Letters to the Editor
-
Some Free Advice For Infant Posters
I see that, despite recent efforts, the letters section continues to resemble a cat-shit filled sandbox. Fine. I’m gonna bury my own little nugget. I thought about a nice little “can’t we all get along” post, but apparently that isn’t the preferred method of discourse here, at least anymore, and my Premium subscription doesn’t run out until November.
So here it is. Those of you on both sides who are engaging in this pathetic back and forth name-calling are a bunch of selfish, ungrateful infants. Thousands of people devoted their lives, and many gave their lives, literally, so that we could have the choice we have right now. I’m not one of those courageous persons. But I’m not so f’ing ignorant as to piss on everything they worked for, and died for, by posting mindless, insulting rants just because my candidate didn’t win a particularly primary. Or even because Joe Conason wrote an infuriating article shilling for the Clintons. (Editors: I like Joe, but he’s more than just ideologically aligned with the Clintons, and I think you or he should more explicitly acknowledge this if you’re going to continue to publish him during the primary season).
And for those of you who are actually saying you won’t vote for Hillary, or won’t vote for Barack, if he or she loses? F--- you. Democrats must win this election. Supreme Court Justice Stevens is 87 years old. Justice Ginsberg is a cancer survivor. The Court is 5-4 on a lot of really, really, important issues. I don’t trust Harry Reid to stand up to a President McCain, who will know damn well he won’t get a second term if he doesn’t appoint another Roberts, Scalia, Thomas or Alito to the Court.
So go ahead, continue to alienate one another. I’m sure the fleeting satisfaction you get from your pathetic little posts (and most of you who are trading insults just aren’t very clever) is much more important than, say, the fact that abortion will be illegal in about two-thirds of the country after the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade and sends the abortion issue back to the states; that wealthy women will have safe illegal abortions, while poor women will die having abortions; that your government will be able to spy on you with impunity and dump you in a Navy brig for three years and torture you; that the civil rights laws will be eviscerated; and that property rights, particularly corporate property rights, will trump human rights. But you really showed that other poster when you submitted the jillionth f’in post saying Hillary’s a bitch, or Barack’s supporters are mindless cult members.
Just to be clear, I am not directing this at younger posters. I’m directing it at the emotional infants who are so f’ing selfish and stupid that they are unable to recognize that this is a transcendent, beautiful moment in our history. And I mean transcendent whether my guy Barack or your gal Hillary wins.
So grow the f--- up.
-
My but this is a colorful thread
I have asked the same two questions twice and received no good response from Clinton supporters. I offer no smears of either the candidate or her supporters, and if it takes name calling to get a response, I guess I know all I need to know. Again:
Clinton endorsed McCain over Obama citing her view that this election is about national security and McCain, unlike Obama, has the requisite experience. (I use here the word "endorse" because that is a fair way to describe calling one candidate qualified and another not -- but use this definition if "endorse" gives you problems.)
Question 1: Is it acceptable that a candidate running for the Democratic nomination has placed George Bush's priority -- "national security" in the form of his "war on terror" -- over reproductive choice, civil liberties, public services and government regulation (issues on which Obama is VASTLY superior to McCain)? By saying McCain is "ready to cross the [White House] threshold and Obama is not, because McCain is ready to take up Bush's "war on terror," she is concluding that this is more important than the progressive issues I cite above.
Question 2: If it is okay for the Democratic nominee to make Bush's "war on terror" the number one issue, then how can Clinton match up to McCain in the general when she has much less "national security" credentials? This question is especially relevant when they agree on the analysis (his position was that the military option in Iraq was okay, Bush just did it the wrong way -- which, given her vote to authorize the whole thing, is her position too).
My bottom line is that it is foolish to accept Bush's world view at the expense of reproductive choice, government regulation, fair taxation, civil liberties, civil rights and the rest of the progressive agenda on which McCain is vile. It is folding the Democrats' best hand before the general.
And to those who claim the Democrats have been losing because they're too liberal, I can only wonder what planet they're living on. Gore had his highest poll numbers for the few weeks he actually sounded like a liberal. Voting numbers have gone down dramatically as the Democrats merged with the GOP. Obama has brought more than a million new (or vacationing) voters to the polls simply by suggesting a different approach (jeez, his voting record, for anyone who cares to look, is about the same or to the right of Clinton's). All it took for Obama to excite these disenfranchised voters is to promise a new direction and to raise his money from regular folks -- that shows that not only is there promise for Democrats who look to the left, but that there is a huge wave of support for anyone willing to try to move away from the Bush-Clinton insider approach.
-
Oh c'mon really.
You haven't had ANY dialogue with me. Calling me racist, elitist and other crap doesn't count. You can't comment on any pro-Clinton posts without spewing hatred. Rational? Toads are more rational than you...and they probably make better pets.
Last post to your foul-mouthed type of "hope."
Got hate?
Oh come now. I really think that Tom Payne aka Madame Rabidfly aka Little Lord Baltimore aka ManosXX, aka 20 or so other sign-ons are just doing "intellectual" circles around the reasoned posters engaging in substantial issues.