Comments for Say No to McBama and Incumbents at http://www.rcreader.com , comment 1 to 8 out of 8 comments http://www.rcreader.com Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:11:52 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/say-no-to-mcbama/#comment-1145 An excellent, well-written, well-thought-out opinion on this election. Thanks for taking the time to write it. Now, why anyone would become upset over another citizen using the medium available to them to express their opinion over the current political climate in this country...that I do not understand, regardless of whether or not you agree with the expressed opinion. Roberta, RI, and Joe -- do you understand that this is an editorial? Do you understand what that means? If you refer to Merriam-Webster Online ([url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/editorial[2][/url]), you'll find that an editorial is "a newspaper or magazine article that [b]gives the opinions[/b] of the editors or publishers ; also : an expression of opinion that resembles such an article." This is one citizen's opinion, and it is very clearly presented as such. It is not an example of media bias, or someone trying to cram their ideas down your throat. This is an American citizen exercising their right to free speech, within the medium available to them. If you realize this, I don't see how this column could be construed as heavy-handed use of her position or some kind of condescending diatribe. This is also not an example of an organization being hypocritical. If anything, the fact that ads have been accepted for candidates with whom the editor does not agree, illustrates the Reader's commitment to fairness and the democratic process. They're not limiting who can advertise in their publication, even though they may not personally agree those candidates are qualified for office. I sincerely hope that everyone here, regardless of their opinion, excercises the most powerful voice our constitution has provided us today. The ballot. - Hank S Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:17:24 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/say-no-to-mcbama/#comment-1144 I find it very hypocritical of you to denounce Obama and yet still accept advertising from his campaign. Seems like maybe your in it just for the money. And that is part of the problem in the USA today. I am supporting a major party candidate and do not feel my vote is wasted. And having read your opinions for several years, I find you to be real negative all the time. Is there anyone out there you approve of besides yourself? - Joe Penry Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:55:23 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/say-no-to-mcbama/#comment-1140 I plan on wasting my vote on third parties, thank you very much. I also support balloting that leaves a paper trail. - steven montross Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:19:13 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/say-no-to-mcbama/#comment-1139 Thank you for a good and timely article. If there is one thing wrong with it it's that it did not go far enough to expose the lies and fraud being perpetrated by the two major parties. In my opinion, anyone with an IQ over 50 should be able to see right through all the hot air these two candidates are spewing, especially Obama. He single handedly increases global warming every time he opens his mouth. His "solutions" are nothing more than worthless band aids which will only make things worse. He wants to "help" those with home foreclosures yet his largest contributers are from the banking industry that caused the problem. Does anyone really think the banks would be supporting him if he was going after them? Same with health care costs. Not only would his "universal crapcare" be a disaster but his second largest contributions come from the health and drug industry. He is committed to robbing us taxpayers so that industry can be enriched even more. He has a consortium of millionaires and billionaires backing him. Does anyone truly believe they would want him in office if he really was going to raise taxes on them? The only reason he was even nominated is because he is a media darling who is making them huge amounts of money. Be a true American and just say no to Obama/McCain and vote third party. Don't waste your vote on the evil of two lessors. - Jack Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:07:38 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/say-no-to-mcbama/#comment-1138 Great Article. If you want real change you have to look beyond ALL the people who have had a hand in getting us to where we are today - BROKE and serving special interest groups. Also,I am glad I live in a country where this article can be freely published and all readers have the right to voice their opinions - for or agin. Vote. It matters. Regarless of who you vote for. - KT Sat, 01 Nov 2008 21:47:37 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/say-no-to-mcbama/#comment-1136 All I can say is WOW....I am truly astonished that the editor of my "once" favorite news source would write such a biased article on the front page. As an "independent" publication, I guess I would have thought there would be more bipartisanship, instead of condescending opinions. And I don't believe that ANY vote is wasted....VOTE, everyone, VOTE!!! - RI, ILL Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:09:21 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/say-no-to-mcbama/#comment-1134 So, as the editor, I supppose you feel it's ok to use your paper to inflict your opinion on who you think we should or shouldn't vote for ... implying that those who have made their choice are beneath you if we haven't made the choice you think we should have. Stating opinions without knowledge of the future, touting that the candidates make promises "they can't or won't keep." None of us has that insight. Do you really think you'd ralley enough votes for ANY third party candidate from the Reader? Or having us vote, whether respectfully or enthusiastically for the candidate of YOUR choice ... again, as the editor, I guess you have that right to be condescending and didactic to all who happen to read your opinion ... after reading this through I must admit it comes across as taking the opportunity to use your position in the paper to control your little part of the world with half truths and misinformed facts ... funny ... that sounds vaguely familiar of the type of folks who support the current administration. I will not say any vote is wasted, this is the U.S ... we can vote for whoever we choose ... as far as it impacting the state of things, we'll see if the third party choice gets the vote ... then the folks can determine just exactly what happened to their vote of their own conclusion. - Roberta Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:14:05 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/say-no-to-mcbama/#comment-1130 A complete misreading of the Us political system. Any system attempting to somehow govern 350 million people is going to be crappy and corrupt. Democracy on such a scale is a constant experiment. Given that its a constant experiment, it is also based on a thrown together 200 year old document. A living document, but 200 years old, none the less. It pretty much constrains us to a two party system. "love it or leave it" as some are wont to say. If you want to reform the document (have a more European parlimentary system) go for it. Good luck. Without that, though, it is truly worthless to vote for a third party. The most it has ever done is be a spoiler (without Perot there is no clinton, no NAder, no W) of course, voting for president is actually a pretty useless thing to do in most cases. In illinois there isn't much point. Iowa, a little more so. Even then it comes down to stupid people who don't understand the two party system to tip the scales. People who are ignorant of what differences there are between two parties, and the type of real effects it will have on our lives. Very few voters understand that Supreme Court nominations are, perhaps, the single most important thing a president does. Bush's legacy will destroy this country for many years because of his court nominations at the supreme court and the appeals court level. In those instances, voting third party really is wasting a vote. We are less free due to an ignorant middle. Vote dem for progressive courts! - schqc Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:01:31 +0100