Liberal's letter irrational

  • Follow Letters

Once again we are treated to the ravings and rants of the expellee from the worker’s paradise, Cuba. His letter (“Now, scrutinize Reagan,” Feb. 3) reinforces the view that liberal ideologues have limited reasoning powers.

Check the following excursions into irrational thought and total denial of truth:

Did the writer confuse transcendent with transparent? Certainly it is not difficult to see through President Obama’s socialist agenda. He wants the feds to control everything from what you eat to how you protect your home.

The writer does not seem to know what campaigning means. It is what Obama has been doing since he was elected. Denial!

If there ever was a contradiction in terms, it is his point that compromising with the GOP labeled Obama a radical socialist. What? Does this make sense to anyone? Since when does compromising with conservatives make you a radical leftist? Plus, it never happened! Makes you wonder about the hypocrisy of those who escape brutal communist dictatorships only to attack the country that affords them freedom of speech.

Exactly how does a president go over the head of Congress by acting and using his voice?

As usual, the writer fails to cite evidence, but does say that President Reagan was “accused” of “suggesting” a delay in the release of Iran’s American hostages. He fails to say if the Ayatollah Khomeini acted on either the “accusation,” “suggestion” or both.

It is more likely that the ayatollah was impressed by the botched rescue attempt by one of the worst presidents in our history – Jimmy Carter!

Quiz: What political view would you attribute to such behavior – liberal or conservative? You know the answer! People like that would not have been welcome among our Founding Fathers who openly pledged their fortunes and lives for the cause of freedom.

Comments (66) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
InquiringLynn-SkepticGriggsy
47
Points
InquiringLynn-SkepticGriggsy 02/06/13 - 03:10 am
0
1
Twaddle!
Unpublished

The original writer makes good points, whilst the one before me, misinterprets matters.
Pres. Hussein had no socialist agenda! He is for using the powers of the federal government to help people. The Supreme Court recognizes the Nanny State as that helpful agency of the people.

I reflect Americanism- the people can do what they want through collective actions through the independent sector of through government. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments note our unenumerated rights, which the Supreme Court has fructified.
One is health care, that Chief Justice helped advanced by finding Obama care constitutional.
Reactionaries ought to read the Constitution instead of giving it lip service!
The best government is the one that can help people have the opportunity to excel.
Letting people have food stamps helps them have the opportunity to eat that comes them more able to seek work, and most of the poor work hard. The disabled and children are not otiose-lazy.
Reactionary attitudes do not help people find opportunity!
So, reactionaries, distort this as you are so wont to do! I'll let other patriots respond. Dr. Lowell Greenbaum is such! How reactionaries distort his fine opinions!
American voters are speaking up for Americanism and against the reactionary dogmas! The silent and the moral majorities were wrong-headed, and were neither silent nor moral nor the majority!

WalterBradfordCannon
1497
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 02/06/13 - 04:51 am
4
11
Are you certain Obama is a

Are you certain Obama is a socialist? Socialism implies "worker" control of production and "worker" control of management of the economy. If the agenda is "federal" control of production and management of the economy, that is not socialism, it is a stronger federalism. Is that what you mean?

Techfan
6462
Points
Techfan 02/06/13 - 04:54 am
3
13
Who knows? We do know Reagan

Who knows? We do know Reagan was not above breaking the law to funnel weapons to Iran against the arms embargo and sending the ill gotten gains to raping murdering thugs in Nicaragua against the Boland Amendment, all while claiming we don't negotiate with terrorists. Reagan proved to be a liar and a criminal, it's just a matter of to what degree. By all means continue the worship of the President who tripled the debt and granted amnesty to illegal aliens. I'm sure you'd give any other President a pass on those as well.

Riverman1
93737
Points
Riverman1 02/06/13 - 07:20 am
9
2
Socialism is defined

Socialism is defined as a step on the way to communism. I have no idea where Walter is going. But if "Reagan proved to be a liar and a criminal," Obama has been proven to be....insert name calling, I prefer not to.

Techfan
6462
Points
Techfan 02/06/13 - 05:43 am
4
10
The US is much closer to a

The US is much closer to a system of plutocraracy, oligarchy, or corporatocracy than any that would grant power to the masses.

carcraft
28487
Points
carcraft 02/06/13 - 05:46 am
9
6
Criminal Activity, look to Obama

We have Obama who is also a liar and a criminal. Criminal activity includes smuggling weapons he is trying to ban in the US into Mexico without the consent of the Mexican Government, result, 300 Mexican citizens dead and one US border patrol agent dead. Then Obama uses executive privilege to hide this crime. Obama has failed to submit a budget as required by law. Lied, my heavens, Obama lies every time he opens his mouth. You can keep the health care you now have. You can't because the health care companies had to cut back on benefits and raise costs to meet the demands of Obama care, my old health care plan no longer exists. I will not raise taxes, well most people are now bringing home less in their pay checks, oops. I will close GITMO in one year, oops. I will hold the health care hearings on C-span. I will have the most open government in history. Obama has denied more freedom of information requests than Bush. Obama officials have created fake e-mail accounts to cover questionable activities. Of course it is OK because Obama is a liberal...and his fawning followers can only say will Bush did it or Reagan did it for a defense then slam Bush or Reagan. It is called hypocrisy!

ymnbde
10672
Points
ymnbde 02/06/13 - 06:11 am
8
2
differing standards

for Reagan, anything short of perfection is a fault... for "other" Presidents, anything greater than abject failure is a virtue... and politicians in this country did not profit from Iran contra... it was the most virtuous scandal in our history

DanK
784
Points
DanK 02/06/13 - 06:37 am
4
9
Obama has no "socialist agenda"

The last liberal in the White House was Nixon, who continued the Johnson "War on Poverty" and civil rights programs. That was the last program in the U.S. that even came close to being "socialist," although even that did not fit the definition. Obama would more accurately fall into the "Rockefeller Republicans" camp. Romney as governor of MA and Reagan as governor of CA were both in that camp as well, before they stepped into national politics.

Obama is not even close to being socialist. But conservatives cling to the word "socialist" and like to throw it around, because they think the word scares people. But it's like crying "wolf" for the millionth time. It has been so overused, and so inaccurately used, that it has lost its power to strike fear in the hearts of the populace.

Bizkit
35576
Points
Bizkit 02/06/13 - 07:48 am
5
2
I don't care about political

I don't care about political affiliation-if you are wrong you are wrong-two wrongs don't make a right. So pointing out other infringements isn't an excuse-just points out we have a problem we need to fix no matter the party. Communism is a form of socialism. Obama has never denied his penchant for socialist and communist ideals-that doesn't mean he is a socialist. Probably more like Hugo Chavez who after coming to power ''evolved" into communist ideals. Now all the progressives finally admit his a liberal and his socialist ideals-where have yall been. I just want you to justify our prez demogoging Sandy Hooks with kids aroung him to attack guns (which does nothing with over 300 million guns already inuse) when his drones his ordered has killed hundreds of children in Pakistan and Afghanistan (progressive and conservative sites say so). Now we read how DOJ attorneys have gone further than justifying torture with murdering American citizens without due process for just knowing a terrorist. Please justify you magnificient leader-and tell me why we shouldn't just put a bullet in all the terrorist in Gitmo and close it. Oh. I see he loves terrorist and wants to protect them and hates americans and wants to kill them???? When will he use those drones on Americans on the mainland-the same legal logic will likely apply. Oh Obama is proposing Socialist democracy(there are a lot of forms of socialism) with redistrubtion of wealth :Redistribution of wealth, through both tax and spending policies that aim to reduce economic inequalities. "Social democracies typically employ various forms of progressive taxation regarding wage and business income, wealth, inheritance, capital gains and property. On the spending side, a set of social policies typically provides free access to public services such as education, health care and child care, while subsidized access to housing, food, pharmaceutical goods, water supply, waste management and electricity is also common."

Gary Ross
3347
Points
Gary Ross 02/06/13 - 07:41 am
7
3
...one of the worst presidents in our history?

Obama has Carter beat by a factor of ten thousand or more. Jimmy Carter cared about the American people. Obama wants to hurt us.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/06/13 - 07:56 am
10
4
Again Techfan invokes the
Unpublished

Again Techfan invokes the name Reagan in an attempt to either justify HIS candidate's poor behavior, or in an attempt to get conservatives, because he believe we are like him, and are unable to criticize someone of the same party when they do the wrong thing.

Nice try.

Bizkit
35576
Points
Bizkit 02/06/13 - 07:56 am
7
3
Likely all progressives and

Likely all progressives and ideologues like Obama who can't learn or can't tell a thing, because they have already made up their mind and refuse to examine it again and re-evaluate with new data. Now I agree that wealth disparity is the cause of much of ills-health disparity, crime, etc. But stealing from Paul to feed Peter is not a long term solution-just a band aid. Progressives have the bad habit of addressing peripheral issues rather than root issues and problems. You have to address the foundation. Like guns is peripheral when there are known strategies to address violence. It will take a nanny state of monitoring parenting because violence in our youth is an epidemic, alcohol consumption =regulating how much you can drink, monitoring youth exposure to violence on games, internet and TV, usually guns and knives too but in our country that isn't applicable no more than deporting all the illegal immigrants. We can't control gun violence but we can address violence. Science may find it is a gene pool factor in the US and eugenics may end up being considered. If people want to address violence then everyone has to be involved-not just gun owners. Somehow I don't think most people will like all these suggestons from science.

WalterBradfordCannon
1497
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 02/06/13 - 08:20 am
3
8
Riverman1, socialism may be a

Riverman1, socialism may be a step towards communism, but Obama's policies are neither. There is no step towards worker control of production of management of the economy - in fact workers have not been so powerless in decades and decades! Similarly, on communism, the defining mantra is "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability", and the major (in economic terms) social programs of the government are "pay-in, get benefits out", not "rich pay in, poor get benefits out". The cries of "Obama socialism" or "Obama communism" are a marketing ploy - not something based on actual policies. The rich pay less in taxes today than they did under Clinton, and less under Clinton than under Reagan, and less under Reagan than under Nixon. The overall tax revenue of our nation is lower, as a fraction of GDP, than any other time in the last 60 years. It is the definition of hypocrisy when people cry that small changes in policies that are more fascist than any time in the last 60 years are moving the US towards socialism. Do you really think the US was socialist in the 70s? We are nowhere close to that now. How about the 80s? Still nowhere close.

Bizkit
35576
Points
Bizkit 02/06/13 - 08:29 am
5
3
Redistributing wealth

Redistributing wealth (whether by a Dem or Rep) is a form of socialism by definition. It is just Social democracy. China now practices state-capitalism. That doesn't mean it isn't still communist or they are free-market capitalist. There are lots of mixtures too. Progressive are adopting Social democracy and giving up on the idea of a republic-note how the Obama always talks about what the majority want-mob rule. For years Dems always talked about a Rep and minorities, but both parties have really changed in my lifetime. Both for the worse and the reason I became an independent because both have failed me miserably.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/06/13 - 08:44 am
6
3
Liberal's Letter Irrational?
Unpublished

Liberal's Letter Irrational? What an obvious statement.

itsanotherday1
48335
Points
itsanotherday1 02/06/13 - 09:00 am
7
2
"But it's like crying "wolf"

"But it's like crying "wolf" for the millionth time. It has been so overused, and so inaccurately used, that it has lost its power to strike fear in the hearts of the populace."

Do you mean like the words "racist" and "hate"?

Bizkit
35576
Points
Bizkit 02/06/13 - 09:00 am
5
3
Well we all know Obama is

Well we all know Obama is ignorant of economics but science too. He stated he "evolved" which is ignorant. Individuals don't evolve-populations do. The change during ones life isn't evolution-it's called flip-flopping which is the correct political nomenclature. hee,hee,hee. I am still waiting for a defense of Obama's justifying murdering mor american citizens without due process. I smell hypocrisy-when people wanted Bush and especially Cheney dead for just waterboarding.

RMSHEFF
18749
Points
RMSHEFF 02/06/13 - 09:20 am
5
3
WBC

WBC you keep saying socialism is " worker control of production of management of the economy " I am not sure where you are getting this definition. It sounds you are getting it from a "progressive dictionary". Your definition is what is promised when socialist take over but complete control is what the people get. Name one country in which the people control production and management of the economy. Socialism as it is practiced in our world is the government controlling the people through controlling their choices. This is done through wealth redistribution and this is exactly what Obama is all about.

dichotomy
37496
Points
dichotomy 02/06/13 - 09:44 am
4
3
Walter....."Socialism implies

Walter....."Socialism implies "worker" control of production and "worker" control of management of the economy."

You are speaking of the "pure" meaning of socialism while most of us use the word to what really happens under socialism. The "workers" NEVER had control of anything in Russia or China after they became socialist. The GOVERNMENT became a ruling class dictatorship that used the socialist excuse of "providing for the common good" to limit freedom, beat down individualism and success, redistribute private assets, and maintain they own ruling status.

Under actual socialism the workers NEVER had control. And THAT is the socialism we refer to and THAT is the socialism that is raising it's ugly head in this country, especially under Obama. All while we watch the effects of the exact same Obama style policies cause a financial collapse all over soicalist Europe.

deestafford
31943
Points
deestafford 02/06/13 - 10:19 am
4
3
Would not what Obama is pushing be fascism...liberal facism?

Whatever one wants to call it, what would he be doing differently than what he is doing than if he came out and said he was a socialist, fascist, or communist? I submit he would be doing nothing differently than what he is doing. The comments on tax rates and Reagan being a Rockefeller Repubican are both so off the mark in showing an ignorance of tax rates and contributions by percentile and knowlege of Reagan as to not warrant responses at this time.

allhans
24886
Points
allhans 02/06/13 - 10:23 am
4
2
In regards to Obama's gun

In regards to Obama's gun ban...."The problem - the real crux of the issue - lies not in the instruments of violence used, but in the evil and depraved heart of man."

allhans
24886
Points
allhans 02/06/13 - 10:27 am
2
2
When the partisan ACLU gets

When the partisan ACLU gets involved with a policy of Obama's that in itself is news.

dahreese
4907
Points
dahreese 02/06/13 - 11:29 am
4
5
@Bizkit
Unpublished

"Progressives have the bad habit of addressing peripheral issues rather than root issues and problems."

Really?

And I post again; has it been progressives who've led the fight for women's suffferage, equal pay for women, against racial segregation, against child labor, for the rights of a woman to control her own body, for women in politics, for women in the pulpit, and are now leading the fight against discrimination against homosexuals...?

Every one of the above issues have been opposed as "socialist" programs.

(I'll have to be careful in my discussions of homosexuality, else this post will be pulled as was my last discussion of homophobia).

Bizkit
35576
Points
Bizkit 02/06/13 - 11:38 am
3
3
DahReese it was pulled

DahReese it was pulled because ad hominems aren't allowed, nor is that an argument. So you don't believe women already control their bodies-seems very discriminatory to me. Women are the superior gender in my book. No party is addressing discrimination against women (I support equal pay for women because studies indicate that this discrimination is an issue in violence). So are you saying conservatives don't allow women in office-that is just naive. Racial integration was fought tooth and nail by Dems. Homosexuals aren't discriminated against anymore-those laws have been removed. But in regard to marriage they are no more discriminated against that mormons, etc. I think progressives and fundamentalist conservatives are the problem with our country right now-I like other independents see moderation. As I have always stated I support abortion and gay unions, and I even go further to support legalizing prostitution and many illicit drugs. The reason I support these is for health reasons-the practices exist so we need to address issues related like hepatitis, AIDS, STDS. Now personally I find many morally reprehensible but I wouldn't want my bias to affect freedom for others-no more than your bias to affect my freedom. Get it.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/06/13 - 12:40 pm
4
3
"And I post again; has it
Unpublished

"And I post again; has it been progressives who've led the fight for women's suffferage, equal pay for women............"

This was SOUNDLY refuted a few days ago....but if you repeat it enough, someone will eventually believe it to be true, I suppose.

dahreese
4907
Points
dahreese 02/06/13 - 01:03 pm
3
3
@Humble Angela
Unpublished

"And I post again; has it been progressives who've led the fight for women's suffferage, equal pay for women............"

"This was SOUNDLY refuted a few days ago....but if you repeat it enough, someone will eventually believe it to be true, I suppose."

>You seem to think you "refute" a number of things on here.

Anyway, who has led the fight for women's rights?

Conservative women, conservative men?

You?

dahreese
4907
Points
dahreese 02/06/13 - 01:05 pm
2
3
@Bizkit
Unpublished

"DahReese it was pulled because ad hominems aren't allowed, nor is that an argument."

Really? Tell me what the ad hominem was.

localman
5
Points
localman 02/06/13 - 02:02 pm
3
2
Socialism

I would think Obamacare is the most socialist thing Obama has done.

Jon Lester
2480
Points
Jon Lester 02/06/13 - 02:17 pm
2
3
You are perfectly free to refuse Social Security, Medicare
Unpublished

and every other program set up for your benefit as a citizen (and which you've paid into), if you're really that hysterical about all things "socialist."

Bizkit
35576
Points
Bizkit 02/06/13 - 02:20 pm
4
1
Dahreese if you don't know

Dahreese if you don't know then it will likely happen again. My comment was removed for saying " babble" yours was calling me " homophobe"-and it was interpreted as you meant it in a derogatory manner. Calling me that is naive because it is like saying I hate immediate family and friends. I doubt you would have to courage make comments like that to my face but I also understand you may not have meant it in a derogatory manner. So forgive and forget-no ill feelings on my part. I didn't mean to imply you babble but I didn't understand what you were saying. Peace :)

Back to Top

Top headlines

Mayor's race historic, controversial

Hardie Davis is still waiting to take office after winning a mayoral race that featured no white candidates and saw one of his opponents drop out the day before the election.
Search Augusta jobs