Letters to the Editor - Letters

[alice]

Bush hated America and his arrogance and stupidity have set this coutnry back for a generation

[Bullshot Crummond]

Glen wrote:

<quoted text>
You keep riding on your brothers coat tails. and may I add, with much thanks for his service, but your added comment you were too young to serve just doesn't wash. You could have served any time.
Bush did go to Nam, cause he wasn't sent. He was trained and ready. He wasn't the only rich kid not sent. Jump on them for a change.
He and his wife just spent a few hours at Ft. Hood, quietly and without the MSM knowing, with the families of those that lost loved ones. That shows real class, unlike a certain person that had to start his speech and do a hiya to the audience, before he even brought up the massacre.

Turning this around on me isn't the point, now is it? My brother is nine years older than I, so maybe you could do the math on 'Nam for me since it seems you know my history better than I do.

Jeez, you are pulling straws outa some dark place to get some traction here.

I disagree with your statement about Bush going to 'Nam: Bush, most decidedly, did not go to 'Nam. I don't know where you get that information. He chose not to enlist and go over. He had his daddy pull strings to get him into the National Guard. He took the easy way out -- as he did for so much of his life.

You do remember that he was a drunk frat-boy turned pilot? Very worthy guy, I must say.

Regarding other rich kids: they didn't become president, they didn't start wars that got real servicemen killed, and they weren't voted on by the jingoistic "I'm all-American" conservatives that put Bush into office so he could play at being important again.

As for his visit to Fort Hood, yes, that was classy. Was he wearing an orange jumpsuit? Did he fly himself in? Was there really no banner?

Classy is coming late to this ex-President. Your ex-President and mine, god love us all. A Yalie frat-boy who now has a conscience.

[Uku]

Wasting bandwidth again?

[Yeah]

Glen wrote:

<quoted text>
You keep riding on your brothers coat tails. and may I add, with much thanks for his service, but your added comment you were too young to serve just doesn't wash. You could have served any time.
Bush did go to Nam, cause he wasn't sent. He was trained and ready. He wasn't the only rich kid not sent. Jump on them for a change.
He and his wife just spent a few hours at Ft. Hood, quietly and without the MSM knowing, with the families of those that lost loved ones. That shows real class, unlike a certain person that had to start his speech and do a hiya to the audience, before he even brought up the massacre.

lol. I guess you're more interested in what an ex-president is doing than the current one. That's ok. Everyone has a choice on what they prefer to listen to.

So if you define class as being quiet and unable to be found by anyone, Cheney did a great job during his tenure. I wish he'd kept that same demeanor today.

[Inconvenient Truth]

Bullshot Crummond wrote:

<quoted text>Shame on America for this monarchy of monied aristocracy. And shame on the Conservatives for supporting it.

Your biased comments seek to perpetuate the popular (but false) Liberal myth that Republicans are the "evil rich guys," while Democrats are the "poor, but charitable ones."

The inconvenient truth for Liberals, Bullshot, is that Democrats are more than equally represented among the list of wealthiest congress members. The top two richest members in 2008 were Democrats - John Kerry (est. net worth $231 million) and Jane Harman ($226 M). Six of the top ten richest congress members were Democrats.
http://www.rollcall.com/features/Guide-to-Con...

The inconvenient truth is that Democrats represent the wealthiest constituencies in America.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-...

And the inconvenient truth is that Conservatives are more charitable than Liberals when it comes to donating money, volunteer time, and even blood (!), to charity... despite having lower family incomes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21k...

Your biased soundbites may be music to the Liberals' ears, but they only ring of deceit. The Truth speaks volumes without saying a word, and despite the futile efforts of those like you who seek desperately to drown it out.

[Bullshot Crummond]

Inconvenient Truth wrote:

<quoted text>Your biased comments seek to perpetuate the popular (but false) Liberal myth that Republicans are the "evil rich guys," while Democrats are the "poor, but charitable ones."
The inconvenient truth for Liberals, Bullshot, is that Democrats are more than equally represented among the list of wealthiest congress members. The top two richest members in 2008 were Democrats - John Kerry (est. net worth $231 million) and Jane Harman ($226 M). Six of the top ten richest congress members were Democrats.
http://www.rollcall.com/features/Guide-to-Con...
The inconvenient truth is that Democrats represent the wealthiest constituencies in America.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-...
And the inconvenient truth is that Conservatives are more charitable than Liberals when it comes to donating money, volunteer time, and even blood (!), to charity... despite having lower family incomes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21k...
Your biased soundbites may be music to the Liberals' ears, but they only ring of deceit. The Truth speaks volumes without saying a word, and despite the futile efforts of those like you who seek desperately to drown it out.

I think you misunderstand my point and have jumped to three or four conclusions without using stepping stones between them. That just makes you all wet in the river of life, my friend.

I am referring to the Bush family here, uniquely and directly, father and son. Your other points may be valid, but they are side issues and so are not germane.

If you wish to deal with the issue of wealth and power in the United States, we certainly might be able to have a dialogue, but that's not this one.

[Inconvenient Truth]

Yeah wrote:

<quoted text>lol. I guess you're more interested in what an ex-president is doing than the current one. That's ok. Everyone has a choice on what they prefer to listen to.
So if you define class as being quiet and unable to be found by anyone, Cheney did a great job during his tenure. I wish he'd kept that same demeanor today.

It's not surprising that you Liberals would like Cheney to remain silent. That seems to be your M.O.- "we support freedom of speech (as long as you're saying something we agree with)."

Look at the Obama administration's attempts to squelch and isolate Fox news.

Look at Liberals' vicious attacks on Sarah Palin, long after the election was over.

Look at Liberals' attempts to silence the opposition by dismissing and demonizing them as "racists," or "un-American."

Look at Democrats attempts to silence Conservative talk radio with the totally misnamed "Fairness Doctrine."

The pattern is disturbingly obvious to anyone with even a slightly open mind. This is one case of "where there's smoke, there's fire." Democrats feel they know what's best for everyone, and they'll seek to impose it on us whether we like it or not. And if we dare speak out against it, they will attempt to silence us by whatever means they have at their disposal.

[Yeah]

Inconvenient Truth wrote:

<quoted text>...And the inconvenient truth is that Conservatives are more charitable than Liberals when it comes to donating money, volunteer time, and even blood (!), to charity... despite having lower family incomes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21k...
Your biased soundbites may be music to the Liberals' ears, but they only ring of deceit. The Truth speaks volumes without saying a word, and despite the futile efforts of those like you who seek desperately to drown it out.

Truth about the author of the book...

"Arthur C. Brooks is Louis A. Bantle Professor of Business and Government Policy at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and Whitman School of Management. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute."

Not what I would call "fair" or "balanced" at all. You've posted this before. The overall view still hasn't sunk in yet... pity.

[Yeah]

Bullshot Crummond wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you misunderstand my point and have jumped to three or four conclusions without using stepping stones between them. That just makes you all wet in the river of life, my friend.
I am referring to the Bush family here, uniquely and directly, father and son. Your other points may be valid, but they are side issues and so are not germane.
If you wish to deal with the issue of wealth and power in the United States, we certainly might be able to have a dialogue, but that's not this one.

You mean you're being told what you said? And your words are twisted around and the meaning of the post changed?

Heavens to Betsy, who would do such a dastardly thing???

[Yeah]

Inconvenient Truth wrote:

<quoted text>It's not surprising that you Liberals would like Cheney to remain silent. That seems to be your M.O.- "we support freedom of speech (as long as you're saying something we agree with)."
Look at the Obama administration's attempts to squelch and isolate Fox news.
Look at Liberals' vicious attacks on Sarah Palin, long after the election was over.
Look at Liberals' attempts to silence the opposition by dismissing and demonizing them as "racists," or "un-American."
Look at Democrats attempts to silence Conservative talk radio with the totally misnamed "Fairness Doctrine."
The pattern is disturbingly obvious to anyone with even a slightly open mind. This is one case of "where there's smoke, there's fire." Democrats feel they know what's best for everyone, and they'll seek to impose it on us whether we like it or not. And if we dare speak out against it, they will attempt to silence us by whatever means they have at their disposal.

lol. Let me see if I have this straight. As the Vice President of the United States, it's acceptable for him to stay quiet. But as a "private" citizen, he has a right to talk.

As for the rest of your "look at..." statements, why don't you show me? You talk the talk. Now walk the walk.

The pattern is only disturbing to those who have had their way for 8 years and are finding many of things Bush brought them are now being taken away. It's "....obvious to anyone with even a slightly open mind..."

[Yeah]

Inconvenient Truth wrote:

<quoted text>Your biased comments seek to perpetuate the popular (but false) Liberal myth that Republicans are the "evil rich guys," while Democrats are the "poor, but charitable ones."
The inconvenient truth for Liberals, Bullshot, is that Democrats are more than equally represented among the list of wealthiest congress members. The top two richest members in 2008 were Democrats - John Kerry (est. net worth $231 million) and Jane Harman ($226 M). Six of the top ten richest congress members were Democrats.
http://www.rollcall.com/features/Guide-to-Con...
The inconvenient truth is that Democrats represent the wealthiest constituencies in America.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-...
And the inconvenient truth is that Conservatives are more charitable than Liberals when it comes to donating money, volunteer time, and even blood (!), to charity... despite having lower family incomes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21k...
Your biased soundbites may be music to the Liberals' ears, but they only ring of deceit. The Truth speaks volumes without saying a word, and despite the futile efforts of those like you who seek desperately to drown it out.

As for people you claim are rich, are you saying democrats have no rights to be rich like republicans? Or are you saying anyone who is rich is a republican?

I don't get your point.

[alice]

alice wrote:

Bush hated America and his arrogance and stupidity have set this coutnry back for a generation

true..thanks to Obama, we are slowly cleaning up the mess.

[Bullshot Crummond]

Yeah wrote:

<quoted text>You mean you're being told what you said? And your words are twisted around and the meaning of the post changed?
Heavens to Betsy, who would do such a dastardly thing???

Sunshine, go away today....

[Liberal Delusions]

Bullshot Crummond wrote:

<quoted text>
Sunshine, go away today....

I'm going to call you and Yeah - "Lennie and Squiggy." Who wants to be who? You get first choice, since you're here.(But IMHO, I picture you more as "Lennie," and Yeah as "Squiggy.")

You can call me "The Fonz" if you'd like.

[Bullshot Crummond]

Liberal Delusions wrote:

<quoted text>I'm going to call you and Yeah - "Lennie and Squiggy." Who wants to be who? You get first choice, since you're here.(But IMHO, I picture you more as "Lennie," and Yeah as "Squiggy.")
You can call me "The Fonz" if you'd like.

Fine with me. It's about as sensible as anything else you've ever done. Guess I should start calling you Rhoda.

[Bullshot Crummond]

Yeah wrote:

<quoted text>As for people you claim are rich, are you saying democrats have no rights to be rich like republicans? Or are you saying anyone who is rich is a republican?
I don't get your point.

He doesn't have a point, just a keyboard and an internet connection.

[Fisherman]

Bullshot Crummond wrote:

<quoted text>
Fine with me. It's about as sensible as anything else you've ever done. Guess I should start calling you Rhoda.

Surely would be better, as in 'surely he doesn't think anyone will call him the Fonz'. Besides, no one would ever say, "help me Rhonda" in here.

[Yeah]

Bullshot Crummond wrote:

<quoted text>
He doesn't have a point, just a keyboard and an internet connection.

Well, I believe in giving the opportunity to the girl to clarify her position. But it seems every time I do, she doesn't want to. It's simply silence, or a personal verbal attack.

And then she goes off complaining about how her words were twisted.

I do this to clear my conscience. At least I can say I tried to clear the air to get a good understanding. But I guess that's not her point when it comes to politics and her beliefs.

[Bullshot Crummond]

Fisherman wrote:

<quoted text>
Surely would be better, as in 'surely he doesn't think anyone will call him the Fonz'. Besides, no one would ever say, "help me Rhonda" in here.

Is that the Leslie Neilson quote from "Airplane!"?

"I am serious... and don't call me Shirley."

Lol!

[Yeah]

Liberal Delusions wrote:

<quoted text>I'm going to call you and Yeah - "Lennie and Squiggy." Who wants to be who? You get first choice, since you're here.(But IMHO, I picture you more as "Lennie," and Yeah as "Squiggy.")
You can call me "The Fonz" if you'd like.

Change the "F" to a "B" and add an "o" at the end.

Who does that remind one of?