Letters to the Editor
-
Psssst,OrbitBoy
Do your parents know you're sneaking around on a grown ups board?
Stick to chanting.You wouldn't want to give Big Bad John any more ammunition as to the maturity level of the vaunted "youth vote" that Obama has cursed us with.
-
Quick flashback
Let's not kid ourselves: the Republican candidate is only marginally worse than the Democrat. Since things are going to get worse under the next president's watch, it's the next election that really counts. Electing the Republican rather than the Democrat (whose positions I agree with, FYI) will be better for progressives in the long run.
That's why I'm voting for Nader. Bush can't do that much harm and we'll beat him in 2004.
-
Bye Bye Tucker!
MSNBC fired Tucker Carlson. Yeah! One less sexist on the air.
-
Major Differences?
Ellis Diablo, you point out Barack Obama opposed the Iraq war at the beginning and Hillary Clinton did not. Hillary Clinton was Senator from New York, where 911 occurred and almost 3000 of Hillary's constituents were killed. Along with almost every other member of the Senate, she voted to give the Iraq war authorization.
Had Barack Obama been Senator from almost anywhere, but certainly from New York in 2002, I am sure he would have voted for the war authorization. As evidence of that, since he has been in the U.S. Senate, Obama has voted with Hillary Clinton to continue funding the Iraq War. Whether he was for the war then, he has voted to fund it since. The media has helped Obama misrepresent the facts about the Iraq war.
As for health care, I personally want to choose my doctor and my health care plan, so I doubt I would support anything like the Canadian or English plans I am under the impression Obama supports.
-
Sad
"the maturity level of the vaunted "youth vote" that Obama has cursed us with."
It really is sad how the apparent passion of young voters--many of whom have been motivated by Obama's candidacy to vote for their first time--is being diminished if not outright dismissed by certain Democratic Party "loyalists," seemingly for no reason other than obeisance to the Clinton name.
Young people are becoming excited about their potential to affect political change. That's good. Maybe they're not displaying the same capacity for cold political calculation that the boomer set possesses (although that seems pretty arguable too, considering the simple proof of political skill shown by Obama's unexpected electoral success), but so what?
It seems to me that the Democratic "party elders" of Clinton's generation have little room to chastise. At least today's political youth movement is not rioting in the streets of Chicago, or conflating their desire for change with some kind of LSD-fueled dream of social "revolution." They're simply going out and voting.
-
RedGTI
Come November those Reagan Democrats will vote as they vote, and chances are they would vote Republican anyway. The have cost the Democrats the 2000 and 2004 elections by killing any energy the Democrats might show and frankly, rolling over for the Republicans on any issue they might be challenged on.
There has been way too much pandering to cowards within the Democratic party. Those who think it is acceptable to vote to authorise the use of force in order to avoid being called a traitor during difficult times.
The rightwing has landed America in the shit with the full cooperation of the so-called "centre" (AKA: Sympathy trolls) and it is time for the left to rise up and clean up the mess.
You can only be wrong so often before you start getting ignored.
-
@rphillips111
Let me take this nice and slow for you...Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing. Not a speck. Hussein and Al-Qaeda (sp?) were not friends, in fact they were openly hostile to one another. He did not fund the attack, help plan the attack, heck I seriously doubt he even knew about the attack until he watched the news that morning.
This is not news, it also wasn't news in 2002. The whole world knew that...didn't stop Bush from lying about it continuously until people started to believe it.
Why do I mention this? Because your assertion that Hillary HAD to authorize the war because she's the Senator from New York holds no water at all. Why? Because Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!.
we clear on that? Good.
and one more thing - what on earth are you talking about re: Canadian Healthcare? You think Canadians can't choose their own doctors? Poppycock my friend, poppycock.
-
Stupid reason
I've seen some pretty stupid reasons for not to voting for either Obama or Clinton but the worse I have heard to date is not voting for Obama because he did not put his hand on his heart while the national anthem was being played. Just goes to show you how ignorant misinformation is spread on on right talk media. First it is an altered photo. Second I have never heard of it being a requirement to put your hand on your heart when the national athmem is being played. I have heard of it being done with the pledge of allegiance. Neither is a sign of patriotism. Neither of these where part of our original Democracy or have any thing to do with real patriotism. Both were created decades after our Democracy was formed and both altered over the years. For instance when I started school in 1950, there was "no under god" in the pledge of allegiance. I was inserted into the pledge in the "commie going to get you years". Now "terrorist" or muslim" has been inserted for "communist" in the right scare tactics.
McCain is not going to be easy to beat. I voted for Obama and still think he is our best chance to win and is he best qualified to lead this nation. We don't need tough. We need a thinker, someone who respects other nations even when we disagree with them; someone show will use diplomacy instead of war to solve world porblems.
-
rphillips111
Kack.
New York was the site of the greatest protests against the Iraq war.
-
Here's the thing . . .
They know they will probably lose. And they would rather lose to Obama than to Clinton. Losing to her would be the ultimate repudiation of them, and the ultimate humiliation. Go Hillary!