Letter to the Editor

Thursday, August 12, 2010 at 12:25am

To the Editor:

How could any middle-class working voter ever be coerced and brainwashed into voting for the right-wing Republican, would-be anarchists, who by their own campaign platforms fly in the face of every American who is not filthy rich?

How can a bloc of rich congressmen who already have made their fortunes and secured their family's health care free or at practically no cost campaign on a promise to repeal everything that President Obama has gotten done for the people?

They want to repeal Social Security, or impose huge cuts on the most needy of our citizenry, Medicare, health care reform and return complete control to the insurance companies that any idiot should know by now are not concerned with your health care but are a bunch of corporate thieves.

They want to repeal the stimulus and stop the slowly improving economy that the president is bringing about.

Along with this they want to repeal or amend the 14th Amendment so as to be able to take of control who is deemed a citizen and who is not whenever they get ready.

They also now want to invalidate freedom of religion by banning the building of more mosques in the United States. They want to deny civil rights to gays and lesbians. 

If all this is not enough, they certainly want George W. Bush's tax cuts for the very richest Americans to be extended.

If any sane human being can see anything in their own, self-indicting campaign promises, that will benefit any suffering American except the rich, then he needs to seek help.

If any working person is weak enough to post a Republican ballot, he deserves to suffer the wrath just as under Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush.

To paraphrase a friend recently when entering the voting booth, "It's simple as ABC, like driving a car: Put it in D to go forward and in R to go backward."

C.W. Clouse

Nashville TN 37209

Filed under: City Voices

296 Comments on this post:

By: Captain Nemo on 8/12/10 at 3:43

Good morning

New Found Gap

http://www.wallpaperweb.org/wallpaper/nature/1600x1200/Sunrise_from_Newfound_Gap_Great_Smoky_Mountains_Tennessee.jpg

By: Captain Nemo on 8/12/10 at 3:43

I agree with your dooley, it does seem that the fringe right wants the rest of the world to live in misery. I am not sure if it is because this segment of conservatives has a genetic defect or just an unpleasant gene, which thrills in the misery of others.

By: Captain Nemo on 8/12/10 at 3:57

http://www.flash-screen.com/free-wallpaper/uploads/200704/imgs/1177856505_1024x768_sunrise-from-newfound-gap-great-smoky-mountains-tennessee.jpg

By: Captain Nemo on 8/12/10 at 4:00

Let see if this comes out.

Servierville, Tn

http://www.1ofakindlogcabin.com/images/sunrise.jpg

By: house_of_pain on 8/12/10 at 5:12

The 14th Amendment needs to be amended. It's past time to close the "anchor baby" loophole.

By: yogiman on 8/12/10 at 5:37

HOP,
I agree the 14th amendment should be amended or repealed. It isn't being used as it was written. The change of use has simply been to get more votes for a particular party. Now, which party do you think is winning on that side of the field?

By: oyharward on 8/12/10 at 5:50

While I have got to get out of here for an important appointment, I could not leave before saying this is among the most radical left-wing letters ever published in Nashville’s CT.

I am so happy to believe and/or know Nashville TN is not that liberal. America must restore America by defeating these local radical values and each and every radical liberal Democrat to restore Judeo-Christian values and Constitutional freedoms. Trust me, Nashville, TN will follow. God Bless Nashville, TN and God Bless America.

By: Kosh III on 8/12/10 at 6:00

Judeo-Christian values? Yeah, ask the Cherokees about that one.
Needless wars? is that how the right loves it's neighbor?
Freedom? Only for the chosen few plutocrats and their sycophants.

By: dargent7 on 8/12/10 at 6:13

The 14th Amendment needs to be overhauled.
Wonderful concept when written, but for the last 20 years just overburdened.
The "anchor baby" gets citizenship, then has mommy and daddy, brother and sisters, aunts and uncles allowed to stay.
All get social services, medical, dental, vision, food stamps....the USA is broke and can no longer afford the deal.

By: Kosh III on 8/12/10 at 6:18

Rather than destroy the constitution, we should fix immigration by aggressively eliminating the outlaw employers who want the cheap labor.
Put someone named Tyson or Perdue in jail for hiring illegal aliens and see how quickly it stops.
Then we should reform the immigration laws and fix the borders.

By: dargent7 on 8/12/10 at 6:25

What is the deal with all the publicity and adulation that flight attendant is getting?
Guys looked at like a war hero or that he saved 40 children from a burning bus.
Guy cracked up, was drunk on board the flight, IMO, and endangered lives.
And 95% of humanity is hailing him as a hero.
(?)

By: Loner on 8/12/10 at 6:29

Good mornng, Nashville!

Great LTE, Mr. Clouse. You outlined the Tea Party - Grand Old Party shared agenda fairly well.

I can't answer your rhetorical questions; people often act in a manner that is not in their own best interest. Whole nations can act in a manner that is counter-productive to their own national interests; the Bush legacy is proof of that.

Abe Lincoln claimed that you can fool some of the people all of the time. Ironicallly, the party of Lincoln is now a perfect example of what Abe was talking about.

The Democrats are not much better than the Republicans; both parties are corrupt to the bone. They make deals. Neither party wants "trouble".

The special interests dictate policy to the recipients of the campaign donations; both parties take these bribes and both parties defend the right to do so.

The USSC agrees with the rightness of this sordid relationship, they voted to let the Corporate Money talk and let the Public Interest walk.

By: dargent7 on 8/12/10 at 6:29

Sorry about the change of venue, but talking about what Republicans think or do makes me sick.

By: house_of_pain on 8/12/10 at 6:33

Not sure what's up with the uproar over the plane servant, d7.
But there might be some blood-letting between hamblin & Red Bear this morning.
Now that's entertainment.

By: Loner on 8/12/10 at 6:40

Agreed, D7. The NY Daily News claimed that the quitting dude is gay and that he went home and had sex with his mate before the cops came to arrest him. Of course, that's not relevant; but it is titillating and appeals to the prurient interests.

The quitter now has his five minutes of fame and glory, I expect he'll milk it, like Joe the Plumber etc. A book deal is probably already in the works.

Hey, if you are going to quit, do it in a grand style.

Sarah Palin ought to reach out to this fellow quitter; she would get even more publicity and look like she is sensitive to the concerns of disgruntled gays, as well as to the concerns of quitters everywhere.

By: dargent7 on 8/12/10 at 6:42

pain: I tried to "comment" there today and am still blocked. (making racist comments...I thought being from Detroit gave me license).
Yes, their back and forth over the lady's food/weight LTE is absurd.
But, Hamblin would be strangled by Gandhi and Mother Teresa.
What a "piece of work"!

By: dargent7 on 8/12/10 at 6:45

Loner: The guy's gay?
He looks gay and most male flight attedands are gay (not that anythings wrong with that).
Now his life will be under the microscope and be exposed in great detail.
Hope he doesn't have any over due library books.

By: Loner on 8/12/10 at 6:50

Newly installed, Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan would likely side with the gay quitter, if it ever went before her court. GLBT rights really tip that woman's bobber, other things don't seem to bother her - things like pre-emptive invasions based on false pretenses. Her passionate concerns have always been for the civil rights of GLBT's in the invading force. But she's straight.....straight out of the weirdo bin, IMO.

By: Kosh III on 8/12/10 at 6:54

Frankly, it's about time someone like Kagan was in the SC to balance the bigots like Scalia.

By: budlight on 8/12/10 at 7:01

And 95% of humanity is hailing him as a hero

Remember D7, our lame education system? They don't know the true definition of a "hero".

And he was married to a woman; her grandfather said he was a nice guy. A nice guy who divorced his granddaughter and decided he was gay, after all.

If I'm a public service worker, ie, flight attendant, I would think I could rise above a passenger who is out of line. He's the reason I don't fly. If he''s an example of flight service providers/leaders in case of emergency, heaven help the flying public. AND I think he's atypical cause most people in aviation are not "flighty" or flakey.

By: dargent7 on 8/12/10 at 7:04

This just in: The attendant is gay.
And that Emergency chute he took a ride on cost $25,000. It can only be used once.
His 15 minutes of fame is 14.9 along.

By: Loner on 8/12/10 at 7:04

Darge, here's a link to the NYDN piece. Headline: "JetBlue flight attendant who went nuts was in bed with boyfriend when found by cops" Here is the URL for the story.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/08/09/2010-08-09_talk_about_turbulance_jetblue_flight_attendant_drops_intercom_fbomb_bolts_down_e.html

Googling the story, I found this from Chicago Pride.com, headline: "Gay Jetblue flight attendant released from jail to worldwide fame" Here's the URL:

http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/12543841

By: budlight on 8/12/10 at 7:05

Kosh III on 8/12/10 at 7:54
Frankly, it's about time someone like Kagan was in the SC to balance the bigots like Scalia.

Kosh I agree balance is important, but how can you say it's "truly" balanced when there is not one single protestant on the SC? All Catholics and Jewish? Plus where is the agnostic? Athiest? Jehovah's witness? 7th Day Adventist? Scientologist? Buddist?

It just seems that it's unbalanced. Oh well. Time will tell. They are all puppets of someone or some thing.

By: gdiafante on 8/12/10 at 7:05

As far as the 14th amendment...maybe they should enforce the existing immigration law rather than amending the Constitution...

Efficient government...that's an oxymoron.

By: budlight on 8/12/10 at 7:08

dargent7 on 8/12/10 at 7:42
pain: I tried to "comment" there today and am still blocked. (making racist comments...I thought being from Detroit gave me license).

It does. BUT at the Tennessean, your license was revoked. Shame on them. I saw the humor in it.

AND if Richard Pryor said it or some hot shot black comedian or even a white comedian in Vegas, then it would be the best joke in town. OH well. Double standards abound.

By: budlight on 8/12/10 at 7:08

dargent7 on 8/12/10 at 7:42
pain: I tried to "comment" there today and am still blocked. (making racist comments...I thought being from Detroit gave me license).

It does. BUT at the Tennessean, your license was revoked. Shame on them. I saw the humor in it.

AND if Richard Pryor said it or some hot shot black comedian or even a white comedian in Vegas, then it would be the best joke in town. OH well. Double standards abound.

By: budlight on 8/12/10 at 7:08

apologize for double post. computer glitching. will try to control it.

By: Loner on 8/12/10 at 7:11

Kosh, Kagan is a bigot in her own way too. She is a Zionist.

Of course, with 3 devout Jews and 6 devout Jewish wannabes (Catholics) making up the 9-member tribunal The entire SCOTUS is bigoted in this regard, IMO. Here's a definition of bigoted:

Bigoted = blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view".
(Source: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn).

By: Blanketnazi2 on 8/12/10 at 7:25

g, i agree that the immigration laws need to be enforced and the employers need to be punished for breaking the law.

By: Loner on 8/12/10 at 7:32

Must be the Perseid meteor showers....I find myself agreeing with Budlight.

The lightbeer-bearing poster wrote: "Kosh I agree balance is important, but how can you say it's "truly" balanced when there is not one single protestant on the SC? All Catholics and Jewish? Plus where is the agnostic? Athiest? Jehovah's witness? 7th Day Adventist? Scientologist? Buddist?"

Not a single Pagan. No UU's. No LDS. No Muslims. No Greek Orthodox. No Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians etc. Here is a link that breaks down the US religious demographics:

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

Four of the nine are from New York City, or just across the river. Greater New York has produced 4/9 of the USSC...and some still call this "diversity". This is not diversity, this is a travesty.

By: house_of_pain on 8/12/10 at 7:32

My employer needs to be punished for breaking my spirit...

By: Blanketnazi2 on 8/12/10 at 7:38

Loner, can you imagine the kind of uproar that would happen if a president picked a Pagan, Muslim or Atheist for the SC? it would never fly.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 8/12/10 at 7:39

heck, folks are in an uproar over a mosque being built. so much for tolerance and freedom of religion.

By: Loner on 8/12/10 at 7:41

We could mount sterilizing radiation emmitters (SRE's) on the Southern border using satelites and other hi-tech gadgets to do the sterilizing. That way, the employers would continue to get the super-cheap laborers; but no "anchor babies" would be born.

And there's this side benefit, since their machismo would be affected in a negative way, the will to ilegally enter the USA would greatly diminish.

The War Lobby could offer the technical know-how.

By: Loner on 8/12/10 at 7:41

We could mount sterilizing radiation emmitters (SRE's) on the Southern border using satelites and other hi-tech gadgets to do the sterilizing. That way, the employers would continue to get the super-cheap laborers; but no "anchor babies" would be born.

And there's this side benefit, since their machismo would be affected in a negative way, the will to ilegally enter the USA would greatly diminish.

The War Lobby could offer the technical know-how.

By: pswindle on 8/12/10 at 7:41

Well siad, you hit the nail on the head.

By: Loner on 8/12/10 at 7:44

Sorry for the double post, what's up with that?

Pswindle, who hit what nail?

By: BenDover on 8/12/10 at 7:45

I remember a ton of outrage about the Dubai ports deal. I thought it was wrong to shut down that process just because the war-on-terror ally country that wanted to buy the company from another war-on-terror ally country was Arab. Seems to me that if we can shut down that deal we ought to be able to shut down the 9/11 Mosque on the same premise... plus the fact that it's just damn tacky of them to put it there.

By: Loner on 8/12/10 at 7:58

BN wrote, "Loner, can you imagine the kind of uproar that would happen if a president picked a Pagan, Muslim or Atheist for the SC? it would never fly."

BN, the same people who now claim that religion makes no difference when selecting a SCOTUS appointee would do an abrupt about face, a complete 180. Suddenly, the nominee's faith, or lack thereof would be of paramount significance. The mask of tolerance would be stripped off, we are a nation of bigots...soft bigotry by world standards, but bigotry nonetheless.

We recently showed the world our bigotry when we condemned the Goldstone Report and later, when we officially praised Israel's murderous assault on the Gaza Aid flotilla. One Turkish American, a New Yorker, was killed by the IDF in the raid on the aid; but there was deafening silence about this from NY's representatives in Washington, DC. We excused his killer's behavior. That's bigotry, folks.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 8/12/10 at 8:02

yes, our "tolerance" is a farce.

By: dooley on 8/12/10 at 8:04

Kosh -- You are exactly correct altering a tried and true constitutional amendment is not the way to control the immigration problem .We have to shut down the corporations who keep hiring them illegally . The corporations are the ones responsible and cannot be stopped as long as we have a Democratic Congress that is not filibuster proof after all the corps. are in the pockets of the GOP . Anyone born in the US by a legal alien should be entitled to citizenship. Treat the source and not the symptoms.

By: dooley on 8/12/10 at 8:09

Loner your assessment of the letter is a direct hit and right on target. But then most righties don't have your insight or perception and that is how we end up with so many voting against their own welfare by completly missing the point by listening to Hannity , O'Reilly etc.

By: BenDover on 8/12/10 at 8:09

The distinguishing characteristic here between Dubai and the 9/11 Mosque is that in the case of Dubai, conservatives (namely Bush) were for it; thus throw reason to the wind... the libs are against it. A similar circumstance arose with Kagan on the Supreme court. Remember the hell Bush's nominee, Harriet Miers, took for never having been a bench jurist. Well somehow with Kagan... not that big of a deal. Guantanamo Bay? Outrage during Bush... crickets for Barrack.

By: dargent7 on 8/12/10 at 8:12

To all those who want a mosque built on every corner like we currently have churches....re-watch the 9/11 attacks on You Tube.
Then search for ANY comdemnation from any Imam, Shiek, King, Prince in the middle east. Or Dearborn, Michigan.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 8/12/10 at 8:13

i don't know about that, Ben. i'm not happy about Kagan or Guantanamo Bay. there's plenty of libs who don't agree with either.

By: Loner on 8/12/10 at 8:18

With all due respect, Ben Dover, I reject your comparison of the Dubai Port deal and the so-called, "9-11 Mosque" deal.

That's not a fair or accurate analogy, Ben. Ceding control over a US port to a foreign corporation sounds like a bad idea regardless of the identity of the would-be purchaser.

Secondly, a Mosque is not a seaport. Apples and oranges again? Your analogy is fruity, at best.

Freedom of commerce and freedom of religion are two entirely different animals, Ben.

There is anti-Arab bias in America today, that is true; but the Dubai Port deal could have compromised our national defense and sold-off a valuable natural resource - ports are high value items, but the mosque proposal does not threaten our national security and it does not sell-off a unique and precious American natural resource to a foreign-held, for-profit corporations.

Junior Bush and Dick Cheney liked the idea, but even die-hard Republicans had trouble backing the Dubai deal.

By: BenDover on 8/12/10 at 8:23

Yes... but the ports were already in control of a foreign corporation, Loner. They just were not a towel-headed foreign corporation. That's the rub.

By: Kosh III on 8/12/10 at 8:23

"after all the corps. are in the pockets of the GOP ."

Incorect Dooley. It's the GOP which is in the pocket of the corporatists although it is often difficult to separate the two.

--------------
Loner, rather than balance, what I mean is that at least with Kagan we finally have a Justice who is gay-friendly as opposed to Powell, Rhenquist, Scalia, etc

By: BenDover on 8/12/10 at 8:27

Democrats are far deeper into the game of Crony Capitalism than the Republicans are.

By: Loner on 8/12/10 at 8:28

Ben Dover: "Outrage during Bush... crickets for Barrack".

Again, Ben, you got it bassackwards; when one talks about "fiscal responsibilty", it was , "Crickets during Bush.....OUTRAGE for Barrack".