Letters to the Editor
RIRedinPA
Published Letters: 121 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Poorly chosen tile and article Garrison...
[Read the article: Playing soldier]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just because you don't like Harleys or understand the culture around Rolling Thunder (I don't get the bike thing either) doesn't give you the right to question or belittle the patriotism of those who do. Your column basically reasserts every notion of liberalism put out there by the right, it is elitist, denigrating and hypocritical. What makes your questioning their patriotism through their chosen method of showing support for the troops (especially since many of them are veterans themselves) any different from some right wing nut job questioning my patriotism for speaking out against the war. (especially since I am a veteran myself).
It's terrible you were inconvenienced from crossing the street. How you survived the ordeal is beyond me. I understand the subtext of your column, the chicken hawk argument, but you really picked the wrong group to peg with that. A lot of the Rolling Thunder participants are men who have bled and seen friends die for this country. Direct your chicken hawk comments at those directing us into wars they nor their families will ever fight in, but not at veterans who have been there.
And really, how can you compare gazing at a hundred year old painting to find some silly analogy to our current events as more patriotic than raising money for veterans and their families...
Money raised through raffles and other events is donated to needy veterans and their families.
"We donate our time, no one gets any compensation and 100 percent of the money we raise goes to help vets or their families," said Artie Muller, Army veteran and Rolling Thunder founder.
-
@bsgroup
[Read the article: Playing soldier]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Rolling Stones are an embarrassment...
Oh good Lord, they are now.
-
@cabbiedriver
[Read the article: Playing soldier]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You all want to keep writing off the people in the classes and categories that you imagine to be beneath you...the Republican Party is more than happy to accept them. The Republican leadership may bamboozle them, hoodwink them, exploit them, and even use them up and throw them away...but at least they don't openly disdain them.
The Republican Party leadership also knows better than to mock their ideals, which tend to be deeply and sincerely held. Even as they've run those ideals way over the red line of Cognitive Dissonance, the Republicans can still pose as upholders of those ideals- as long as they can point across to the other side at people who deride them and sneer at them, and who hurl judgements that they imagine demonstrate superior discernment, but which more often come off like the consolation prizes of loser passive-aggressives.
That was so well written, I hope someone from the DNC reads this.
-
I pretty much stopped at this line:
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and the Clinton-hate is in danger of damaging the Democratic Party.
Hubris much? If it wasn't for Greenwald and Kaufmann I don't think I would bother with this site.
-
What's this got to do with the SATC premiere?
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hear Carrie (is that her name) is going to get married and probably buy some new shoes. Exciting!
-
@TomG76
[Read the article: Manny hits home run No. 501!!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The grill was his neighbor's, he was just helping the guy out.
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/03/22/ebay-bans-manny-ramirez-grill/
-
That's fucked up...
[Read the article: Scenes from a group marriage]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and your parents suck for putting you through that.
-
Did she really say her 18 million supporters were invisible?
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nothing works better for garnishing political unity than creating the myth or embellishing the idea that group X is a victim. Maybe the hillbillies in Appalachia but seriously, white, middle class women are invisible? Seriously, that's a stretch don't ya think?
And you couldn't let it end without one more "sexism" swipe, could you? After reading your columns throughout this primary they have basically amounted to a "I am voting for Hillary because she is a woman and anyone against her is a sexist" rant. Which makes you incredibly shallow and hollow.
-
I wonder how the McCainocrats...
[Read the article: John McCain's tough stance toward Russia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]at least those who are now switching to him because Hillary was defeated will feel when their sons or grandsons are dying in Iran or Eastern Europe or where ever else the extension of the Bush Doctrine through McCain will have them.
-
You couldn't exit gracefully without one more sexism post...
[Read the article: Clinton endorses Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]good lord woman, yes, there was sexism directed at Hillary Clinton during the campaign, but it did not defeat her. And the sexism she faced took less votes away from her than the racism Obama faced - look at any of the exit polls (especially those of "hard working white people) and you will find a higher percentage said race played a decision in their factor for NOT voting for a candidate than gender. Give it a rest.
Hillary lost this campaign all on her own, her and her staff were too busy looking beyond the nomination than at the primary, whether it was because she felt entitled or was anointed by the press, they chose to ignore the smaller states and caucuses before it was too late, they chose to discount the abilities of their opponents before it was too late, she voted for the war, defended that vote and said she would do so again, when it was falling apart she brought the mud pies out, she married Bill Clinton, she couldn't raise the funds to compete, she, either with or without Bill did something not to bring about the loyalty of the party elites, the super delegates and a host of other errors. So stop blaming her defeat on sexism.
In fact, I am willing to bet, given the demographics, that the men who voted for Obama have less sexist ideals than the men, and probably some of the women, who voted for Clinton.
And riddle me this Batman, or Cat Woman, is it not sexist to vote for a woman candidate solely because she is a woman? I'd love to see Salon do a poll of female Clinton voters and see if they voted for Hillary because they felt she had the best health care policy, or agreed strongly with her foreign policy or her stance on Iraq or only because they thought it was time a woman sat in the White House. I'm willing to bet the numbers are slightly in favor of "I voted for her cause she's a woman..."