Letters to the Editor
-
@LBL - you are really funny.
I did not just cite civil liberties, but also reproductive choice, government regulation, fair taxation and civil rights. If these are not core Democratic issues, then what do you see as the difference between the parties.
Since it's so important to you than perhaps you can incite the man so capable of CHANGE to turnaround his negative campaigning and take this on!
Also, please cite where Obama says all these things, including civil liberties, don't matter (I will need more than his saying we need to move beyond the 60s, which is terribly imprecise).
Spare me. I have no intention of even entertaining you if you are going to be this disingenuous
-
@RBL
Were you referring to me when you posted to "Rabidfly?"
No, I was referring to the set of sign-ons that insists on calling me (and many others) a "racist", "Nazi", "blackshirt" (presuambly the ignoramus meant brownshirt), ad nauseum in each and every message they spew.
At least I hope it's not you signing on under another account.
-
Tom Payne
Thanks. Reading back on your posts, I think you're well on the good side of that fine line between clever and stupid, since I've apparently appointed myself an arbiter of good taste (I now resign from that position). And I obviously got baited, too, but went for the "plague on both houses" approach.
And doc, Foster winning in that District is huge. Did you know his hometown newspaper is the "Geneva Republican?" Beautiful.
-
@JL
Iunderstand your point though I note you are a partisan for Mr. Obama so your quote of my objection to another Obama supporter could seem a bit of special pleading, don't you think? And please note; I only read the increasingly harsh interchanges of over 400, I was not a participant in that mess; I objected to the worst offender. Sorry if his views are yours. I hope his means of expressing them are not.
-
Nite
anyway, my suggestion to the folks that want to make the thread a 5000 flame fest of obnoxious slurs, the self-appointed and oh-so-objective arbitrators, and the above-it-allers, should in fact instead take Mr. Conason's much needed advice about focusing on the skeletons in Obamateur's hx instead of throwing kitchen sinks at HRC that have long been put to rest.
-
@ Reality-based Liberal: May I Try?
You have made several references to Clinton's comment about national security expertise. How civil liberties got entangled in this, I don't know. The question asked was about national security and foreign policy experience.
I don't believe that Sen. Clinton "endorsed" McCain over Obama and I think it is disingenuous of Obama's followers to imply that. She made a point about experience and whose experience would serve the country best. I saw her comments about McCain as being almost tongue-in-cheek. At the same time the image she drew was one of McCain being "over the top" in terms of experience, Obama being light, and Clinton being "just right." I'm sure you will see this differently.
On another note: I asked a question yesterday (in this letters thread) about why it is acceptable to call into question Hillary Clinton's loyalty to the Democrats because of her McCain comments, but John Kerry's loyalty isn't questioned for asking John McCain to be his running mate in 2004? As far as I can see, John McCain hasn't changed for the better since then.
So, why is it not acceptable to criticize John Kerry (who endorsed Obama)? To me this IS a question of judgment, not a matter of comparisons.
My second point is this: If it is acceptable for Obama to appeal to Republicans to vote for him -- which he does all the time -- then why is it not acceptable for Hillary Clinton to make an accurate comparison between herself, McCain and Obama?
I'm leaving now, but I certainly hope you'll think about answering these questions...
-
@ ShawnWM
You make my point. I included fair taxation, government regulation in my post. I'd also argue that the nation is on the progressive side when it comes to reproductive choice. As for the other issues, I would be appalled if, in the land of the free, there was no party that cared about civil liberties.
But not to digress, back to my questions: does it make sense for the Democratic candidate to embrace Bush's version of national security to the point of vaunting the GOP candidate over a Democratic candidate who would certainly be less likely to screw the economy (your issue)?
I also have not been provided evidence that would lead me to believe that Obama does not claim to care about the other issues.
-
@slider
Isuspect you're a Chicagoan? Yeah, a great win! I'm starting to feel sorry for Oberweiss; how much of his money has he spent in how many failed tries? Poor sap.
-
ljwalker53
I did send a post on John Kerry. But you have your own axe to grind and preferred to ignore it, lest you would have to change your tune on how Obama's people are all uncritical thinkers. Go check it out. You know where to find it.
-
Acutally not
My posts are flippant and juvenile, but at least I know how to use the language.
Actually not, Vile One. They are as ignorant as you are vulgar and that's saying a lot, none of it good.
However since you delude yourself you are good with language, I suggest you and your traveling vulgarians look up a few things for yourself like:
- Ad hominen
- Ad nauseum
and
- Argumentum ad Ignorantium
Cheers!
-
@ ljwalker53
I was not talking about national security in the following terms: it is the issue. Quite the opposite. I was asking what Clinton supporters thought about her putting this GOP frame above traditional Democratic issues, which include civil liberties.
As for the "endorsement" question, Clinton said that "national security" is the issue in the election (which I question) and that McCain is ready for the White House and Obama is something else. She has hit on this theme a number of times now, so I don't find it tongue-in-cheek. In effect (which is all that matters in politics), she has endorsed McCain over Obama. But if that term is a problem, let's agree that she has said one issue matters, and that between Obama and McCain, only one candidate qualifies on that issue.
As for the Kerry-McCain question, I don't recall supporting Kerry's efforts there.