Letters to the Editor
-
Nate would never drive a Beetle.
Too small. Too liberal looking. He'd drive an Escalade if he could afford it, a Ford Exploder or a beat-up Winnebago (like Mitt Romney's kids) if not. Anyway, part of the neocon creed states that everyone must have an SUV. It's more patriotic than those pinko Euro-trash convertibles or rice-burning Scion things he and his friends have heard about. Besides, you never know when they have a sale on toilet paper at Sam's Club.
Oh, and he wouldn't be caught dead in a Starbucks. Also too liberal a setting for neoconservative digital thought. While his mom's basement would be more accurate, Planet Fitness might be more appropriate. He wouldn't have to actually exercise and get all sweaty, just hang out with his laptop while wearing his gym gear.
-
Starbucks
Sure, Nate would drink Starbucks; after all, Starbucks is a stellar example of capitalism.
But he would only do the drive-thru in his SUV so that he wouldn't have to mingle with the unwashed masses.
-
As Nate might say...
He's NOT driving a Beetle! That's NOT a Starbuck's he's patronizing!
*SIGH*
Will you liberal moonbats never learn?
-
I drive....
an old diesel Suburban.
I carry 5 other people with me in a daily carpool to and from work. Without the pool, that would be 5 other vehicles on the road.
For non-commute purposes, I usually ride my bicycle to get from point A to point B, unless I'm getting groceries, running errands, helping a buddy move etc.
In short: I am much "greener" in using my large, evil SUV to ferry 6 people (myself included) on their daily commute than the solitary driver who pats themself on their back every 5 seconds for driving a Prius or Civic.
So to all the presumptuous, judgemental letter writers who have bashed SUVs in this thread, let me plainly say: your knee-jerk assumptions are asinine.
And so are you.
Moreover, you're not doing the progressive movement any favors with your heavy-handed, holier-than-thou attitude...
Best regards,
A Liberal SUV Driver [Yes, we DO exist]
-
hmmmm..
Somebody woke up all covered in angry this morning.
Poor SUV car-pooler. You are doing nice things with all your greeny terrific-ness. I mean that.
Hope you have a better day.
-
To the sole Anonymous respondent thus far . . .
I'm sure "all" two of those letter writers who referred to SUVs are feeling duly chastised. That is to say, you seem a little hair-triggered about the SUV thing.
The tone of your letter suggests defensiveness, which probably comes from having to defend your choice of vehicle in a climate (so to speak) of growing anti-SUV sentiment. But even as you bristle at people making assumptions because you drive a Suburban, you're assuming that your fellow travelers have automatically lumped you in with our cartoon pal Nate.
Most of us out here do understand that a workhorse Suburban full of passengers is different from a spotless, tricked-out Navigator carrying one oblivious knucklehead and his two-pound briefcase cargo on his daily commute.
Of course there are good uses for a vehicle like yours, and of course people with an environmental conscience appreciate that you take to two wheels whenever four aren't needed.
So please, don't shoot your audience before they can applaud.
-
Everyone who's posted here is Anonymous.
I have no idea who EditGrrl, Uberfemme, SpiderJ, ScubaVal, or djansing are -- and I bet there are people in your lives who know you intimately but who have no idea you use these psuedonyms, either.
If your own mother, for instance, wouldn't recognize you on this forum, how does that make you anything other than anonymous, only with a fancy name?
And you can post a thousand times consistently using your psuedonym and you will still be anonymous, because everybody will still not know who you are. And how are we to know you don't share your psuedonym and password with one, two or two dozen people? We don't know and we wouldn't know who they are, either.
Sorry, but my anonymous opinion is just as valid as your anonymous opinion (and I'm not the SUV poster, by the way, though it wouldn't matter if I was), only I skipped the ego trip of thinking up a psuedonym.
And my opinion is that this is another solid strip from Bolling.
-
To Anonymous the Second
What you read as a dig at people who use the default "Anonymous" name was in actuality just my attempt at correct identification.
Normally in a Letters stream for any given article, multiple posters have used the Anonymous moniker, so responding to a particular one requires a bit of specificity. I found it interesting that today, when I went to post, there was but one Anonymous already on the rolls. Still, as the day was young (and as Salon visitors can read letters either oldest-to-newest or vice versa), I thought that "To Anonymous" might leave room for confusion.
I couldn't give a fig about whether someone chooses to use a real name, a pen name, or a generic such as Anonymous. It is true, however, that using any string of text that's uniquely identifiable in the Salon Letters system does at least tie a poster to her or his "body of work," so to speak. This creates a bit of accountability, as a single poster can quickly lose credibility if signed posts are self-contradictory or abusive.
To each his own, as they say. For what it's worth, I heartily agree that Bolling is at the top of his game with this strip.
-
?
huh?
-
"SIGH"
Best part of the comic; it just sums everything up (re: pundits, condescending attitudes, and stubbornness), and it's just something that might not occur to us to write (at least not to me).
-
Thank You...
for this accurate portrayal of how all republicans really are.