Color this editorial yellow

  • Follow Letters

I just finished reading your editorial titled “Phony Indignation” (Aug. 1), and it has left me speechless. However, as you read on you will realize that’s not quite true, anymore than the information you used in this “attack” on President Obama is true.

In our age of 24/7 news and commentary, no politician can survive a true scandal. Anyone entrusted by the electorate who behaves badly and/or dishonorably is hounded relentlessly until they either get out or are voted out in disgrace. There are far too many politicians who have either been, or are being driven out of office, for you to go “looking” for another such as our president.

You have listed several events that have taken place during President Obama’s tenure in the Oval Office, some very tragic, that had they been real scandals would have been cause for him to exit his position and our lives. And yet, you make Obama out to be the smartest president in history to boldly escape punishment for his supposedly scandalous wrong doing.

I could go on to show how you have erroneously portrayed the facts in each of these events to make your even-more-erroneous point, but that would take more space than you allow for letters to the editor.

That said, any of your intelligent readers can Google these events and read the true facts for themselves.

This editorial borders on “yellow journalism” (Google it) at best, and certainly is irresponsible for any respectable newspaper. If you don’t like the president, state your opinion using the truth – not as you would like it to be, but as it really is.

Comments (44)

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.
carcraft
20672
Points
carcraft 08/06/13 - 04:30 am
18
3

Gee, a good example of a yellow journalism letter

Interesting that not one fact to back up the Reverend's statements. So lets review the scandals and where we are now.
Fast and Furious. Over three hundred citizens of Mexico dead and one US Boarder Patrol Agent dead because of the weapons smuggled into Mexican drug cartel hands. Investigation on hold because Obama declared executive privilege and it is now being fought out in court, so much for transparency.
Benghazi review. We know that this administration refused to adequately defend the US Embassy in Benghazi. We know that there was an organized attack by elements of Al Quad that killed the US ambassador and 3 others. We have conflicting testimony about what orders were given and when. Their are news stories that indicate the survivors are under extreme pressure not to talk to congress. None of the survivors have been made available to talk to congress. We are now finding out that Al Quad, far from being on the run is gaining momentum in North Africa. We also know that Susan Rice, went on talk shows and lied , on behalf of the Obama administration , to the American people. We do not know who authorized those lies.
The IRS scandal, We know that the originator of the policy of reviewing and delaying conservative applications was originated by a high level appointee of Barack Obama. This policy change was initiated after a meeting between the White house and this individual. We also know that Learner coordinated information about conservative groups with the Federal election committee in violation of federal regulations and laws.

So please explain to me what is phony and why the editorial was yellow journalism?

myfather15
42140
Points
myfather15 08/06/13 - 05:53 am
15
2

Mr. Nead, you stated:

"I could go on to show how you have erroneously portrayed the facts in EACH OF THESE EVENTS to make your even-more-erroneous point, but that would take more space than you allow for letters to the editor."

So, it would take too long to show us EACH, I got it! So is that why you decided not to clearly refute ANY of the allegations about these events?

My guess is, you couldn't intelligently refute ANY of them, so you throw out that generalization that you COULD, but won't!! Weak sir, VERY weak!!

myfather15
42140
Points
myfather15 08/06/13 - 06:03 am
13
2

Carcraft

Facts......? Facts....? Committed zealots of Mr. Obamasiah can't let such pesky things as facts, get in the way of their slobbering love affair!!

Why bother with proving facts, when you can just CLAIM to be able to prove them!! That works so much better for the LP crowd, and a lot less work for them!!

The author stated "If you don’t like the president, state your opinion using the truth – not as you would like it to be, but as it really is."

I would also give you the same advice. If you're a committed Zealot of the President's, then disclose that information; and then people can determine whether your letter is unbiased.

I truly believe, with people like this; if they walked in and found Mr. Obama on top of Mitch McConnell, stabbing him in the chest, they would hide the knife for him.

avidreader
2629
Points
avidreader 08/06/13 - 07:40 am
8
6

Picture This!

Picture this -- The AC editors are sifting through four pro-Obama letters, deciding which one to post. Three are well-composed and offer up a balanced argument for BO's good deeds as a president. The fourth is comical and outrageous without any merit or logic. Which one of the four is going to be published? It's a no-brainer! Rev. Nead, you are the patsy!

I am a staunch republican and no fan of BO, yet I dislike it when the AC editors wave these silly letters in our faces, simply for a giggle. If you choose to defend Mr. Obama, then get a grasp on your dignity and seek out someone to assist you in your presentation. Your audience can google any topic about BO and read a multitude of polar views on the matter. But I am fully aware that those heated moments arrive when a frustrated writer scribbles some well-intended remarks onto a word document and without further contemplation, clicks the send key.

God bless you, Rev. Nead.

Gary Ross
3346
Points
Gary Ross 08/06/13 - 08:04 am
10
5

Here's a stated opinion using the truth.

The man is a pathological liar and a great deceiver! It's sad to express these feelings about a president, but you wanted the TRUTH!

The man is also a racist. He has squandered 5 years away. He could have done so much to mend racial tensions in this country, but his agenda for crippling this country it is much more important. One day when the reality of a ruined economy, no more welfare, and no food to eat hits you, maybe you'll wake up. Maybe.

palmetto1008
9782
Points
palmetto1008 08/06/13 - 08:06 am
5
2

I always appreciate and enjoy

Unpublished

I always appreciate and enjoy reading your wisdom on here, avidreader!!!

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 08/06/13 - 08:24 am
10
4

avidreader....my only

Unpublished

avidreader....my only question for you is where did you get your information as to what letters were actually sent to the ACES? For all you know this one was THE BEST that they had. He may well be the stooge....but you have no way of knowing.

localguy55
4339
Points
localguy55 08/06/13 - 08:24 am
8
4

Keep those eyes closed Rev. Nead

It's no surprise that Rev. Nead would support the dunce in the H.W. just as a great deal of people in this country have. Facts are set aside and replaced with mindless rhetoric, demagoguery, and just plan old lies. If it weren't for the damage these people have caused this country by supporting BO, they would be looked upon with pity for their limited thought processes.

RMSHEFF
10999
Points
RMSHEFF 08/06/13 - 09:08 am
7
4

I would hope that a Reverend

I would hope that a Reverend would be better a separating truth from error. I only hope is does a better job with the Word of God.

rmwhitley
5081
Points
rmwhitley 08/06/13 - 09:37 am
0
0

Rev. Neal,

Unpublished

are you tax-exempt? You certainly have shown your democratic bias. My understanding of tax-exempt status is being non-partisan. You are most certainly partisan. As is the tax-exempt naacp, of which I'm sure you are a member.

GnipGnop
10950
Points
GnipGnop 08/06/13 - 09:42 am
10
4

I get it now...

Questions about Obama's policies or lack of explanation to the American people is an attack, yet anything said about any conservative or tea party member is 1st amendment right...I learn so much on here everyday. Maybe it's George Bush's fault or anyone other than the great O....he walks on water and we should respect him...just like all the liberals showed so much respect for Bush. Did you really read this letter before you sent it?

dichotomy
26674
Points
dichotomy 08/06/13 - 09:57 am
8
4

Reverend......if you take off

Reverend......if you take off those Democrat Party issued rose colored glasses, factual articles won't look so yellow.

Pops
4355
Points
Pops 08/06/13 - 10:01 am
9
4

I'll take your advice Reverend

"That said, any of your intelligent readers can Google these events and read the true facts for themselves."

We can get facts if you Google various credible news sources. I would avoid the misguided, Obama fan sites The Reverend obviously reads.

dahreese
4609
Points
dahreese 08/06/13 - 10:07 am
6
8

@myfather15;"My guess is,

Unpublished

@myfather15;

"My guess is, you couldn't intelligently refute ANY of them, so you throw out that generalization that you COULD, but won't!! Weak sir, VERY weak!!"

Well said, Sir! Well said!

That said, what method shall you use to let us and the world know of your brilliance?

Perhaps you will refute the reverend's accusations with 'facts' AND their 'sources' to prove your case against the reverend?

Or will you simply be the pot that calls the kettle 'black?"

My hunch is that the reverend will be found to be ahead of you.

On the other hand, if you can show his errors you will educate the lot of us.

Go for it!

And may Dog be with you.

dahreese
4609
Points
dahreese 08/06/13 - 10:15 am
6
8

"We can get facts if you

Unpublished

"We can get facts if you Google various credible news sources. I would avoid the misguided, Obama fan sites The Reverend obviously reads."

Only anti-Obama sites will do?

My! what an open mind!

Riverman1
70617
Points
Riverman1 08/06/13 - 10:24 am
8
3

It appeared Carcraft laid out

It appeared Carcraft laid out all the facts in detail. What do you disagree with?

KSL
105945
Points
KSL 08/06/13 - 10:32 am
6
3

dar

Where is you defense of Obama?

dahreese
4609
Points
dahreese 08/06/13 - 10:36 am
5
4

@Avidreader; "But I am fully

Unpublished

@Avidreader;

"But I am fully aware that those heated moments arrive when a frustrated writer scribbles some well-intended remarks onto a word document and without further contemplation, clicks the send key."

Clicking the key for such 'well-intended' writers is the hard part.

dahreese
4609
Points
dahreese 08/06/13 - 11:07 am
3
8

"Where is you defense of

Unpublished

"Where is you defense of Obama?"

Quite honestly, I get frustrated with him, myself.

I had hopes for him when he entered the White House, but as he quickly began to appoint former GWB members to various posts, especially having to do with our financial crisis, my red flag went up.

I have to applaud his efforts at trying to gain health benefits for all Americans.

Unfortunately, those who still believe the elementary school myth that this country was founded on 'rugged individualism', the 'Christian' faith and who cannot accept that the American empire has been built more on conquest than on the "free market" (ahem!), and that "We the people" meant those with the money not the average person, aren't willing to give Obama any credit at all - for anything.

This is an excellent example of my point; "We can get facts if you Google various credible news sources. I would avoid the misguided, Obama fan sites The Reverend obviously reads."

Obama can be blamed for the ongoing illegal spying on Americans.

Yet, the "Intelligence Committee" including our own senator Chambliss, the number two person on that oversight committee, didn't know what was going on, either.

They still don't!

And you won't find the A/C writing about Chambliss failures, either.

The economy of this country would take a great jump if Obama/Congress would pass legislation to repair our infrastructure.

On the other hand, Democrats would get the credit for it, and Republicans aren't about to let that happen - the crumbled infrastructure be danged.

The Republicans have done a great job of containing Obama - to the detriment of the country. (And just look at the infighting of the Republican party).

Riverman1
70617
Points
Riverman1 08/06/13 - 11:13 am
8
2

The infighting in the

The infighting in the Republican Party is about how best to do away with Obamacare because it's unworkable. Hardly a divided party.

Again, all we have is opinion from you and no facts. The closest you come is saying Saxby Chambliss also didn't know everything the NSA was doing so why pick on Obama. Heh, some logic.

If there is anyone left who doesn't understand the cover-up about Benghazi was purposeful to help Obama win the election, he must have been in a coma for a long time.

myfather15
42140
Points
myfather15 08/06/13 - 11:10 am
8
1

dahreese

First of all, Mr.Nead is the one claiming "I could go on to show how you have erroneously portrayed the facts in each of these events to make your even-more-erroneous point".

BUT, then decides not to address a single erroneous fact. Ok, he doesn't have time or space to address EVERY erroneous fact, so let him address just ONE!!

Then you write "Perhaps you will refute the reverend's accusations with 'facts' AND their 'sources' to prove your case against the reverend?"

How do you refute someone, when they didn't use a single, specific example and their entire article is one big generalization?? Can you explain this to me?

If Mr. Nead wants to debate the FACTS; then state exactly which scandal he is talking about, and we will debate them. The only thing Mr. Nead covered was his unwavering support for this President and that WE shouldn't criticize him. How do you refute someone's OPINION ONLY, with facts? Carcraft did a good job mentioning the scandal's and the REASON they are scandals; so I didn't feel the need to repeat his statement. The facts of Benghazi, Fast&Furious, IRS scandal, and eavesdropping on journalists, have been gone over time and time again.

But no matter the "scandal" liberals always want to resort back to the old "Nothing to see here"; that is unless Bush is in office. As a law enforcement officer, who has USED the "Nothing to see here" I know exactly what it means. What it really means is "This is PLENTY to see here, we just don't want YOU to see it."

"That said, what method shall you use to let us and the world know of your brilliance?"

Well, I've never claimed to be brilliant, but I've learned in life, it doesn't take brilliance to prove someone's lies. Most of the time, good ol common sense will prevail!!

myfather15
42140
Points
myfather15 08/06/13 - 11:12 am
7
1

I must give Obama credit!!

I support his recent decision and attempt at gaining support to do away with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He wants to give this back to the private industry, where it was supposed to be all along!!

dahreese
4609
Points
dahreese 08/06/13 - 11:16 am
4
10

@myfather15; "How do you

Unpublished

@myfather15;

"How do you refute someone, when they didn't use a single, specific example and their entire article is one big generalization?? Can you explain this to me?"

You generalized when you accused the reverend of not providing anything you could refute.

It isn't the reverend who decides the space available for the editorials.

Besides, you don't want to discuss anything.

All you want to do is argue - from the conservatives myths you've lived all of your life.

myfather15
42140
Points
myfather15 08/06/13 - 11:17 am
9
2

dahreese

"and that "We the people" meant those with the money not the average person, aren't willing to give Obama any credit at all - for anything."

Would this "those with the money" include such person's as Oprah? Is so, would this be the Oprah of today, or the Oprah in her youth when she didn't even have food to eat?

Stop with the wealth envie for crying out loud!! I'm certainly not rich, but I don't begrudge those who are.

myfather15
42140
Points
myfather15 08/06/13 - 11:23 am
7
1

"You generalized when you

"You generalized when you accused the reverend of not providing anything you could refute."

"It isn't the reverend who decides the space available for the editorials."

Are you kidding me? Was it not the "Reverend" who decided the content of HIS editorial? I've seen much longer, therefore he COULD have address at least ONE specific scandal; but choose not too. HE also said he could show us, but choose not too. That's on HIM!! Don't just say you can, DO IT!! That's the problem with the left and their support of their people with the same ideology; it's simply ENOUGH to SAY something, regardless of what you actually do!! Perfect example would be Obama SAYING his administration would be the most transparent in history; and everything would be on C-Span. Really? We are still waiting!!

dahreese
4609
Points
dahreese 08/06/13 - 11:28 am
3
5

"the left and their support

Unpublished

"the left and their support of their people with the same ideology;"

Which is what?

myfather15
42140
Points
myfather15 08/06/13 - 11:30 am
7
1

dahreese

"On the other hand, Democrats would get the credit for it, and Republicans aren't about to let that happen - the crumbled infrastructure be danged.

The Republicans have done a great job of containing Obama - to the detriment of the country. (And just look at the infighting of the Republican party)."

This is one part of your posts, and the ONLY part, that I completely agree with!! Politicians of BOTH parties, simply don't want the other party LOOKING GOOD!! The democrats did this with Bush and the republicans are doing it with Obama!! It has ALWAYS happened, and it's just one of MANY reasons I do NOT like ANY politician!! Feel free to look back on ALL my post's and see if you can find one where I displayed a slobbering love affair with ANY politician; you won't find it. I plan to support Dr. Ben Carson during the next election, unless one emerges who I believe a better candidate. If he turns into "just another politician" you will see my attitude towards him change. But for now, I believe this man is a breathe of fresh air, because he is NOT a politician!!

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 08/06/13 - 11:38 am
7
3

Dahreese. Exactly what

Unpublished

Dahreese. Exactly what "phoney scandal" did the writer mention that you expect anyone here to refute? He didn't.....He just said that they are phony and that he can prove it.....he chose NOT to prove it, but we are to just take his word that he can. You are completely wrong on this, and myfather hit the nail on the head.

dahreese
4609
Points
dahreese 08/06/13 - 11:42 am
4
6

"but we are to just take his

Unpublished

"but we are to just take his word that he can."

You take the word of the A/C editorials......

(Gotta run. Back in awhile).

Back to Top

Loading...