Let’S Work Toward Unity

Advertisement

Editor:

To the person who felt compelled to write the “ha ha we won and you didn’t” letter, I am compelled to write, please work toward unity and not this unproductive divisiveness this vicious presidential campaign has generated.

You say we don’t need a Republican man to tell women how to care for our bodies. It sounds like you are talking about hygiene. The actual issue had to do with the taxpayer money. You can care for your body any way you want to and no one was trying to change that.

Please don’t accuse someone of being a liar and a tax cheat. Those are very strong words. It seems you, too, are listening to an extreme liberal media and taking it as truth.

You can’t compare car insurance to 1,000-plus pages of a new health care act. Wait until it unfolds and see who it helps and who it hurts.

I am wondering where you researched your facts that told you one party lies and the other doesn’t. Also, if a conservative used the term “boogieman” the race card would be played.

I don’t pretend to be an expert, but I do know that the unemployment number is up and the business taxes are sure to increase, our national debt has skyrocketed and we are in danger of a serious recession.

My sincere hope is that you stay very happy.

Beverly Furst

Comments

Ted Paulk 2 years ago

You must have missed the Republican candidates talking about "Legitimate rape can't make you pregnant" and getting pregnant from rape is "A blessing from God"? Calling a college student a "slut" for using advocating use of birth control? Were you in a cave during the last six months?...or listening to FOX news?....same thing.

0

don evans 2 years ago

Ahhhhhh, thePaulk's......Our local, we were at Woodstock in full tokein it up mode. Ben Franklin square rose colored glasses, rolling in grass and grabing our _ _ _ . Birkenstock sandals, flowers in our hair, peace symbols (or the footprint of the American chicken) on our cheeks, singing, there is a man with a gun over there, tellin us we got to beware! The current mantra is now, down with the Rich, take theirs away and give it to us, I'm tired of ridin the public bus. Obama save us won't you please, cause you can't never trust no white mans lease. Free medical and food stamps galore, time to make those evil rich people poor.

0

Ted Paulk 2 years ago

Duh, the Evans, Once more: I'm a Viet Nam vet, two tours,volunteered '68-'69. Woodstock took place when I was in Viet Nam. Never owned Birkenstock, Bald...so no flowers in my hair, Did like the song about the man with gun over there, referring to one of your many heroes, TRICKY DICK. Am retired after working as a cop for a couple of years in a tough Wyoming mining town, after working my way thru college by performing farm labor, and then 35 years for Empire Machinery so not looking for any handouts or free buses. I drive an American made car and always have. I see again you refer to the "White man" but claim not to be racist. You and your buddies keep talking about free medical care and food stamps. I'm just guessing, but I'll bet you and your pals are on Social Security and Medicare or some other retirement benny...just like me. You bitch about freedom of speech when one of you is called out for making stupid statements, but you jump on anyone, especially women, who dare to submit an intelligent statement (not in your opinions, of course) to the Roundup. I keep promising my wife that I won't write anymore in response your nonsensical rants, but you just continue to fill the pages with such ignorance. Ted

0

Tim Branson 2 years ago

Yes, Mr. Paulk, ignorance is bliss. Too bad one never recognizes it in oneself. If only you would stop writing and the other "progressives" as well. We might actually be able to save our country from the moral and economic rot you've helped usher in. I'll keep praying.

0

Bernice Winandy 2 years ago

Fact: Bush administration lowered taxes.

Fact: Bush administration got us into 2 wars.

Question: Is it wise to lower taxes when one is fighting a war? Isn't war costly, and therefore, isn't a tax raise really what is needed?

Fact: The debt ceiling was raised 3 times during the Bush administration.

Question: Wasn't a lot of what we are experiencing now caused by Bush administration missteps?

Suggestion: There are good arguments on both sides of many issues.

Suggestion: Our arguments in this forum will not do anything to change the big picture.

Plea: Please stop going after your neighbor when he/she is not the cause of the problem.

Fact: Attacking your neighbor does not end the serious problems this country is facing.

0

don evans 2 years ago

And, continuing to meekly stand by and watch your country and culture being destroyed incrementaly by professional socialist agenda politicans and the I want you to take care of me types. Sorry, complacency and just trying to get along ain't going to fix it. Talk has only gone in one direction and resulted in time being used to accomplish their incidious agendas.Those who support the actions and ideology of the above, are not my neighbors, they are the enemy. It is now time for the sleepers to Resist, Obstruct, and Confront at every opportunity to take back the soul of our nation.

0

ALLAN SIMS 2 years ago

Ms. Winandy, Bush’s 8 years were of unprecedented growth, low unemployment and freedom. Bush led the nation to war, one war in two different countries, with the insistence of democrats who saw the same information he saw. The democrats would have blown a gasket had he failed to take us to war. Remember, he sought and obtained permission from Congress, as well as the international community to do so. The nation at large demanded that very thing.

The “missteps” you mention were a result of the actions of highly hostile democratic congress in his last two years. He felt it beneath the office of President to argue economics with congress. This one mistake of the many any President makes has resulted in our mess today. Had he strongly defended his position, and shown the democrats as the generators of the housing bubble, the Fanny Mae mess and etc. he could have headed this off. This debacle is directly traceable to that congress. Bush actually went to congress, asking them to relent from the rush to ruin. I hold Bush personally responsible for not being the forceful conservative he should have been. Had he put them to the task, he could have saved this grief.

His other great failure was falling into the same trap Hoover fell into in 1932, acquiescing to democratic propaganda designed to bring them power. In both cases it worked, beautifully, for like you he just wanted to get along.

Show me one “good argument” from the liberal side of this gulf between us? I’ve yet to see it. And, I mean that in a decent sort of way. You want to reason, so let’s reason.

As to our comments here having no impact? When has civil discourse ever been so belittled? Isn’t the pen mightier than the sword? Do you see our future as simply more of the same, as we have experienced over the past 225+ years? I suggest to you that the liberal side will push the conservatives, and hound them with continued rules, and theft of rights, until we will see a drastic period to come, for you can only push people so far. Remember the Civil War started that same way.

We aren’t attacking our neighbor, nor they us, by and large. What you hear as personal attacks are criticisms of the others' views. Why do we do this? Unlike you, we believe that by putting these issues forward, we give the readers a clearer idea of what has really transpired, instead of what our biased news outlets package and present. Do you realize how unique this paper is, and how brave they are to withstand demands for the stifling of the freedom of speech, as you suggest?

While not directly involved in causing the problem, many neighbors have a fellowship with those who did cause this problem. Now, you want to reason, so let’s reason. Step up to the plate and give us an example to follow. Prove to us there is a better way. You have declared it, so show us. I for one will gladly seek any means to avoid the terrible future I foresee now.

0

Bernice Winandy 2 years ago

Personal attacks do not belong in a discussion, and my upbringing has taught me to turn the other cheek.

0

ALLAN SIMS 2 years ago

So, this is your answer to what we do here? And, in regards to a government that is bent on taking freedoms away?

First of all, you insult our intelligence making statements about the Bush era that you can’t back up, and no, it isn’t common knowledge. It is blatantly untrue. Yet, we are supposed to turn the other cheek, without correcting your misstatements? Since when has acquiescence to the liberal viewpoint been the criteria for use of this privilege we share? Surely, that can be done without personal attacks, can’t it?

And, IMHO, what we say out here is very definitive and has great impact on how people vote, and what they expect from their government.

The invitation remains, but it will take more effort than I’ve seen so far.

0

Bernice Winandy 2 years ago

I said the Bush administration got us into a war. Do you deny this statement? I said the Bush administration lowered taxes. Do you deny this statement? I asked if it is wise to lower taxes when going to war. I said that the debt celing was raised 3 times during the Bush administration. Do you deny this statement?

It is a known fact that the economy was going down, down down in the last years of the Bush administration. Manufacturing plants were being closed down, people were losing jobs, people were losing their homes to foreclosure, etc,

Why wasn't his presence wanted at the last Republican convention?

I can only say again. Discussions shouldn't include personal attacks.

0

ALLAN SIMS 2 years ago

Yes, Bush took us to war, at the insistence of the democrats as the republicans. Both sides wanted it. Look at how you phrase that. “the Bush administration got us into a war.” That is far different from what I just said. We ‘jointly’ went into it, and with the blessings of the UN, if you’ll remember. Kerry was hopping up and down, as were the Clintons and major Democratic Leaders in the Congress. The Democratic Leadership would have made him far worse than a wimp if he’d failed to do so.

Therefore, I suggest you say far more than what you wrote, when you phrased it that way. And, it is indicative of the slant you take. ‘Bush did it all. He and his cronies sunk our nation’ is the meaning behind what you wrote, is it not? Are you not digging up a mistaken and worn out liberal argument when you phrase things like that? Are you not promoting division instead of working in unity towards a solution, as this article was first intended?

Regarding his policies on the budget, yes, he was a big spender, and we Republicans jumped his case about being a big spending president. The phrase “He makes democrats look weak when it comes to spending” was common at that time. However, remember that he did present budgets to congress, unlike our current president. He didn’t violate the law which requires that, as this president does. And, Bush’s spending was a drop in the bucket to what this president has done, and will continue to do, regarding sinking our nation under a pile of debt.

No, it is never wise to raise taxes, but it is also a necessary evil to fund any war we are in. It is stupid to send men into battle and not provide for their welfare and give them the equipment they need. In addition, the military budget had been stripped under Clinton. I have a friend who often landed his B-52 with steel cords showing in his tires, because they couldn’t afford to buy new ones under Clinton. So, much Bush spending was to correct the bad job Clinton did in keeping us safe.

Consider Bush’s request that Congress move the control of Freddie and Fanny to the Dept. of the Treasury, which Congress denied. Had they done that one thing, the crash would not have happened to the extent that it did, and that is just one of many examples of his attempts to stymy the looming problems. Bush didn’t do it all. No president (So far) can do half of what people blame or praise him for.

BTW, I think Bush was asked to attend the convention, but he refrains from political activity. To my knowledge, he has made only two public appearances regarding promoting Republican causes. No, he was not ostracized from the convention, although there was sentiment that he is poison to them, even as Obama was poison to some local and state elections.

So don’t attack us with old rhetoric, nor insult our intelligence, and we in turn will listen to reasonable solutions. Otherwise…

0

Robert Jones 1 year, 12 months ago

"Otherwise" ????????????

Otherwise what??? What are you going to do? Attack the poster? (Hopefully just verbally) Belittle the stated opinions?? What??? Vandalize the posters car because of a bumper sticker you don't agree with, as I saw threatened here a while ago.

Nasty comment, plain and simple!!

This is the reason there is such limited decent debate on any topic here on the forum. You "right-wing extremists" (like THAT term!!) just shout down anybody with a differing view. And as you totally dominate the discourse on this VERY limited forum (are there any moderates who post here, other than Tom?) those of a differing view just don't bother with you OR this forum!!

You conservative "elitists' give real conservatism a bad name!!

I'll now revert to my self-imposed no-posting rule!!

Jones (attack away!)

0

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 12 months ago

Bernice, If you would permit, i would like to take your premises one at a time and provide my take on it.

1."the Bush administration got us into a war" As I'm certain you know, the President of the United States cannot by himself, declare war. The wars in Iraq and Afganistan were neither "decalaired wars". We got into those conflicts with the support of the congress on both sides of the aisle. Same as Korea and Viet Nam. No doubt the Bush administration felt it necessary after what was brought upon us on 9-11 to preclude any further threats to this nation either from terrorists or the regime of Saddam Hussein. And enough members of Congress on both sides of the aisle agreed or we simply would not be in either place.

  1. "the Bush administration lowered taxes." The president of the United States does not pass legislation, he either signs or vetos those laws or actions brought to him/her. It was the congress who makes and puts into place legislation and spending bills. I would concur that lowering taxes in the time of prosecuting a "war" may seem unwise, but it was after the so called "Bush Tax Cuts" that the economy acually improved. More people had more money to spend, which they did, and therefore the Federal government brought in more revenue.

3."the debt celing was raised 3 times during the Bush administration." There is record that that happened. But as I said above, it is the Congress who makes those decisions, not the president. You may want to check the Congressional Record and see just how the Democrats voted on those debt cieling increases.

4."..the economy was going down, down down in the last years of the Bush administration." And the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress during the final 2 years. Most economists will tell you that what precipitated the "recession" Obama inherited was the "house of cards" created by FannieMae and Freddie Mac. Bush actually submitted 5 proposals to that Democratic Controlled Congress to take steps to stop the unsound lending practices of those two institutions. He got nothing but refusal from the Democrats.

cont'd

0

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 12 months ago

5."Manufacturing plants were being closed down, people were losing jobs, people were losing their homes to foreclosure" Right once again, I think you are p[lacing the blame on poor lod George Bush. Once again, he is the "Executive" and by constitutional limitation, he had little input as to how those things unfolded. You want someone to vblame, blame Congress. It was their responsibility to effect policies and legislation to prevent the economic implosion that occurred. Once again you can lay the "foreclosure" issue at the feet of Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd personally.

6."Why wasn't his presence wanted at the last Republican convention?" I honestly have no idea. Not being a registered Republican, I really wasn't paying that much attention. But I was paying very close attention to the Democratic Convention floor fight over removing God from all aspects of their platform. Sorry, but they painted themselves as the "Godless Party", not the GOP.

  1. "Discussions shouldn't include personal attacks." I couldn't agree more, but perhaps you should discuss that viewpoint with your fellow liberals, Mr. & Mrs. Paulk. And if your are recieving personal attacks, I'm certain Mr. Naughton will be more than happy to address them with the offender.

You and I go way back on these blogs and I was the one who cautioned all you "Bush Haters" during his terms that there were people going to school on just how viscerally hateful and mean spirited the Left and the MSM was being towards conservatives, the Office of the President and specifically George W. Bush. I also told you that you might expect that same treatment, in spades, for "your person" once they took office. Bingo! And you on the Left are surprised? It was "your person" Mr. Obama who told his followers to "go out there and get in their faces". With that kind of rhetoric coming from the Democratic President is it little wonder that people on both sides feel justified in "getting in their faces"? Those of us who would prefer "civility" in these types of discussions, however unrealistic it is that either of us will change the positions/views of the other, we can at least keep the communication channels open.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.