Letters to the Editor
-
Taliesan
I don't know that it's strictly a North/South issue. I live in Vermont, and I can definitely feel the struggling small town element here. Our neighbors, where I grew up in way rural Vermont, spent their lives in toothless splendor, sucking down cigarettes and white bread and cutting their house in half with a chainsaw. (I may have told the chainsaw story here before; I guess I'm still in awe of it: they cut their damn house in half with a chainsaw!) Truth to tell, I spring from pretty poor, gun-loving, bigoted roots myself. Likewise, there are Well-off, well-educated parts of the South that could arguably be called elitist. I see the North/South argument- and I agree with your points -as being a separate one.
-
Thanks Drinking Water
Ana Wolve is trying to reinvent history. The vote that HIllary gave Bush was and authorization to use force. This after people like inspector Scott Ritter and and Chief Weapons inspector Hans Blix told the world they could not find WMDs.
She has now given the Bush Administration an second chance by voting to putting certain groups in Iran on the terriorist list. What Bush and his boys are going to do is say that that group has been going into Iraq and killing American troops and use it as a pretext to go to war.
Hillary did not even read the Intellegence report before she voted. No she counted on her "experience" and that experience lead her astray.
-
Was Hillary NOT in a warzone? Was the helicopter NOT flying evasive maneuvers? Was she NOT wearing a flak-jacket?
give us a break
So we are supposed to support a candidate who fabricates an incident of being under sniper fire versus one that recognizes the reasons why a lot of people are bitter about politics? Her pure fabrications are one reason why a lot of people are bitter.
-- McCorkell
Psst, hey McCorkell..
So was the area Hillary visiting, NOT a warzone?
Did the President hosting her envoy NOT say "there are snipers in the hills"
Did the combat helicopter Hillary was riding on NOT zig zag, and fly manuevers designed for times of being under fire to prevent being hit?
Did Hillary NOT wear a flak-jacket?
Was the envoy meeting NOT shortened on the Tarmac?
Ok..so you tell me how you would recount that..have YOU ever been under sniper fire?
Is it loud, is it barely noticeable, is it quiet with the roar of the Helicopter blades? Is it a few pings of metal, or does sniper fire take over the rushing of the combat helicopter blades?
Would you be given the impression you were in danger, by wearing a flak-jacket, having your combat helicopter jerking to and fro, with it being explained that you were flying in an evasive manuever, and it being an obvious WAR ZONE?
WOuld you be a little unnerved?
Would you be a bit apprehensive, or very apprehensive?
Flash forward 10 years later...What's your memory of that time? Are you a soldier? Were you the one peering out the helicopter window, with complete control, or were you the VIP, given all the impression of very real danger?
I suggest you stop calling the woman a liar, and be more humane in your false assumptions.
Did you read the article?
I have news for you..just because you wish something wasn't so, doesn't make it that...
Hillary has 12 million plus votes, more if you count Florida adn Michigan, and your arrogant protests don't help your "elitest" ways.
-
Up to this point...
I detected a bias at Salon for Hillary, but I could live with it. However after X new articles that are essentially coded anti-Obama, it's getting rediculous.
Fine, you like Hillary I can live with that. Write puff peices about her then. But don't pretend to have journalistic objectivity while raking the other 50%+ of your readership's favorite candidate over the coals. It's just stupid, and devisive, and frankly "troll-bait".
I grew up in a town of 2000 and I live in a town that probably has less than that. Are we bitter? Sure as hell we are. And I also know damn well what Obama is saying. Frankly how else do you explain millions of people turning to what are essentially issues of the right for comfort? How else do you explain people regularly voting against their own interests - the answer is they have been twisted up inside.
And you don't have to be uneducated to be mislead or to fall for propaganda. Hell all the die hard Hillary and Obama supporters show that. None of these candidates are the new messiah, and yet we act like they are. Like all politicians they're not kissing babies, they're stealing their lollypops.
Look at communism, our worst examples of communism were founded by extremist intellectualists, so clearly being stupid isn't limited to the actually stupid. Clearly very smart people can be mislead. Clearly very smart people can turn their anger in on itself and do horrible self defeating things. It happens all the time. Hell we all spend 4+ hours in front of the propaganda-set a day, so it's actually surprising how few of us actually fall for it.
Ultimately it's pretty elitist to think that smart people wouldn't fall for this more than so called "salt of the earth". After all, how many educated people do you know who are Republicans these days? Plenty right.
That alone shows anyone can be delusional.
-
@tele_dan
You wrote:
"I'm sorry, but yes, it's true - uneducated rural people have to be "extra-convinced" to vote for a black man... any little mistake and it's over for him with the "rubes" as you put it?"
So, anyone in a rural area who chooses to vote for HRC is racist? Even though the vast majority of the policies between the two candidates is identical, the only basis they could have for preferring Clinton is skin color. It is this kind of supposition and pigeonholing of rural America that offends voters. Sure, some of the denizens of the rural parts of PA are racists. Some of the denizens of LA and NYC are, too. Maybe the have to be "extra-convinced" because he said they are anti-immigrant racists..........