Troll: What do you mean I'm racist?
Person A: (Blinks, and goes back to actual topic of discussion) I know Obama's not ideal. That's besides the point. It's not ideal I have a choice between going to work or getting fired, either. But those are the choices before us.
Purity Troll A: But there's something about his attitude that makes me think he's sort of arrogant!
Person A: Got any facts or statements that he's said that are arrogant? Let alone nearly as arrogant as his opponent?
Purity Troll A: I just think Obama is arrogant with no facts or evidence! What's wrong with that?
Person A: Are you going to think logically and critically, or emotionally from no definable facts?
Purity Troll A: Now you're being arrogant too!
Etc. etc., forever.
Every time anybody tries to say something critical of Obama...the original criticism is lost in the shuffle.
Not for me. I'm focused on your original "criticism", in which you levelled accusations against Obama which are proven false by facts - and heaped praise on McCain which is ALSO proven false by facts.
If you could yourself keep focusing on those facts, I think that would be awesome.
-
@gala - huh?
[Read the article: David Brooks calls Barack Obama a sojourner]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm writing in Hillary Clinton. I refuse to be gamed by Karl Rove.
Oh yeah. Hillary has no chance of winning.
That'll really show Karl Rove - who's now working directly for the McCain campaign.
Wow.