Letters to the Editor
dog-walker
Published Letters: 81
-
two things
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. to SAY you would obliterate Iran is bad, worthy of wide condemnation and permanent political exile
2. actually to do it would be an evil so great that it cannot be described.
3. pandering to bellicose hankerings has destroyed the Republican party for at least a generatoin
4. and lead to many dismemberings and disembowlings and barbequeing of laughing children, handsome boy soldiers and brave she warriors
5. this is more than two
6. weeping is right
7. how can you Hillary supporters overlook the war vote?
8. has there been a more important vote cast in the Senate in a generation?
-
ProudTexasGirl
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, but America DOES have blood on its hands -- my hands -- your hands. Our chickens HAVE come home to roost. Glad you're proud, girl, but careful you don't fall into Johnathan Edwards fiery pit. Do you know what that is? Real religion, faker. Strong stuff that spined this nation with an ideology so stringent we're still standing higher than any other, even after your proud Texas friends bathed us all in such innocent blood that time nor tears nor prayerful supplication will ever wipe away.
Just sayin' a fact.
Remember, when you find yourself filetting your own liver over and over again over the course of eternity in some steaming alleyway of retribution, you heard about it here first.
-
weeping and carol
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]you WIN!!!!!
just sayin'.
what prodigious commentarying!!!!!
you will have to share the prize, but give Carol the bigger piece b.c. that thing with comparing the weak Obama to the strong Hillary is especially useful.
but, honestly, you must both be out of your minds to stay on this thread like burrs on a lamb.
i've never been able to stick it to the end like this
and today was a bad fight-with-my-beloved-spouse crazy-assed find-some-obsessive-distraction kind of day. you must be bad crazy. thank your demons for me. they kept mine down for at least a day. cool.
you ALL soothed my nerves. and i made it through the day.
and us two honey-kins made love.
and i prognosticate from this that all will be well.
say, joan, you have to admit, your commentors rock.
'night.
p.s.
LusterII: diggin' you.
Hillary supporters: can't have a game if nobody hits back the ball. still. you know you're full of b.s., right? no, really. if you're smart enough to breathe in and out, you must know it. just sayin'.
-
@jonathanseer
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]disagree w/ you re h. ford. he's always given me the creeps. my dog says that's why he lost. my dog knows politics. nobody wins or loses 'cuz what they say or think, etc., but 'cuz what your dog can smell on 'em.
my dog has a bad feeling re hrc. and a good one re obama. and
sadly
a good one about loathsome john mccain.
he loves the criminal w, swoons over bill, dug reagan, felt serene about carter.
for some reason, tho', hrc raises his back hairs.
's why i think hrc has lost the primary (tho' the estab. may still give her the nomination -- estab. dems. have dead dogs)
's why obama won. dog wants to lick his face.
sadly, like i said, dog also wants to fetch a bone for mccain.
's dog's world. truly.
dog has e.s.p. powers and we should pay attention to his inexplicable hunches. trouble is, dog LOVES cat poo just as well as a good steak.
anyway. h. ford ain't no b. obama. can't you see that? don't got no dog?
-
picko
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]picks 'em apart.
woof!
-
@ruffissima
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]perfect analogy. clinton is carter, '80, sitting pres., leader of his party. obama is the intra-party saboteur whose fracturing of the party will cost hrc the election.
o come on!
joan, you're a piece of work, now. how perfectly passive aggressive. write aggravating posts and then jump on weeping for feeling aggravated. seems to me weeping's just been trying to connect. she's been the most moderate and civil voice on the thread. how wacked do you have to be to choose of all your flame throwing readers to take on directly, the one most reasonable of all?
jeez.
there've been plenty of civil, well posed questions and challenges asked directly of you. even from moi, who admittedly, by this time have devolved into some kind of ranting.
why don't you answer any of THEM? 'stead of bashing weeping?
maybe it's 'cuz you like to whip up a good lather on your thread. cool. 's entertaining, anyway. 'n that's what sells subscriptions, right? ask hannity, limbough and o'reilly, right?
jeez. you've got me steamin'.
-
Yes, that's how
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann apologizes for his Clinton remark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]you behave after you've made a mistake and said something offensive.
It's good to see an apology accepted, as well. That's an equally important aspect of civil society.
I agree with some that the comment wasn't necessarily inherently sexist. After all, it could easily have been said of a male candidate. But then it wouldn't have had the same resonance. Like you can say of Bill Clinton, "That boy is out of control" without aggravating the wounds of racism, but you couldn't say it of Obama.
That's because language takes its meaning from context and culture, not from dictionaries.
It's possible to MEAN one thing but CONVEY another by a poor choice of words. And the unintended meaning can do real damage, which might call for contrition.
Yes, it's possible to say that Hillary Clinton is unattractive without having a sexist intent, but not without conveying a sexist nuance. So find a more sophisticated way of expressing yourself. Seek to rid your language of odious cultural resonances. You'll be more persuasive. And you'll be on the right side of history.