  
|
|
Other Opinions Our actual e-mail replies, if we replied, are in green italics |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by Comments: This is the second website that I have visited to gain some insite into the mentality of the liberal right. Much of the material that is displayed on the Democratic websites is downright nasty. I have visited the Republican website, not recently, and they do not stoop to such immature and tasteless comments and material. For your information I am not a Republican or a Democrat. Neither party truly cares about doing what is right for the average American or the United States of America for that matter. The Democratic party supports gay marriage, the killing of unborn babies, reverse discrimination, etc. and Ted Kennedy. The Republican party supports big business, the raping of our environment, etc. My hope is that someday the citizens of this great nation will decide that they are tired of being mushrooms and demand more from their elected officials. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim, Thanks for your comments, but I'm afraid you (a) are solely misinformed, and (b) seem to have very little sense of humor. Also, your use of the term "liberal right" is both mysterious and most likely a mistake on your part unless you're actively trying to be satirical with it, in which case it is funny. But I don't think that was your motive in saying it. Regardless, I do appreciate your caring about the state of things in our country. I would suggest that you get involved in some sort of electoral politics that you feel actually makes a difference, be it Greens, other small parties, or holding your nose and working to make a difference at the local level in either national party. It's easy to stand back and criticize, it's harder to actually get involved and make a change. Pragmatics is hard work. Here's my long winded, and hopefully detailed response: While perhaps the official Republican websites do not "stoop" to the level of satirical potty humor as we do from time to time, I think you'll find that if you actually look at the policies of the Right and the so-called "conservatives" in this country, you'll see that like GW Bush and Ronald Reagan, they are often affable, charming bastards. Reagan was a master at charmingly presenting viscious and nasty policy. Bush Jr. is almost as good. Your charactarization of the Republican party, or rather, what it has become, is narrow but accurate within that narrowness. Your representation of the Democratic party on the other hand is woefully inaccurate. The party does not support gay marriage. Instead, politicians like Kerry play a little lying game to try to appeal to homophobic voters like yourself with variations on the old Clintonian "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" game. My personal position is that the government should stay out of the marriage business. Civil Unions should be the standard for both straight and gay couples. Marriage should be left to religious institutions where it belongs. And the issue should be left to the community, not brought out as a wedge to divide people...getting people (like you) riled up and spending their energy on what they see as a "moral" issue, rather than economic and civil rights issues. So while you're looking at gay marriage, Bush and Co. is cutting taxes for investors and the ultra-rich, while buying off the middle and lower classes with fallacious "tax rebates" that don't really serve people like you and me. Because the government, which means things like schools, police, parks, Homeland Security, fire departments, and more... run off of, guess what, tax dollars. And the people who truly benefit from these upper end tax cuts don't need any of those public services. They have their own. The Democratic party does not support the killing of unborn babies. That's also a misrepresentation and hyperbole, and perhaps a personal perspective of yours. Some people consider human fetuses "babies," some consider them "gametes." I'm somewhere in between, and also pragmatic about it. Abortion will happen whether you personally like it or not, just like teen sex and drug use. The best position is to reduce the harm as much as possible and present as much education and as many options as possible. Just as removing sex ed actually increases the pregnancy rate of teens, removing legal abortion will just result in more desperate, and more dead and damaged, adult women. The Democratic party, and liberals such as myself, don't promote or cheer on abortion as a good thing. It's always a bad thing. But sometimes the other options are worse, and we support CHOICE. Which means you can choose to, or not to. It's about freedom to choose. And while I disagree that any regulation of abortion is bad (I think some regulation and limitations on it is responsible), I unequivocally support the right to choose, and the necessity of having legal and safe abortion as a well-considered alternative. But that's my take. Reverse discrimination is both a misnomer and a classic response of defensive white people, often men. I used to feel that I was having opportunities taken away from me because I was white. Now I see it differently. There are plenty of opportunities for me, and for others as well if we know where to look and how to approach life as a community rather than embattled individuals. Affirmative Action and similar programs are a way to right the wrongs of the past and to try to get the playing field closer to level. If you think the field is level without them, you really need to take a closer look. Racism and discrimination is not "over." It's still everywhere. It's just a little less blatant. I have no idea what your cryptic reference to Ted Kennedy means, other than perhaps that you really have no idea what sorts of things he has actually done in the name of serving the people. He's done a tremendous amount. The hatred of him is a direct result of right-wing character assasination over many years and many talk shows. My friend, let me elucidate something for you. Being a liberal is not a bad thing. To reinvent an old veteran's bumpersticker, "If you like freedom, thank a liberal." Liberals have been responsible for everything from ending the blatant racial discrimination of the first two thirds of this century to one of America's favorite pasttimes, the weekend. So-called conservatives like Strom Thurmond have been on the wrong side of every battle over rights. The late and much-celebrated from the right Strom Thurmond is most famous for a picture, in the 1950s, I believe, chaining and padlocking his restaurant and saying, "I'd rather close my restaurant than allow blacks to eat here." If you recall, conservative and Republican southern governments fought integration tooth and nail. Unions, while far from perfect and often corrupt at the top levels, exist to even the power between those with the money (nearly always Republicans and rightists) and those who actually have to do the grunt work. Over the centuries, abuse of power and position, has been the norm, not the exception. From feudal societies, slave societies, and business societies onward, as a Roman Senator once said, "The strong do as they will, and the weak suffer what they must." Unions, liberal agendas, and Ted Kennedy, in fact, are some of the best attempts over the centuries to change that status quo. One of the Republican (and the right's) favorite companies is Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart shows fantastic profits and provides cheap goods. On that level, it's a great model. On every other level it's a shameful disgrace. Wal-Mart is famous for mistreating its employees, from forcing unpaid overtime (which the Bush administration has recently codified into labor policy nationwide for many workers, as of August 28), to gender discrimination, to thousand of individual complaints of mistreatment, misuse, and wrongful terminations. In their employment handbooks, they have information for employees about food stamps and state health services for the poor. Why? Because they pay so poorly that lower level employees working full-time still qualify for government assistance programs. That's disgusting. And that's just the beginning. Wal-Mart's business model is to use its purchasing power to demand ever-cheaper goods from manufacturers, on exclusive contracts, forcing a race to the bottom. Manufacturers, in order to compete, must send their work to China and other low-wage countries, closing businesses here, leaving jobs that pay less and less, that allow people to only afford to shop at places like Wal-Mart. It's a cycle of desperation and greed. The Walton family, who owns Wal-Mart, is worth over 100 BILLION dollars. That's right. 100 BILLION DOLLARS. One percent of that would provide health benefits for all Wal-Mart's over 100,000 employees. But they fight it--and unions--tooth and nail. And Wall Street and the Republicans love every minute of it. So they can pay $5.35 an hour to workers and give profits to investors, who don't actually *work.* The greater the number of people with less spending money, the less successful the overall economy, and the more concentrated wealth is in fewer hands. That is the result of Republican policies. Democrats do not want to "tax and spend," as they are characterized. I would say the biggest difference between the two parties is that Democrats as a whole believe we have a community obligation to each other, in large part via government, and Republicans believe we don't owe anything to anyone. They believe that it's the place of the goodwill of individuals and religious institutions that should give charity, more or less, rather than ensuring systems that provide for fair play and enough for as many as possible. The model that Democrats like Ted Kennedy have is one of RESPONSIBLE CAPITALISM, not unbridled capitalism. And he is hated because, at its base, people who don't feel they owe anything to anyone resent being told they do. And frankly, the richest people on earth are also the ones who own things like television stations, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, and etc. And their interests are to provide a perspective that doesn't criticize itself too much. Why would the Wall Street Journal criticize Wal-Mart? It might for the worst offenses, but generally speaking, what's focused on is the profit, not the mayhem. That's about all I can write at the moment. Normally I don't have the time, but you happened to strike a nerve. I think that you have passion in the right place, but that you don't seem to really know the facts and are more thinking with your emotions than anything else. The Democratic party is far from perfect. But it's at least on the right side of human rights, civil liberties and rights, labor rights, women's rights, racial equality, environmental care, health care, child care, education, foreign policy, international relations, and responsible regulation. Reasonable people can disagree on many issues, including divisive ones like abortion. But reasonable people will also look at the whole picture, and on the whole, the Democratic agenda is far more concerned with ordinary folks. The Republican agenda just presents itself as being so. Let's hope we all stop being mushrooms.
Ian ______________ Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by (kilauea5718@yahoo.com) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 at 12:50:01 --------------------------------------- Name: Stephen Norton Regarding: more hate male since your forum ain't working Comments: Dear Mr. Kleinfeld: You bleeding-heart, gun-hating, baby-murdering, non-God-fearing, welfare-loving, Negro-loving, homo-loving, stem cell-loving commie liberal low-life sob. How dare you disrespect our great president! George W is a totally moral, upstanding man with the guts to stand up to the Forces of Evil, which are everywhere. I trust his judgment 100%. Too bad if we have to sacrifice the lives of a few American soldiers and a lot more of those Christ-hating commie Iraqis to make sure their pathetic country is safe for democracy. Those damn commie Dixie Chicks should be publicly whipped for criticizing George W. What the hell do they know? Also, the name Kleinfeld sounds suspiciously Jewish to me and I wouldn't trust you commie Jews as far as I could throw you despite the fact that you're way over represented in terms of numbers of Jewish Nobel prize physics awards and Jewish contributions to popular culture such as compositions of Broadway and popular music relative to your numbers in the general US population. Wow! I'm damn proud of that last sentence considering I quit school after the second grade and spend most of my free time watching Fox TV and raising money for our neighborhood militia group. Those boys are real loyal Americans, unlike you damn liberals. You're just a bunch of cowardly commie traitors. I even bet you're against a Constitutional amendment requiring torture for burning the American flag. It just makes me want to scream! Sincerely, Stephen Norton Raleigh, North Carolina ----------------------------- Dude, we need to hang. I'm in Chapel Hill. Let's grab a beer at the Carolina brewery sometime and scream "GO HEELS!" with the rest of us idiots. Ian Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by Name: carolyn hayes Regarding: the entire website Comments: To whom it may concern: I learned about your website from a customer of mine. I am absolutely appalled about the things you have said about our President. Are you not glad we live in a free country where we can voice our opinions? I think your website is in really bad taste. Carolyn Hayes P.S. Are you for abortion too? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's really a wonderful thing that we live in a country where we can still voice our opinions. However, it's really a shame that many people are so scared of other people's opinions that they will do whatever they can to stop it. You would do well to spend your time letting those people know that you are disappointed with their offense to our wonderful freedoms of speech. Some of them are our President and his administration. It really frightens me when John Ashcroft says "Those who criticize this administration are aiding and giving comfort to the enemy," and Ari Fleischer says, "You'd better watch what you say," and the Dixie Chicks are hounded for their opinion in a harassment campaign organized by ClearChannel (the Liberal Media, remember), and in so many other incidents. Free speech for those in power is different for free speech for those who are not. Just try reminding those people at the Family Journal who supported the war and support the cuts in education, social services, and more, what Jesus' words actually were. He saved his harshest criticisms for the rich and the publically over-pious and hypocritical, those who use the words of religion and love for their own means. I suggest you apply this lens to the behavior of Bush and his supporters. And the "are you for abortion, too" question seems to be a cheap shot, but I'll take it at face value. No, I am not FOR abortion. No one is FOR abortion, silly. I am FOR the CHOICE of getting an abortion if someone wants one. No one I know who has had an abortion has treated it lightly before, during, or after. Best of luck, Ian From: Amin Mohadjer Kerry is as bit as fascist as Bush. Democrats and
Republicans, they build I'll vote Nader. Amin, Don't you think, after four years of Bush that it's both intellectually dishonest and inaccurate to say --or even insinuate, as you are doing--that the Democrats and Republicans are no different, serve the same masters, and have the same agenda? I do. While there may be similar weaknesses in the Democratic party, political ties to big money, there is a real difference. To deny it is foolish and wrong. Nader would do more to serve the reality of third party participation by extracting a committment from the DNC to put in place Instant Runoff Voting in 2006 in four Democratically-controlled state legislatures than by running now, or even for the next 20 years. http://www.democracymeansyou.com/nader Best, Ian Ian: Of course Bush is horrendous and deserves no end to
contempt; but to support Kerry and the Dems thereby is strange.
Surely you don't need to be reminded that Kerry supported the wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq, like Gore proposes even larger Pentagon
budgets than Bush, supported the tax cuts for the rich, the Patriot
Act, and favors even greater tax cuts for the corporations, Tracy M Tracy, In addtion to my comments above to Amin, I'll add, Kerry does, in fact, speak nonstop about curbing the tax incentives to corporations that encourage them to move offshore. He continually calls them "Benedict Arnold" corporations. He does talk about finance reform, and greater public participation and voter registration. However, he is, I'm sure, trying to remain as centrist as possible to win the swing voters—as you know, the crux of this election. As much as I dislike it, we must appeal to the middle to be able to win the election. From there, people can be eased towards more progressivism. Take a peek at Teresa Heinz Kerry's organizations for environmentalism. Listen to Kerry on those issues, and many others that are important. He's not Kucinich, but he's not bad. And, at worst, he's a necessary tourniquet for the gaping wound of the current administration. I am a pragmatic idealist. Work for more radical candidates at local and state levels, then Congress, then eventually, the presidency. A sudden change will not work, has never worked, and will only result in reaction from the right. Politics is a macrocosm for human relationships. Sudden change doesn't usually work--or stick--in even couples. It won't work or stick at the national level either. Ian Name: Emmanuelle Regarding: Hate Mail Comments: This is the 4th time I come on this website and I am horrified by what I read in the hatemails. How can these people believe that the United-States is the best country in the world with the best government? How can they believe that the people from other countries are jealous of the Americans? I am from another country and for nothing in the whole world would I live in the United-States. Even for a billion US dollars. I have some friends who say they wouldn't even go for a visit. (I wouldn't go that far myself, it's a beautiful country even though it's seems to be filled with xenophobes.) I used to work in a call center for a cosmetic company's customer service that serves the Canadian and American markets. Believe me, everybody just hated to take calls from the Americans. We had hate calls during the war because the company is French. I have a good one for you. Someone from the US army called us one time because he had a flyer from our company in his mail (a flyer sent randomly by a direct selling marketing company) and he was yelling on the phone saying he would loose his job if the army knows he has mailing from a French company. He told us to stop sending him this French crap or he would bring us in court for making him loose his job. He sounded sooo paranoid on the phone. This is just one example of the kind of calls we had at that time. I have a whole lot of examples of the stupidness of our American customers. Oh I'm thinking about another good one I go to tell you. A guy called us once and asked us if Canada was located near the Alpes in France. The customer rep ask the guy if he was a hockey fan. The guy said he was a big fan. Then the rep asked if he knew about the Canucks hockey team. The guy said it is a great team. The rep said: "well that's a Canadian team!" The guy said: "really! Then how come you people speak French? (call center located in Quebec)". The rep told him that the French people first came to America, before the British people, and at that time, most of the people in America were speaking French, from Canada to the Ohio Valley, down along the Mississipi, way down to Louisiana. I mean, this is something everybody knows! The guy was astonished. How could one be so ignorant of one's country history and geography? I mean hello! Canada is your neighbour !!! Anyways I am afraid of my neighbour who doesn't know I am his neighbour... And I don't understand what's going on on the other side of the borders. Don't you people learn anything at school? Don't you get out of your country sometimes and go see the world? There's other things than America you know. I'm going to stop my comment here. I would just like to say that I am sorry for my English, it is not my mother tongue. I am French-Canadian. And after reading all those hatemails, I'm kind of proud of it now. It's funny, I've never been that patriotic before.... Name: JR Regarding: store products Comments: Was ready to support you and buy stickers until I saw the Busharon sticker with pools of blood. The sticker is not oonly inflammatory but also poorly informed in concept. Wont buy anything now, but may check bakc if its removed. JR San Antonio,TX Josh, While you may *disagree* with the concept of our Busharon sticker, it's definitely not "poorly informed." Our position is that Bush et al hold Israel to zero responsibility in the problems, continue to send over the--is it $13 million a day?--without regard for Sharon's self-destructive and Palestinian-destructive policies. It also calls into question the link between Bush's tactics of dealing with terrorism strictly as a military problem (without looking for the root causes) and Sharon's enthusiasm for assassinations. Neither has shown any willingness (or possibly any aptitude) to be truly creative in resolving the problems facing them and their countries. Both their responses are tired, dangerous, and failing. Please see our statement at http://www.democracymeansyou.com/mideast/statement.htm, which I helped to edit with Jewish Voice for Peace. Sharon, though now making noises about removing about four tiny settlements, has refused to change his course although it clearly hasn't created anything closer to peace since his election (regardless of Arafat, whom we'll get to in a moment). Bush is the same. And they support each other in it, regardless of semi-public semi-criticisms. Arafat is of course, also a bastard and a miserable failure at creating a workable Palestinian state, possibly because he doesn't really want one. (A lot like Sharon, if you ask me). Regardless, someone has to change course in a conflict or nothing positive will happen. We have numerous articles about the mideast issues here, both satirical and serious. Read them before making blanket judgements on our positions. I would suggest you see http://www.democracymeansyou.com/mideast/busharon.htm
or Sharon is no sacred cow, and he's not worth your defense of him. Funny how we, as humans, love inflammatory and satirical jabs at those we disagree with (i.e., Bush, and your saying you were ready to buy things) but take offense at similar inflammatory and satirical jabs at those we feel the need to defend, even when there are valid criticisms of them (i.e., Sharon). Best, Ian : Jamie White Regarding: Opinion Mail about abortion Comments: Ian, I read a reply you made to a gentleman about pro-choice views on abortion and I just wanted to ask you a few questions. I personally believe that a woman in certain cases should be able to have an abortion, but I feel it should me regulated. For instance, I feel that persons under the age of 18 who wish to abort a fetus must have parent consent. I also feel that abortion should be regulated in order to assure that it's not being used as a sort of birth control, where a woman has mulitple abortions. If you are gonna lay down, use protection such as birth control pills, patch, shot, or condoms! What are your views on this? ------------------------------ Hi Jamie, I think that the problem is not so much with "irresponsible" women using abortion as birth control as much as it is the lack of availability of sex ed and the social pressures making sex and discussing it shameful that should be your target. The "abortion as birth control" argument is what I consider a red herring and a wedge issue--used to distract from the real issue in much the same way that the administration is focusing so much on "gay marriage" right now so that the real issues of the economy and war failures are kept off the plate as much as possible. I believe with appropriate education and discussion, which has been shown to lead to increased contraceptive use, abortion would be a less frequently used option. I don't know any women who have had abortions who have not agonized over the decision, though I have either met or heard of one (don't recall which) who was kind of a dim bulb and had had four or five abortions, but she's by far the exception, not the rule. Best, Ian Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by (theycallmeh---@yahoo.com) on Monday, February 23, 2004 at 07:30:01 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Brandon Bendig Regarding: Republican Spin Generator Comments: That was a hoot. It reminded me of a faux-MadLib that Spin printed recently about emo bands all being the same. Spin's version didn't get me all riled up, but, whatever. The bottom line, to me, is that political parties, and their eadvocates, are basically useless nowadays. Communication is not so difficult and information not so elusive anymore that we need parties to distiguish one candidate from another. Besides, the only disnction between the two political parties is that Republicans hate the idea that there's a problem they can't just ignore until it goes away, while Democrats hate the idea that there's a problem they can't guilt-trip someone else into fixing. As far as I'm concerned, all those with set political affiliations in either direction should be cast aside so that those who think for themsleves can do just that, restore some sense of trust to the world and, maybe, make it a decent place to live. In the meantime, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You'd think that the democrats would try to avoid becoming elitist assholes, but instead you embrace it. Then again, when the basis of your political agenda is deciding what to do with other people's money, I guess it isn't too hard to see why the I-know-better-than-you mentality is so consistently prominent among you people. And, just in case this does end up on the "Hate Mail" page, fuck every Republican who agrees with me. Everything every Democrat says is wrong with you is true. Your greed has ruined this country. I just wish they had the hindsight to realize why they're here to begin with, but they don't, so fuck the both of you. From: Phil S Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 3:25 PM To: middlesubmissions - a t - democracymeansyou - d o t - com Subject: Political Bumper Sticker Idea
My idea comes from the idea that Republicans never have to tip
toe around why they do something. There is right and wrong, there
is no grey area. So, generally a Republican has good substantiation
for why they decide something or believe something, because they
know the difference between right and wrong. ------------------------ I suppose the republicans who hacked into the
DNC strategy computer and read all the emails, and waited weeks
to tell the Democrats that there was a weakness in the security,
they knew the difference between right and wrong? Cheers,
Hi Ian, ---------------------- Hi Phil, 1-15-04 Dear President Bush, --Original Message----- From: Salvatore Richichi Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 4:55 PM To: ------ - a t - democracymeansyou - d o t - com Subject: Criticism Name: NYSal Regarding: patriot act Comments: To suggest that to contact the ACLU is a joke.They are not lookin gout for anyone but their own secular ideology.They are defending a group called NAMBLA that believes that having sex with young boys as young as three years old is perfectly fine and explains on their website to other vile pedophiles just how to go about seducing them and avoiding capture from police.This is the organization that you believe is looking out for the American people.When it comes to the Patriot act you are right.When it comes to the ACLU you are dead wrong. ------- Thanks for your feedback, however, the think that I would ask you to consider is that the ACLU actually walks the walk of having solid, consistant values, unlike many people and institutions that talk about it but then do as they like when it doesn't fit their agenda. The ACLU defends anybody who has a valid case, regardless of how popular or unpopular they are. If you look at their record, they actually have the courage of their convictions. They support Civil Rights, for people they agree with and people they don't. They support the constitution. That is their job and they do it well. Attorneys take an oath to defend their client in order to make the promises of the Constitution and the basic rights given to all available to all. Even child molesters deserve the best defense they can get. It is the sign of true love and respect for this country to defend the ideals even if the individual circumstances are not to our taste. I assure you that likely no one in the ACLU actually enjoys the idea of NAMBLA. They are fighting for the legal system. The NAMBLA case is just the case they are working on right now. If you look into the actual details of the case (as I will shortly) I'm sure you'll find that what they are defending is a Civil Rights issue and not their right to molest children. I look forward to your reply. Best, Ian -----Original Message----- From: Salvatore Richichi --------- Then the law is meaningless. If you cannot see that even the worst of us require fair trials and the best defense possible, regardless of who we are, then I think you only believe in the law, free speech, and civil rights, for those that you agree with and feel comfortable with. Here is a press release by the ACLU about defending unpopular causes, specifically about the NAMBLA issue back in August 2000 that you are referring to.
--- Ian Name: Roderick Russell Regarding: Bush Hypocritically Pushes Anti-Abortion Agenda Comments: Whether or not George Bush caused those women to have abortions is not the reason for my writing this letter. If he did, I find it morally reprehensible and hypocritical. As a person with conservative leanings, even I find him lacking as a president. I write this letter in order so that I may hopefully have a few questions answered on liberal, because this site is obviously more aligned with the Democratic party than Republican, views on abortion. I, as a man and a Christian, have a hard time reconciling a women's "right to choose" with my beliefs. I fail to see why a woman should be able to destroy (this is not meant as inflammatory speech like kill or murder would be) a fetus because she does not desire it. I fail to see why the choice of adoption is not given more consideration. Abortions are not completely safe and while many women who give up their children for adoption suffer psychological problems resulting the decision later, so do those who have an abortion. Many people wait years for children, and adoption not only alleviates women of an unwanted child, but also gives these people their dream. Unlike most conservatives, I do agree that if a woman is raped or life is in danger from carrying the child, an abortion is warranted. I once again ask for a reply describing liberal views on abortion and thank the reader of this post for their time. ------ Hi there, Pro-choice means simply that I (we) want the option of having an abortion available. Very very few women of any age take the step of getting an abortion without agonizing self-reflection and consideration of all the options. I would be hard pressed to imagine an abortion clinic that doesn't provide some type of pre-abortion counseling where options are discussed and a woman's concerns are listened to. It is taken very, very seriously. The religious right's centers, on the other hand, tend to demonize abortion, manipulate women, use scare tactics, occasionally encourage violence, and deny abortion as an option. Our position, and no doubt the position of most pro-choice individuals, is that of course adoption is a wonderful option, but it is not the right one for every person. No woman should be forced to complete a pregnancy, carry a human fetus/baby to term, go through all the bodily changes, possible social consequences of being perhaps unmarried or single, etc., etc. Bottom line, though, is that I believe a woman's right to choose whether to carry a fetus to term trumps any fetus' rights, because the fetus in her body and cannot survive without it. Anti-choice conservatives feel the opposite. I believe that sex is not only for procreation, and that it is far better for both the child and the pregnant woman, that she not be forced to be pregnant with or give birth to a child she doesn't want. I find it ironic that the religious right is not only anti-choice, but anti-contraception. And while I absolutely believe that many "pro-life" activists are in it because they care about human life, I think that the movement as a whole is more about "pro-control" over people's sexuality and morality than it is about abortion itself. Hope that answers your question. Feel free
to followup with me if it hasn't. Best, Ian Kleinfeld -----Original Message----- From: mmaiale Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 11:15 PM To: talkback - a t - democracymeansyou - d o t - com Subject: The rescue of Pfc. Lynch
You have a lot of nerve discounting the brave actions of our troops! First off, you have several things seriously wrong. Mainly, no pentagon or military personell claimed private Lynch ‘fought to the death’ as you claim, such stories were made up by the media to draw viewers. In fact, they were called unverifiable, and later untrue, by pentagon officials. Also, it would have been totally stupid and irresponsible for our troops to have gone into that hospital in any way other than prepared to fight a dangerous battle, and, while Jessica Lynch seems to have been treated well, other soldiers captured with her were slaughtered. You also failed to mention that the rescue team recognized graves on the hospital grounds, and dug up the bodies of several of our other soldiers with there bare hands. I see the fact that so many of our brave soldiers volunteered to go on that mission, and yes, they said they wanted to work on the rescue mission, risking there own lives for the life of a lowly pilot, and further risking there lives for dead bodies. They should be honored for there bravery, not scolded for the media’s mistakes. They lived up to the statement that ‘no one gets left behind.’ Pfc. Lynch is just a scared young woman, unwillingly thrust into the spotlight because administration officials tried to pretend they were right, and we had enough troops in Iraq. You are turning the victim into the criminal. Now I have a personal challenge for you. Stop trying to please your viewers (the same thing the media did with this story,) and admit your mistakes. Stop discounting the brave actions of our troops, and acting like a drug addict from Vietnam times blaming the soldiers for our politicians mistakes. They volunteered to fight for democracy (though they have been forced into other missions. I also challenge you to post this message on your site, but you probably won’t. You are cowards who are intimidated by the brave
Mike Miale ------------- Dear Mike, I'm glad you think you know us so well. And apprently, since I'm not intimidated by you, that either means you're not brave or I'm not a coward. Your choice. Pentagon and military personell released the misinformation they did knowing full well what its effect on the media would be. If you don't believe that, I'd like to talk business with you about some land in Arizona... If you reread our letter to Pfc. Lynch you will see exactly what it is we are asking of her, that we're not criticizing her, we are challenging her to tell the truth--that she was and is being used. We do not try to please our readers (we don't have viewers, we're not a TV station), we try to put out things we believe should be out there. I also would like to point out that you are (ineffectively) trying to invalidate anyone who disagrees with you by likening them to drug addicts who protested Vietnam. Also, an inaccruate, misleading analogy, as most people protesting the war were not drug addicts, except, perhaps, in your mind. I'm happy to post this in our "opinions" section. Please stop being so presumptuous. And I would LOVE to see you actually put the criticism where it really belongs. How many letters have you sent to the administration telling them how wrong it was to use her? And maybe you should see the note right beneath this one...
Ian Kleinfeld __________________________ Name: Dave Lester Comments: Regarding: Jessica "The Hero" Lynch. Kudos for challenging her to come clean. As a Viet Vet, it really burns my ass to see a metal like the Bronze Star (given for action in battle above and beyond the normal call of duty) handed out to someone for being hurt in a car crash when her unit got lost. ------------- Thanks, Ian ----Original Message----- Name: Tim Bordovsky Comments: Displaying your opinions is fine, it is freedom gauranteed to you by the Bill of Rights in this great country. That freedom was obtained through our ancestors and the struggles they had (both verbal and physical) with the intentions of giving us the gift of thinking differently than other people. We take much for granted in this great land, including that freedom. Whether you agree with or disagree with the intentions of this conflict, now is the time for support. You do not have to support decisions, but support our youth over there now, the youth that is dying to protect our freedoms. There has to be something in your life that you feel so strongly about that you would be willing to die for... That is why there are so many people in the military, they believe in protecting the citizens of this country to the extent that they ARE dying. Keep your opinions, you are entitled to them, but please support the troops. The decision is out of our hands, but something we can do (besides draw police, FBI, CIA etc from their homeland security duties to try to calm protests)is show our troops that we love them and want them to know the amount of gratitude we offer them for defending our freedoms. By all means have a great day, feel safe in your office reading this letter, think not of; exhaustion, blood, sweat, tears, being wounded and wondering if you will ever see the home you love, please feel very safe there because you are safe there for the fact the military, homeland security etc etc assures you are safe. If you can please respond, if not, I will continue to support our troops and wish all their families could speak with you all. Take some time out of your busy lives to speak with a 'veteren', let their experiences educate you on reality and there may be a possibility you will feel differntly. But as I said earlier, by all means you are entitled to your opinion, I only hope you take into account the type of followers you are training and ask yourself if a country full of people like that will really work. Respectfully Yours, Tim Bordovsky --------------------------------------------------------------------------- True, and don't forget those who are in the military because the had little or no other options... PFC Jessica Lynch, perhaps, who wanted to be a kindergarten teacher but couldn't afford to go to school? What kind of "followers" am I training? Terrorists? Best, Ian Kleinfeld
more to come... |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
