Error message

  • Notice: Undefined index: taxonomy_term in similarterms_taxonomy_node_get_terms() (line 518 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in similarterms_list() (line 221 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in similarterms_list() (line 222 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).

Letters to the Editor: November 12, 2013

Error message

  • Notice: Undefined index: taxonomy_term in similarterms_taxonomy_node_get_terms() (line 518 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in similarterms_list() (line 221 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in similarterms_list() (line 222 of /home/westvalleyview/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
West Valley View's picture

Conservative word games


I can restate Mr. Orr’s socialist letter of October 25th briefly. “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” — Humpty Dumpty (in Through the Looking-Glass).

Of course what he ignores is that merely perceiving something as true isn’t enough. It must also be true! (Otherwise, guess what happens if he stands in front of an onrushing truck because he “perceives” it to be a tiny kitty? Splat!)

As for his November 1st. letter — well if by “fine-tune” he meant I “totally demolished” his arguments on-line, then I agree. He’s conceded that a number of his “Founders’ quotes” are bogus. I’ve also shown that the rest are either taken out-of-context, and/or misrepresent their author’s views.

Most important is a fact he keeps ignoring: the word “democracy” can mean either a pure democracy, where people vote on laws directly (such as through Arizona’s Initiative and Referendum process), or it can refer generically to any government of, by, and for the people — including a representative democracy, also known as a republic!

Thus if he (or Mr. Azzarello) want to be completely accurate, they should call America what it is: a constitutional democracy, in the form of a republic. (That emphasized word being the most important part.) Anything else is just empty rhetoric.

And speaking of history, do you know the name of our nation’s second great political party (founded by Jefferson and Madison to oppose the Federalist Party)? The Democratic — Republicans!

But in keeping with Mr. Orr’s language “principles”, I will henceforth (mockingly) call him, and his “fellow travelers”, both Socialists and Communists. Why? Because I “define” those words as meaning everyone who supports Republicans or (so-called) “conservative” values. I invite anyone who cares about reality to join me.

Gordon P.R. Posner

The problem with a lie


We expect to have our children tell us a lie at some point and we believe they will soon grow out of the habit when they realize the consequences. If they do not grow out of the habit it is a serious threat to the trust between parent and child. A spouse that lies also breaks trust. More lies — less trust. The result is often a disaster. Politicians seem to be professional liars at times and it is difficult to get them to take personal responsibility. However, the result is the same — broken trust. If we cannot trust our elected officials to tell us the truth and if we continue to elect them, we are in serious difficulty. Let’s show the liars the consequences of their actions and replace them at the earliest possible opportunity.

Larry Cox

Profiles in stupidity


Once again avid readers of the West Valley View were richly rewarded and pleasantly surprised by the return of the absurd rantings of Mr. David Compton in the 10-25 edition. Mr. Compton’s ultra liberal absurdities dealt with the damage Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) supposedly did to the American economy by leading the recent government shutdown.

What the court jester, Mr. Compton, failed to mention was the damage Mr. Obama and his liberal Democrats have done to this country with the fiasco called Obamacare. Not to mention the fact that 80% of the jobs created in this country last year were part-time positions, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor. This being done so small time businesses and American industrial companies can dodge providing health care to their employees thanks to Obamacare. Let us not forget about the 460,000 Americans in Florida and California who recently had their health insurance policies cancelled thanks to Obamacare. This is exactly what Mr. Obama and that knucklehead Pelosi said would not happen!

Mr. Compton, while you are busy sending out your invoices why not send on to your liberal pals in Congress for 400 million, the cost of the Obamacare website that did not work when it was rolled out and does not function today. It’s hard to figure if the Obama administration is the most liberal in this country’s history or the most incompetent!!

So, Mr. Compton please keep your letters coming in from Green Acres, Hooterville U.S.A. I find them quite humorous and they also come in handy when I run out of toilet paper.

Jim McLaughlin

Bonds aren’t the answer


An article appearing the Arizona Republic on October 20, 2013 to the effect that on two college admission tests, the SAT and ACT, for high school graduates, of more than 31, 000 who took these tests in Arizona only 21% of high school seniors stand a chance of getting a “C” or better in math, science, English and reading. The majority will have to take remedial class to play catch up. They will have to attend a community college if they want to continue.

Its sad to think after 13 yrs of school including pre-school they have to take remedial classes.

Not all children are college material. A lot will drop out of school.

The schools have not come up with any solution, except over rides and floating bond.

I think if parents want their children to do better, here are some suggestions.

Take their cell phones away”

Take their “I” pads away

Do not let them play video games during the school week.

When the come home from school be there, and see that they study and do their assignments.

If they continue to slide, then take away the non essential after school activities, but above all, one of the parents has to be home when they get home, otherwise, they will get on the cell phone for hours.

Our schools in Arizona rank low in comparison with other states.

The school system wants you to vote yes on over-rides and got you convinced that it will take care of the problems

John Kouris Sr.

Grijalva is wrong


Raul Grijalva is wrong! To be a sovereign nation you must be able to control your borders. We are a nation of laws not of men’s emotions. For any Congressmen to knowingly break one law because of another is WRONG.

The congressman may “feel” I don’t know what I’m “talking” about, but I brought my first wife in legally from Mexico. (first, she changed that not me). For her, two of my sons were born in Mexico. I brought both of them in legally. Now, two of my sons have wives from Mexico that are here legally! It takes time, lots of paperwork and now adays lots of money, but it can be done LEGALLY!

Thankfully the Congressional district lines have changed. Raul Grijalva is no longer my congressman, so I don’t need to be as upset with him as I would have been, if he was still my congressman. The Grijlava family that lived in Buckeye were very good people. I don’t know whether Raul is closely related or not?

Bernard Oviatt Sr.

Rate this article: 
Average: 1 (1 vote)
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
7 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.


Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Mr. Oviatt:

   It's fun watching "conservatives" who often prattle about a right to "nullify" laws they disagree with, or invoke their "Second Amendment rights" against them (to do what, I've always wondered - shoot Congress?), or talk outright  about secession, get all self-righteous in denouncing the honorable practice of civil disobedience.  That's all Congressman Grijalva was doing, after all.  Yes, he broke the law, and suffered the consequences: arrest for his "heinous" act.

   And while the question of reforming our immigration laws is certainly a complex subject, worthy of intelligent debate, you demonstrate little of that quality.  Is it wrong to protest an unjust, even stupid, law?  Well then, I guess it was wrong for the Freedom Riders of the 50's and 60's to protest segregation and discrimination.  And I suppose it was also wrong for people to seek the end of Prohibition!

   I guess we should continue with things as they are.  You obviously don't mind paying taxes to support the immigrants' children who are now wards of the State.  (Contrary to the myth of the "anchor baby", those kids didn't stop their parents' deportation.  But as American citizens they can't be deported themselves - guess who pays to raise and care for them?)

   You're correct: this is an issue that can't be resolved merely by appealing to emotion.  Just stop pretending "your side" isn't guilty of it too!

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Mr. McLaughlin:

   It's fun watching you denounce others for what you're guilty of yourself.  Several times now you've called for putting "Obamacare" to a public vote - forgetting that the Constitution allows for no such process.  (It would actually be an example of a pure democracy, something a good "conservative" like you should avoid.)

   Now, in response to Mr. Compton's hyperbolic letter, you indulge in some yourself.  I won't accuse you of stupidity, but . . . .

   You rave about the $400 million dollars the "Obamacare" website has supposedly cost.  But that's a mere pittance compared to the $24 billion the recent shutdown stunt (led by Senator Cruz) is alleged to have cost.  (And when they fix that website, the money will have been well spent.)

   Still, in a spirit of bi-partisanship, I agree to send a bill for those millions to Obama and the "liberal" Democrats (I assume "conservative" Democrats don't have to pay it.)  But, as quid pro quo, you have to agree to bill Cruz and his "conservative" Republicans for those billions!  Deal?

   Oh, and given the "conservative" track record with false claims about "Obamacare", I'd be very cautious before accepting the latest mutation of their "job killing" theme.  (There have been prior variations on it.)  It seems the rush to part-time employment you speak of may not actually exist.  (Or, at least, can't be blamed on the law.),0,5237220.story

   By the way, since I know you won't accept anything coming from a "liberal" source like the L.A. Times, I hope you note the first two articles are from that "capitalist tool" Forbes, the next from that "commie rag" The Wall Street Journal, and the two after that are from the Business Insider website.  I'm sure you recognize them all as bastions of "Socialism"!

P.S. - I'd respond to the bit about health insurance cancellations, but I'm tired of repeating myself.  Please see my other Comments about that, elsewhere.

porr000's picture

You know that liar, err...I mean lawyer, err...I mean president, who had sexual relations outside of marriage with Monica Lewinsky INSIDE the oval office, and then bold faced lied to the American people about it? Ya, that guy is a Democrat. I doubt Thomas would have approved.

Laughingly, that Democrat yesterday offered moral advice to the current liar, err...I mean lawyer, err...I mean president, who is also a Democrat, telling him he needed to honor his commitment to the American people.

Now, here is the 17 Trillion dollar debt question...Which commitment was he referring to? Was it:

1. The promise of having Israel's back? (Which could not be done without a standing military)

2. Never allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon? (Which can not be done without a standing military)

3. The enforcement of the "red line" with Syria? (Which could not be done without a standing military)

4. The vow to "never rest" (I guess golf or $15 million dollar Hawaiian vacations don't count) until we catch the Benghazi terrorists responsible for murdering our ambassador and 3 other Americans? Or even the vow to protect American consulates? (Which can not be done without a standing military)

5. To repair our relations with the international community?

6. To close Guantanamo?

7. To "never rest" again until everyone who wanted a job got one

8. To go "line by line" with a scalpel through the budget?

9. To actually read the Obamacare law he signed., so he'd know what's in it?

10. To change the tone in DC? To be more civil?

11. To work with those across the isle and to listen to any good ideas the may have?

12. To not bow to corporate and special interests.

13. To be the most transparent administration.

Or was it, to make good on his promise he made over 30 times, that if you liked your current healthcare, you can keep it?! Period.

No sir, I do not feel Thomas would approve of this one bit.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Mr. Orr:

   Since you think taking cheap shots at lawyers is the height of wit (it isn't), I don't believe I'll dignify your latest exercise in childishness with a serious response.

   But while we're on the subject of Presidents and lies, how about some of these:

I am not a crook.

I didn't know it was arms for hostages.  (Not to mention: Trees cause more pollution than people. Or, the Nazis buried in Bitburg were "victims" too.)

Read my lips . . . . (Okay, technically that wasn't a lie, merely a broken campaign promise, but you Republi-Cons play "gotcha" with people's words, so it's fair of me to do the same.)

I'm a uniter not a divider.  I believe in a humble foreign policy.  Deficits don't matter.  WMD's, mushroom clouds, etc.  The Constitution is just a piece of paper.*

* Oops, sorry about that one.  Turns out that if you read a little further down the page of the website I pulled it from the truth is it's a bogus statement.  (Gee, that's never happened in these Comments before, has it?)



porr000's picture

Lies and Lawyers go together in much greater frequency than your Tea Party and racists do by a multiple of probably 17+ trillion times. But then again, you digress. How's that for being pollyannish for you?

But once again, I am finding myself having to remind you of the topic of the conversation because you flip channels more times than Chris Matthews gets a tingle up his leg everytime he hears the president speak

We are not on the subject of presidents and lies, we were on the subject of why Thomas Jefferson would be spinning around in his grave if he saw what his Democrat party has evolved into today.

Your contributions so far to that conversation has been nill aside from your mention of his feelings about the military.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Mr. Orr:

   Then why did your raise it?  May I remind you that I was replying to what you wrote.  The "digression" was yours.

   (As was your remark about Tea Party racists.  Care to provide some proof  to back up that "17+ trillion times" figure.  Oh, I forgot, you don't need no stinkin' facts.)

   As for Thomas Jefferson, and his feelings for what the Democratic Party has become, I've provided more of substance than you did.  In fact "nill" sums up what you've provided perfectly.

   By the way, if you want to talk about people not keeping their word (especially Presidents) and engaging in outright hypocrisy, it doesn't get "better" than writing the Declaration of Independence while owning slaves!  (Not to mention continuing to own them for the rest of one's life.)  I mean, after all, what ever happened to:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I guess Tommy forgot to add a footnote reading: "Except for niggers."  (I make no apology for using the "N-word".)  And let's not even bother talking about women!

   You might also want to consider his handling of the Louisiana Purchase.  To say he went about it in a way that violated his "principles" on limited government is an understatement!  Numerous other examples exist.  Dearly as I admire Jefferson, the man was no saint.

   Plus, of course, you completely ignored other things I said would set Jefferson spinning.  I'm sure it's just a "coincidence" that they were all things the Republi-Cons support!  But on the chance you missed it (after all, you're not very good at reading to the end of things, are you?), here's what I wrote on that score:

  On the other hand, I'm fairly confident what would have Jefferson spinning in his grave: the attempt by the G.O.P. to turn itself into the "Party of God", and invoke the deity not only to win elections, but as a source for American Law and Policy.  (Several Republicans have said, on numerous occasions, that they received their "marching orders" directly from the Almighty.)  And, of course, he would gag on the entire "Christian Nation" claim.  (Being, of course, famous for talking about a wall of separation between church and state.  Though he didn't originate the concept.)

   I also think he'd have a few words to say (in disapproval) of the various attempts to limit voting around the country, or to make it unnecessarily burdensome.  Members of the Tea Party movement should remember that the battlecry of the Revolution was: "No taxation without representation!"  I suspect the original members of the Boston Tea Party, along with Jefferson, are spinning in their graves about this even as we speak!

   Ahem, that's substantially more than "nill"

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Mr. Kouris:

   While I agree that "just throwing money" at a problem isn't the answer, neither is denying enough money to deal with the problem.  In government, as in the rest of life, you get what you pay for.

   The View's editorial this issue perfectly demonstrates what's wrong with your philosophy.  Does Arizona's schools "rank low in comparison with other states"?  Well, on average they do.  (Our few outstanding schools doubtless rank with the best.)  But is it because we spend too much money on them, or not enough?  The evidence suggests the latter.  Arizona not only ranks near the bottom in educational results, but also in per pupil spending.  (Some years, we rank dead last in that department.)  Think there could be a connection?  The editorial provides strong proof that there is.

   (It also explains why there are recurrent overrides and bonding.  It's not what you suppose.)

   We hear a lot of blather these days from "conservatives" about sacrifices we must make "for the children".  I'd say paying more to fund a proper education is a good place to start!  If you want to educate the next generation "on the cheap", remember: you get what you pay for.

P.S. - That doesn't mean I disagree with everything you wrote.  For example: it's true not everyone is cut out for a college education, and parents should play a more active role in educating their children.

porr000's picture

Teachers should be given the resources they need to teach children. Any parent out there can tell you they are not because parents are presented with a list every year of supplies they must go out and purchase for the classroom - supplies that used to be supplied by the school. Parents also receive email attachments from teachers that require the parent to print out using their own printers - printouts that used to be supplied by the school.

But do budget overrides and bonds go toward classroom supplies and instructional materials? I don't know...and that's the problem. We aren't told exactly how the money is going to be used.

I thought bonds are supposed to be issued for capitol expenditures only, but beyond that we don't know if that means an additional wing, a whole new building, or an entire school.

If the public knew exactly how the funds were going to be used, it would make a much stronger case for an override than what I have seen in past letters from people wishing you to vote yes.

To add the money to just the general fund hoping that would fix everything does not tell the public how exactly that money will translate into a better education.

However, saying the funds will go toward the building of 8 more classrooms and the hiring of 8 more teachers, which will shrink the oversized classrooms, translating into more individualized attention, one can easily understand how higher test scores are possible as a result.

Stating the funds will go toward a long overdue merit increase for teachers will enable the school to retain good teachers and not loose them for higher salary jobs elsewhere, could translate into better test scores as well and may attract good teachers from elsewhere.

I hope the requests for more money in the future will accompany more specifics so people can make a better informed decision.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Mr. Orr:

   I hope you're sittiing down for this one, but you actually made some cogent and rational remarks.  I hope you're recovering from the experience.

   Of course, there's more to the problem than "just throwing money at it".  (Hence my original statement that I didn't disagree with everything Mr. Kouris wrote.  Ditto for your Comment.)  But there's a difference between "just throwing money", and not providing enough money.

   Allow me to employ a medical analogy.  Proper medication requires knowing the right dosage for the patient (based on factors including their age), and making sure the medication is taken long enough.  All too often patients cease taking their medicine when the symptoms disappear, thus allowing the disease to return.  But on the other hand, taking too much medication can be fatal.  (You actually can die by taking too much aspirin - though it's an absurdly large amount.)

   So the question isn't whether we should have more or less money for education, but whether we have enough.  Judging from the evidence the answer appears to be no.  Arizona ranks in the bottom for per pupil funding (some years, dead last).  Our rankings on test scores (etc.) are nothing to be proud about either.   Could there be a connection?  Very likely.

   You speak, properly, about parents being asked to purchase supplies for their schools.  Often teachers must do the same.  And you ask a valid question of why that is so.  It might be the money is being "siphoned off" (for lack of a better term) somewhere else.  (Exorbitant salaries and benefits for Administrators, for example.)  It may also be there was never enough money to start with.  (Or both!  They're not mutually exclusive, and other answers abound.)

But do budget overrides and bonds go toward classroom supplies and instructional materials? I don't know...and that's the problem. We aren't told exactly how the money is going to be used.

   If that's correct (and I'm not questioning the validity of your statement, it's only that I can't confirm it), then that is indeed "the problem", or part of it.  On the other hand, there have been many articles (and other sources of information) explaining all this.  You must at least allow that some people vote "No" because they're not willing to listen, to find out, or just don't care.

   (Again, an example.  My mother used to live in Clearwater, Florida.  I remember, while visiting her, driving past the High School and seeing dozens of trailers parked on the property.  She explained that those were additional classrooms, necessary because the school's population had grown too large for the original building.  It seemed stupid to me to rent these trailers every year, instead of constructing new builidings.  She agreed, but explained that since Clearwater mostly contained retirees, they were less interested in paying for education than young parents would be.  Rather than embrace the cost of approving a bond issue to pay for new construction, they preferred the cheaper annual cost of the rental - even though in the long run it would actually cost more!)

   The same process may be at work here (only not restricted to the elderly or retired).  In fact, I'd call it almost a certainty!

   Another factor to consider, aside from inflation and increasing school enrollment, is the fact that often our State Legislature "balances" the budget by cutting funding for schools!  Well, guess where the "make-up" money has to come from?  It ends up being like the Red Queen: the schools have to run faster and faster (raise more money) just to stay in one place!

   So I agree with you, given the resistance to either overrides or bonding, the schools have to do a better job of educating the public.  (No pun intended.)  Those street signs urging us "Vote Yes!  It won't raise taxes." clearly aren't enough.

Gordon Posner's picture



Dear Mr. Cox:

    The real problem is not merely with a lie, but with the accusation that someone is lying. How to tell who’s the one deceiving (or being deceived)?

    Many people honestly believe things that simply aren’t true. Among them Ms. Weaver (with her “one dollar premium moments”). Another is Roy Azzarello (whose contempt for facts and reason lead him to confidently make the most blatantly false claims imaginable). Then there’s Mr. Orr and Mr. Moore (who’s track records at quoting the Founders leave a lot to be desired). These and numerous other examples abound. But while they may be mistaken, I’d hesitate to call them liars (even amateur ones) absent proof that they know what they say is untrue.

    Then there are the people who falsely accuse others of lying (among other things), by twisting their “victim’s” words to “spin” the meaning, or outright change what was said. Again, there are numerous examples.

    Pelosi never said they had to pass “Obamacare” before Congress could see what’s in it. She actually said that Congress had to pass it so the American people could see what’s in it “away from the fog of controversy” (created by its opponents). Some people deliberately omit that last part (and ignore the context) to create a false impression. Others simply mindlessly parrot the lie already told. Only the former are liars, the others are merely fools.

    Romney didn’t say he liked firing people. He explained that he liked being able to fire people who don’t do their jobs! Of course, there’s nothing wrong with that.

    And when the President said “You didn’t build that”, he wasn’t referring to individual businesses entrepreneurs have created. He was referring to the infrastructure many of those businesses depend on to exist (public roads, Interstate Highways, hydroelectric dams, etc.) which was built by the government!

    Again, those who deliberately misquoted these statements are the liars.

    So the next time someone claims another person is a liar, check out the facts (all the facts). You may discover that the one making the accusation is the actual liar!

porr000's picture

Whether or not politicians lie, deceive, are merely misinformed or are victims of a propaganda machine, I believe the public has a general idea without knowing the specifics of every "lie", to what degree the politicians they vote in or out of office are trustworthy. There is more to a lie than meets the eye. They notice when politicians lie about the lie, try making excuses about it, try spinning the lie, or apologize and take responsibility for the lie. They can hear the stutters, the distancing language being used, the overreacting, or over acting, and the pace, pitch, and other inflections that help formulate their "gut feelings" about someone..

And, when you start attacking the good name of a bunch of other people on here in a comment to someone else, it tells them more about your shady integrity than the others you write about.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Mr. Orr:

   At the risk of you (again) dishonestly twisting my words by taking them out-of-context, let me say I don't care what you believe.  Personally, I think you have a very pollyanish faith in what the public has a general idea of when it comes to the politicians they vote for.

   Witness the fate of former South Carolina Governor Mark ("hiking the Old Appalachian Trail) Sandford.  He's now Congressman Sandford, doubtless on the basis of his "trustworthiness" following that episode.  I wonder what "general idea" the voters had about that?

   Contrast that with the fate of Andrew ("Carlos Danger") Weiner (insert the obvious pun here).  He ran for Mayor of New York City following his disgraceful conduct, and came in dead last in the primary!

   I wonder what explains those differing results.  (I could make the obvious partisan and ideological comment, but I'll leave that to you.)

   And who's "good name" did I attack?  This may come as a shock to you, but for anyone who values fact, accuracy, reason, (or dare I say it) truth, the people I referenced have no good name left to attack.  Disciples of blind ideology and partisanship, they only find "favor" with people equally blind.  (And since such people pay no attention to what I write, what harm can possibly arise?)

   Of course, I've come to expect such hypocrisy from you, sir.  Have you forgotten how easily you accused me of lying over the issue of racists in the Tea Party movement, and attacked my integrity?  (When all I actually did was say the exact same thing you did: you can't blame the entire movement for the racists among it.)  Besides, I only attacked their accuracy, not their integrity.  You're living in a glass house, sir.

P.S. - Finally, doesn't the "it's just an opinion" rule apply to me?  Or is it only Republi-Cons who can invoke it?  I guess you think an opinion should have some facts and reason backing it up after all.  Too bad mine always do, and yours almost never.

porr000's picture

When someone starts a sentence with, "I believe", it is usually followed with their opinion.

Since we have already established that you don't care for opinions, because they do not require facts, it is not a surprise when you say, " I don't care what you believe".

Again, I wonder if you don't care for opinions, why are you even on here?

But since you do continue to bully and harass everyone for their beliefs, which is so contrary to the principles of freedom that founded this country, I can only assume based on your arguments being so typical of the progressives in the government, on tv, and radio, that you remain not to add to a conversation, but to "correct" or brainwash everyone's thinking toward the liberal progressive idealism as part of their extended propaganda machine.

So again, it surprises me not that you feel my faith in the public is polyannish because it is a core belief of progressives that the public is stupid, and that government knows best....the progressives in government, I should clarify.

It doesn't surprise me one bit that you constantly claim things are taken out of context because that argument is progressivism 101.

Your use of Rules for Radicals mirrors that of the President, Hillary Clinton, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (all proven liars).

Therefore, it doesn't phase me one bit when you employ those progressive tactics to predictably accuse me of the very things you actually do whenever I say anything you don't feel lives up to the progressive mindset.

You label me a conservative (as if that is some horrible thing) only because I don't agree with your methods of verbal abuse toward people with real opinions. So typical...I just have to laugh and shake my head.

Gordon Posner's picture

Dear Mr. Orr:

   What's already been established is either you (and Roy) suffer from major reading comprehension problems (and desperately need a remedial course on the English Language), or else you are being deliberately dishonest.  I never said I don't care for opinions.  I just don't think all opinions have equal worth.  You, and Roy, apparently think they do.

   Which of course means the opinion that Obama is the worst President ever (promoted by the "right-wing") is equally valid (no more or less) as the "left-wing's" opinion that Reagan, the Bushes, or Nixon's "the one".  (Actually the four, but let's not risk you needing a remedial math course.)

   You have every right to spout whatever nonsense you wish.  And everyone else has the right to call you on it!

   "Bully and harrass everyone for their beliefs"?  That describes people like you and Roy perfectly.  You falsely accused me of lying about the Tea Party Movement, and belittle lawyers in general.  He, of course, likens his dread "Progressives" to a cancer on the nation, or a virus - anything but fellow Americans whose opinions he merely disagrees with.

   And you both share another trait: thin skin.  After hurling your bile at others, you whine and scream when a little of it is returned to you.  (In the process deliberately trying to silence your opponents.)  In contrast, I welcome intelligent and honest debate (something you appear incapable of).  So, no sir, I don't object to your exercising your right to free speech - just what you do with it.  If you can't take the political heat, stay out of the political kitchen!

  Why do I "remain"?  One might ask you the same question.  (Or would that be another attempt on my part to "bully and harrass" you into surrendering your freedom?  Funny how it's okay for you to behave that way.)  I've stated many of my "motives" several times, but allow me to list them again (in no particular order):

  1. To speak the truth.
  2. To inform people of the facts, and how reason applies to them.
  3. To give people like you enough rope to hang themselves with.
  4. To defend our constitutional rights (including the right not to toe the "conservative" line).
  5. It's fun.

   And if there's an active "brainwashing machine" in this country, I'd say Faux News and Squawk Radio are a major part of it.  (But, however much I may deride what they say, I'll defend to the death their right to say it - and yours.  Can you return the favor?  So far I see no sign of it.)

   As for believing the public is stupid, remind me again who used the phrase "low information voter" to describe Obama's supporters?  And who used it most recently in a letter to this very paper to deride those same people?  (Hint: it wasn't "progressives".)  But don't take my word for it, here's some links to review:

   (As for Rules for Radicals, I've never read it.  Funny that you should, allegedly, know what it contains.)

   I don't "constantly" claim things are taken out of context.  I only do it when they are.  But I guess it doesn't matter to you when that happens.  I imagine you voted for Romney last year solely because you thought he actually did "like firing people".  (It must have been a terrible blow for you to discover that's not what he meant or said.)

   What you make apparent is a little "trick" that I find common among ideologues (whether of the "left" or "right").  It goes by many names, including: projection and transference.  You falsely accuse others of what you're guilty of yourself!

   For example, I don't believe I ever labeled you a conservative.  In fact, I put that word in quotes (along with "left", "right", and other such terms) precisely because I distrust and dislike labels.  It's too easy to pigeonhole someone with a label, and from then on respond to the label, not to any facts.

   As you just did in your Comment.  You stuck the label "progressive" on me, and proceeded to disregard what I wrote.  Another way you evade and avoid.  (Also a common tactic among ideologues - especially when they have no good response to make.)

   My letter did refer to "everyone who supports Republicans or (so-called) 'conservative' values", and taken in context (that word again!) it's fair to assume I consider you within that group.  But that's not quite the same as my "labeling" you either a Republican or a "conservative".  (I'd have to see your voter registration records to know if the former were true, and read your mind for the latter.)  But I think even someone deaf, dumb, and blind can tell which end of the political spectrum you lean toward.

   Do I think being a conservative (without the quotes) "is some horrible thing".  Not at all.  Indeed, a rational person will be both conservative and liberal, depending on the circumstances.  Conservative, after all, refers to preserving things of worth that deserve to be preserved, while Liberal refers to an open mind willing to consider changing what needs to be changed.  At its heart the environmental movement is the epitiome of being conservative.  (At least the sane parts. I don't include groups like PETA in that category.)  And since I support the right of everyone to exercise free speech or the free exercise of their religion (within certain understandable limits), does that make me "conservative" or "liberal"?  Sadly, these days, the answer could be both, and neither!

   Real opinions are well thought out, and supported by facts.  Any blithering idiot can spew nonsense and call it an "opinion".  (Consider the rantings of Lyndon LaRouche for example, or the members of the Westboro Baptist Church.)  But that doesn't mean an idiot's opinion has any worth!

   But please, feel free to shake, rattle, and roll with amusement.  You've given me so many hours of mirth, it's only fair I do the same for you.

porr000's picture

Hahaha Gordon:

Mirth it is then.

Just as I predicted above, you replied accusing me of doing precisely what I mentioned you were doing.
You accuse me of labeling you progressive when actually, all I said is you employ progressive tactics.
You say I falsely accused you of lying about the Tea Party Movement when actually, if you go review my letter, you will see I actually said you were baiting the racism issue once again about the Tea Party.

So who needs remedial reading classes now? LOL

porr000's picture

Jefferson would turn over in his grave if he knew what his party has become today.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Mr. Orr:

   Before I even bother to ask what basis you have for that statement, I must first ask you to define your terms.  Given that you think words mean only what you (or a "like-minded group") want them to mean, I must find out how the following words (or phrases) are defined in Republi-Conese: "turn over" and "grave"!

   I can say that Jefferson, like most of the Founders, would be astonished to see the U.S. not only have a standing Army, but such an enormous military force.  Indeed, Alexander Hamilton (usually a friend of a strong national government) wrote about the dangers to "civil and political rights" from "Standing Armies and the correspondent appendages of military establishments".  (See: Federalist Papers, Number 8.)  Precisely because of this danger (Madison notes in Paper number 41), the Constitution requires apppropriations for an Army to be renewed every two years (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 12).

   The intention was that an Army would only be called into being, and continue to exist, for as long as a present threat existed.  The idea that our military appropriations should be (almost automatically) renewed and increased on a regular basis, or that the headquarters for that institution (the Pentagon) should be "the world's biggest office building" would have astonished the Founders, Jefferson in particular.

   Plus, of course Washington warned us against getting involved in "foreign adventures".

   On the other hand, I'm fairly confident what would have Jefferson spinning in his grave: the attempt by the G.O.P. to turn itself into the "Party of God", and invoke the deity not only to win elections, but as a source for American Law and Policy.  (Several Republicans have said, on numerous occasions, that they received their "marching orders" directly from the Almighty.)  And, of course, he would gag on the entire "Christian Nation" claim.  (Being, of course, famous for talking about a wall of separation between church and state.  Though he didn't originate the concept.)

   I also think he'd have a few words to say (in disapproval) of the various attempts to limit voting around the country, or to make it unnecessarily burdensome.  Members of the Tea Party movement should remember that the battlecry of the Revolution was: "No taxation without representation!"  I suspect the original members of the Boston Tea Party, along with Jefferson, are spinning in their graves about this even as we speak!

Gordon Posner's picture


   A final bit of history, which I couldn't fit in my letter.  Jefferson and Madison founded the Democratic - Republican Party.  The name was later shortened to the Democratic Party.  That's right, the "party of Jefferson" is older than the G.O.P.  It's the Democrats who actually belong to the "Grand Old Party".  Today's Republicans are really the "Johnny-come-lately" Party!

Comment Here