Hate Seems To Consume Letter Writer

Advertisement

Editor:

In response to a letter written by Dave Leland Sr. on Nov. 23: What kind of man would stand outside of the Office of Economic Security to watch and count (by race of course) the facial expressions of those who have had to avail themselves of these services?

Calling our president “Mohammed” and threatening a revolution suggests that the man who wrote that hateful, racist tripe would have voted for Michele Bachman for president.

Shame on KMOG and the Payson Roundup for giving this man a platform to spew his hate — it appears to consume him.

Rena Hudson

Comments

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 4 months ago

Well Ms. Hudsonm, are we to suppose that you are one of those progressive/socialists who believe the First Amendsment is only applicable when it is exercised via speech that tickles your ears?

0

ALLAN SIMS 1 year, 4 months ago

I think the speech police are out in full force recently.

Anything that is not in the goody-two shoes, progressive, Kumbaya, or blatant communist vein is obviously hateful, spiteful, degenerate or even (God forbid) redneck. Umm, umm, UMMM.

Anything that casts the slightest shadow on their god in the White House is of course to be cast forth with the upmost… ah, “Shame”? Why,such people who act like that are so low they might have voted for Bachman, had they had the chance. Can you imagine anyone so hideously perverted as to fall in that category? Why, it goes against the sensibilities of any decent liberal-minded progressive.

Where do these people come from? Few of us call him Mohammed. I personally call him Hussein. That is his name, you know. Is that hateful? Is that racist? Is that any worse than relegating anyone not of the liberal mindset to the supposed dregs of society? (i.e. Christian, redneck, conservative, believer and defender of freedom, and etc.) Thank goodness the editors can see past the end of their noses. The only hint of hatred in this article comes from the originator. I wonder where her sensibilities were when Romney was being called a murderer, and a law breaker?

0

Ted Paulk 1 year, 4 months ago

Good for you Rena!! I cannot understand and can get no response from the Roundup Editor as to why he continues to print this hate-filled trash. The first amendment has nothing to do with the poor taste displayed by ignorant HATERS who advocate overthrowing the government. We had a civil war over this once...do you dumb s...'s remember your history? Advocating the overthrow of the country is TREASON. You haters lost...live with it. Ted Paulk

0

Ric Hawthorne 1 year, 4 months ago

Ted, people have a RIGHT to say what they want, with few exceptions. It is the 1st amendment for a reason. You do NOT have a RIGHT to not be offended. Sorry... that's just the way it is.

0

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 4 months ago

Gee Ted, And from a party who taught Hate 101 during the 8 years of George Bush. My, my how hypocritical can you get? You progressive/socialists "set the bar" so get used to it. The "silent majority" isn't going to remain silent any longer. We're going to be "in your face" just like your Messiah in the White House told all of his worshipers to be towards us. Now just who was it that threw down that gauntlet?

0

ALLAN SIMS 1 year, 4 months ago

“Hate filled”? We spoke of modification of the government that has turned on its own people, up to and including revolution. I personally expressed a desire to convene a Constitution Convention, and speculated it would take the threat of civil war to cause the congress to call it. I also speculated that it would eventually come to guns in the streets, and expressed my willingness to participate.

I’ve heard little hatred towards liberals personally, at least not spewed as you just did. I’ve heard anger at a centralized government that is attempting to destroy Christianity, take our freedoms and subjugate us, taking our 401k plans and taxing our bank accounts. All personal property, guaranteed by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments. And, anger is far different from the hatred you espouse.

Yes, I do remember my history. It is from that remembrance that I got the notion that it might come to rebellion. Consider the following partial quote, wherein you can readily see the thoughts I’ve espoused here:

“…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. …governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Per these great words, it is our duty to consider the overthrow of a despotic government, as ours is rapidly becoming. If it is our duty, then it can hardly be called treason, except by those who pretend it is not despotic, and struggle to enhance its despotism.

It is clear that papers such as the Roundup will tolerate sharp differences, but when it devolves into personal attacks against others in the news group, a paper will yank the entire thing, and no one can post anything, anymore. I suggest that both sides keep it civil, for that reason if not for decency’s sake.

Yes, we can call Obama and other politicians names, that is political satire, not racism. We can refer to groups, and use cute little catch phrases to classify them, and that is fair game. We can call each other to hand over something said, with that person’s right to rebuttal. But, if it gets personally ugly, we will all out in the cold wondering where our right to free speech in a public forum went.

0

Ted Paulk 1 year, 4 months ago

Ok, let's not discuss who hates more. We know it's the republibaggers who hate the most. You want small government, but want to control women, and gays by creating more laws. Not very small government, huh?

Then, when an unwanted child is born, maybe from rape, you don't want to educate it, feed it, house it, or provide healthcare. Loving teapublicans.

But most importantly, YOU LOST THE ELECTION. Get over it. We've never been happier. Live in your vile world. Do you know the US government looses $100 billion per year from OVERSEAS TAX HAVENS? Romney and others use this tool. You wanted a man for president who doesn't support our sacred troops with his tax money. Brilliant!

And you can eat your toxic peanut butter. I'll take the regulators who protect me from bad food, poor construction of roads, buildings, etc. No one can screw you like the American business man. If they were more honest, we wouldn't need minimun wage.

Life is soooo good.

0

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 4 months ago

Mr. Paulk, In an effort to have a discussion "on the facts" and not emotional rants, I'd like to take each of your statements individually and see where we can get.

."We know it's the republibaggers who hate the most." Wow. Where to start on this one. First I will make a wild guess that you were on another planet during the 8 years of the previous administratiton. As I indicated in another post, the viscerl hate ehibited by the Left towards our President and anyone of a "conservative" ideology is well documented. Perhaps a little research on your part would enlighten you on this fact.

"You want small government, but want to control women, and gays by creating more laws." Actually we would like to see smaller government. Old adage " They that govern least, govern best". I just love that one, don't you? No, we don't want to control women. We simply want them to be responsible with their reproductive capacity and not kill an innocent child when they aren't. And as far as the other point with "gays" and creating mor laws. Not sure where you get your information, but last time I checked it was the "gays" who want to change all the laws. Not simply man's laws, but God's laws as well.

"Then, when an unwanted child is born, maybe from rape, you don't want to educate it, feed it, house it, or provide healthcare." Once again, I'm somewhat perplexed at where you might be getting your "facts". It seems that the most forthcoming and generous folks when it comes to caring for others are religeous based institutions and groups. The data is all out there if you choose to avail yourself. I spent my career in Public Safety, actually helping folks with their problems regardless of their political ideology. And you?

" But most importantly, YOU LOST THE ELECTION." Now that is a fact if we were all on "the losing side". Can you factually ascertain how a person voted simply by reading their posts on a blog or are you simply making an assumption? And I'm sure you know the old adage about "ASSUME" so I won't spell it out here.

"No one can screw you like the American business man." I've worked a lot of jobs in my years and I never once was "screwed by "the Amrican businessman". I take it you have always been self employed or a businessman yourself to have such insight into the character of "the American businessman". Never actually been an employee of someone else? If so, didn't they not compensate you in the manner on which you agreed when you sought employment there? If not, the you have legal recourse or you can simply seek employment somewhere you will be less "screwed".

Okay, I think that covers most of the points. Your turn. Now remember that it is a civil discussion you say you desire, so try to withhold the invectives and innuendos.

Have a nice day.

0

ALLAN SIMS 1 year, 4 months ago

Friend Hamric, would you say this liberal was a bit tipsy when he wrote that? The euphoric high he seems on has obviously led him to make some rabid statements, don’t you think? I suggest to you that this fellow can’t present one shred of evidence, other than perhaps quoting a communist ragsheet that is mere soviet hype. There are many of those out there, and according to them conservatives eat babies for dinner.

It would do my good to see if he really could bring something realistic to the discussion, for this diatribe is a bit boring after the first flush.

Notice he didn’t mention one thing about what I posted above, quoting our own Declaration of Independence saying “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

I also suggest that he can’t give decent response to your post, either, for as a true comm.—ah liberal, this person can’t seem to deal in truths, except when gloating about the fall of our government. I really wish he could come up with something worth talking about, don’t you?

0

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 4 months ago

Mr. Sims, As you might imagine I do not personally know Mr. Paulk, so I cannot make any relative judgement as to his character. I can however call him on his errors when he posts them. His lack of civility and use of name calling simply implies he cannot make a rational argument to support his views. I would truly like to draw him into a more rational debate on the issues if he is capable of calming his obvious anger a bit. I know he thinks anyone who doesn't have his ideological views are some sort of revolutionary anarchists. Thats the trouble with making any attempt at civil discourse with those of the "other than conservative/traditionalist " pursuasion. It is very informative however, to make some attempt at understanding their mindset. One thing the Marine Corps pounded into me was to learn as much as you can about your adversary and what makes them tick. When push comes to shove, it's helpful to know how their thought process plays out or if they have a rational thought process at all. Like Ms. Hudson who started this debate, I am simply trying to grasp why she thinks only their opinions and views are protected by the Freedom of Speech clause and those that oppose those views are to be forever silenced. I know the rules of conduct for posting on this blog and I adhere to them as best as I can. Others not so much, but I will leave that issue for the editor to deal with, as he is very capable of doing.

The courts have shown in numerous rulings on the "speech" issue that even folks such as the American Nazi Party, the KKK, and even those extremists on the Left ,have every right to spew their own brand of hate, however repugnant it may be. I know I certainly heard plenty of such speech during the 8 years of the last administration and it was almost unique to those of the progressive/socialist ideology. If one would like I can probably go to the Roundup archives at the library and pull up many of those diatribes that took place right here on this blog although I suspect they would deny ever having said such things even if presented with them in their own words. Such is often the response when the light of truth is directed towards some who simply refuse to accept it.

Can't say we haven't given them the opportunity to civily debate the issues. I remember hearing a pshycologist saying that "the person who thinks everyone else is crazy, is the person who is truly the mentally unstable one". Could be the case with Mr. Paulk. Time will tell.

0

Ted Paulk 1 year, 4 months ago

Funny you should mention the KKK and the nazis...I expect a bunch of you YAHOOS to show up on my doorstep in your hoods, sheets and jackboots and burn a cross some dark night. But the bottom line remains: THE NEGRO IS PRESIDENT AGAIN...and you know why you hate him.

0

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 4 months ago

Once again Mr. Paulk you ignorance of the facts is mind boggeling. The KKK originated in the Democratic Party of the South after the Civil war. Those same mindsets are entrenched in that party this very day, as you are a testiment to. Go back to the third grade one more time, only try to pay attemtion won't you?

And again you are patently wrong, as usual. People do not "hate" President Obama, we leave hate exclusively to you on the Left from where it originated. We passionately disagree with his political ideology and the direction he is taking this country in. I could care less if he is purple with yellow polka dots and that proof lies in the reality that I have close family members of different cultural extraction. Your use of "labels" is a pathetic effort to cover the reality that you are a blind person simply following the Pied Piper of Socialism. You have my pity, sir.

0

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 4 months ago

I will only speak for myself, as it was my post you are referrring to. Without belaboring the point too much, I was primarily referring to the visceral hatrid that was spewed from the Left during the 8 years of the previous administration directed primarily at the president and anyone of a "conservative" position. I realise that experience was not indicative of every person on the Left. I won't paint with that broad a brush. I saw some of that from the right during the Clinton years, but nothing to the degree witnessed from 2000 to 2008 by the Left. I cautioned people during that period (2000-2008)that " the other side" was going to school on their display of "hate" and that they could probably expect to get that same treatment in spades when their party was in power. Time has borne me out on that point. Not sure who gets the full credit for "throwing down the gauntlet", Left or Right, but is certainly evident that both sides are sternly entrenched in their dislike for one another. I don't believe these are simply fellow citizens who simply have a difference of opinion. It has matastisized into something way beyond simple political disagreement. Does not bode well. I often think of a bumper sticker that evidenced itself during the 2000-2008 period. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism". Think the Left would allow the right that same form of "patriotism" today? It doesn't appear to be the case.

As to the KKK inference. That is factual history and can be easily researched by anyone with an interest. So anyone trying to connect "conservatives" with that organization are simply exposing their hypocracy and ignorance of historical fact.

Ultimately, if we are ever going to work through this polarization, we are going to have to have civil discussions. That is why I even make an effort at trying to generate such a debate with Mr. Paulk. I sense that he only responds to the same type of rhetoric that he himself puts forth. Lowering myself to his level at least keeps us both in verbal discourse although I try to avoid the use of name calling which is his bent. You can read his thoughts on many of the posts on this thread and "Republicans made this Independent happy".

0

Ric Hawthorne 1 year, 4 months ago

Robert Bird. Life Long Democrat who passed away a few years back... known a "The Conscience of the Senate"... Oh, and Card Carrying member of the KKK and a Klan "Recruiter" during his 20's and 30's... But he saw the error of his ways.

0

Tim Branson 1 year, 4 months ago

Just to add a few things to the silly Paulk statement that we do not want to help women and their babies. There are literally thousands of pregnancy centers and half-way houses for women all over the US that are primarily run by Christians on a shoe-string budget. Tens of thousands of volunteers contribute time, talent, and money to keep them active. The Paulks of this world do not bother to look into these facts let alone help these women out. Lefties like Mayor Bloomberg of NY continually try to shut them down with numerous unfounded and anger-driven allegations, yet they survive because of their integrity and Christianity's love and compassion for all God's children. It may also interest you to know that the vast majority of these safe havens are run by women. It has also been found that more than 70% of the active leaders in the Pro-life movement are women. I don't suppose Paulk can explain that.

One of the oddest things about liberals is that they call us intolerant haters, Nazis, etc. Yet we are the ones trying to save women and babies while they completely ignore any good will and condone and/or participate in the killing of children. Who are the haters here? Who are the ones without compassion? If Paulk and his buddies would get their heads out of the sand and really investigate they would easily see the truth all around them. Knowing the Paulks, Bloombergs, and Obamas of this world, that is not going to happen.

1

don evans 1 year, 4 months ago

Resist, obstruct, and confront the Obamanista's...................

0

ALLAN SIMS 1 year, 4 months ago

In reply to Chranderson 138, comments.

Yes, this conversation is stereotypical of the nation at large. You are correct that the era of cooperation has gone into eclipse. IMHO, that is due to the intense radicalization of folks who have seen themselves as ‘Progressive’ over the years. That, in turn, has motivated those right of center to gyrate farther to the right. The intervening chasm has therefore magnified itself into a model of the Grand Canyon.

Have you ever stood on the North or South Rim of the canyon and stare at the other side 18+ miles away, and try to visualize the distant top? You intuitively understand that there are huge pines there, as where you stand, but you see only color and that vaguely.

That is how the chasm between ‘Progressives’ and Conservatives now appears. We see them dimly, knowing they are similar to us, but we can’t really make them out. The walk among us, eat at the same restaurants and drive the same roads. Some live next door. They sit in the pews at church and say Amen, as we do. Of course the most radical have no faith in God, but their faith is in themselves, and their various theories. The atheist hates the Christian and what we stand for, not seeing that they themselves are professing their own religion, which is just as heinous to us as ours is to them.

Then, you have the natural division of people into two main groups, who have existed since long before our country was born. The one side is fiercely independent, freedom loving and gladly risks their lives to prolong what they believe in.

Opposed you have those who see themselves as sensible, wanting to make a better world, giving much to living in harmony, giving up freedoms for the common good, and security. It was, by and large, they who wanted to remain under King James. And, if they are so willing, they resent those who don’t go along with it. ‘If they could just not be so selfish, we could all live better.’ To these people, the selfishness of the right is as despicable as was those in the South who wanted to keep slaves, before the Civil War. That was the underlying reason for the Civil War. Not slavery, so much, but, rather the willingness of the one type to push their ideas on those of the other type, who resented being forced to change, even when the cause might be just.

So then, is it so difficult to understand this great divide? Do you really think it will get better under a liberal regime? It has always been so, and will only get worse. For, under the ideology of the Conservative it is live and let live; and the conservative shared their freedoms with the ‘Progressive’, even when they bucked and didn’t pull in double harness very well.

But, the Progressive is dedicated to change, and it can’t happen unless the Conservatives participate. Thus it is imperative that the Conservatives fall in line, even if they must be forced, yielding only non-reconciliation.

0

Kim Chittick 1 year, 4 months ago

Aaaah gentlemen...MOST of you are logical, rational, intelligent people. However, I am surprised that you haven't recognized by now that liberals, when they are incapable of countering a discussion with valid, intelligent, factual points, choose to resort to name calling, mud-slinging and innuendos.

As for Mr. Paulk, I am appalled and disgusted by you..."THE NEGRO IS PRESIDENT AGAIN...and you know why you hate him." Really?? Are you implying that I dislike him because he is black? Perhaps you need to look in the mirror and do an assessment of yourself and your true heart. Making a comment like that!! Like Mr. Hamric, I have several members of my family who are of other races, ethinicities, cultures and orientations. I look at the heart, NOT the color. As for Mr. Obama being black, gee whiz Mr. Paulk, perhaps you need to do a little more research. Mr. Obama is only part African, he is actually more white than he is black. He appears to be black because those features and genetics are the dominant ones that prevail. Go back to basic biology.

So, if your implication is that I "hate" him simply because he is black...well, honey, and pay close attention here...I dislike his white half, as well!! His political and social ideology are diametrically opposed to everything that I believe in and stand for. And THAT is why I dislike him, NOT because of the color of his skin. My goodness, I dislike you and your political ideology, and you are white...go figure!!

0

Kim Chittick 1 year, 4 months ago

Oh, additionally, I have the utmost respect for The Roundup and the fact that they will print all points of view, not just the ones that Ms. Hudson and Mr. Paulk deem acceptable.

Thanks for the forum Mr. Naughton!!!

0

Tim Branson 1 year, 4 months ago

I despise Clinton's ideology just as much as Obama's. But Clinton is white, old, and a man. How can this be?

0

ALLAN SIMS 1 year, 4 months ago

Don't you remember? He was our First Black President?

See, you are a racist. If you hate liberals, you are a racist. If you like vanilla ice cream you are a racist. If you believe in the Constitution or conservatism you are too.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.