Register a SA Forums Account here!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Locked thread
RC and Moon Pie
May 5, 2011

I'm beginning to think Kyle Wingfield of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is some kind of experiment. The AJC publishes him to either make the rest of their staff look good or if they're joking non-liberals.

If you go to the right sources, finding crazy letters to the editor is like shooting fish in a barrel. Like this example out of the Valdosta Daily Times.

Granted, this fellow is a minister, but this is very par for the course in a land that is insanely Republican and right smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt.


The Church can save America

We in America, for the most part, have placed our hope for the salvation and preservation of America in some political party. We are humanist for the most part, whether we admit it or not, and are looking to man for solutions to our nation’s problems, instead of God. But there is no political party that can save America. Only the Church can save America.

The Church has been given specific promises by God that when the conditions to these promises are met, God will fulfill His promise and heal and save our land (2 Chr. 7:14, et al). It is in meeting the conditions that the Church is revived and able to bring about a change in our nation. The Church is part of the problem in America. She has lost her distinction and peculiarity, her holiness. She has bad moral and spiritual health (Is. 1:5; Jms. 4), and God cannot heal a sick nation through a sick Church.

God can save America, but only through a revived Church. What we need is a Revive the Church Save America campaign. God operates through a holy and humble people, a revived Church. The Church is the human agency through which revival and the healing of American is possible.

If the Church refuses to be revived, when America falls her blood will be on the doorstep of every church and the hands of every pastor that wasn’t true to God and His word, and wouldn’t be revived.

Or, this from the Albany Herald, a paper that is its own little bundle of weird. Albany is the news source for a bunch of counties as they're all poor and pretty pathetic. Albany itself is a Democratic land. Everything surrounding it isn't. There are still several segregation academies in these here parts.


It seems only yesterday that our government was rolling out the FEMA trucks, temporary living trailers, food services and free hotel stays, some for more than a year. I remember the media was franticly reporting mass looting of flat screen TVs, brand-name sneakers and cases of beer; rescuers were being shot at, raped and murdered.

They were asking tough questions, demanding to know why the government hadn’t solved the problem in New Orleans. I remember Ray Nagin proclaiming he was going to rebuild a chocolate New Orleans, and Spike Lee accusing the federal government of blowing up the levees. Hollywood and the rock music heroes were out in force to raise money for those who couldn’t — or wouldn’t — evacuate New Orleans, a large segment of those being young adult males. Jesse, Al and the NAACP were up in arms regarding the injustice of it all.

Fast forward to May of 2011. Iowa and North Dakota are underwater; Cedar Rapids, 24,000 evacuated; Iowa City, 5,000 evacuated, and many others underwater. This has been going on for weeks and still no end in sight. Now, add devastating tornados killing hundreds and severely damaging property. Where is the outrage? Coverage by the media regarding human suffering, government support? Outcries for justice and of racism are rather sparse. Where are the rock and Hollywood stars? Where is FEMA? What is the difference here? No looting, no raping. No demands for government to save them. Hmm.

Just Midwestern rural country folk in desperate situations taking care of themselves.

Perhaps we should take a lesson here and demand smaller government instead of demanding a larger government to provide everything for us. Now, for the first time in American history, government is paid for through taxes from less than half of American households to take care of the rest of Americans, and about 20 million illegal aliens who are sucking the life out of this country.

Get a job, get off welfare, come here legally or go back to your own country. And for goodness sake, take care of yourself.


RC and Moon Pie
May 5, 2011

There was a letter in a later edition against this notion, but here's a beaut from the Gainesville (GA) Times, printed on May 13:


Kudos to the Delta pilot who refused to fly with the two Muslims aboard for a Memphis to Charlotte flight May 6. One of the Muslims removed from the flight, Masudur Rahman, claimed "It's racism and bias because of our religion" rather than a concern for the safety of the American travelers on board. He further stated, "If they understood Islam, they wouldn't do this."

If "they" understood Islam and acted appropriately, there would be no Muslims in this country. It is ridiculous for Americans to have to be fearful of flying with members of the Islamic religion whose most militant sect, al-Qaida, is responsible for most of the terroristic acts against the U.S. partly in response to our continued endowment of Israeli aggression against the P.L.O.

Had the original pilots of the planes used in the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon refused to fly with armed Muslims aboard, there would have been no Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. There are apparently many faces of the Muslims who are anti-American, from those who carried out 9/11 to the fire breathing members of al-Qaida who oppose us in the Mideast.

It is impossible to distinguish between Muslims who are anti-American and just waiting for a chance to do us harm, and those who are merely pursuing their religious beliefs in this country. The only way to be sure and safe is to exclude them all. Such action would not constitute bias or racism against a particular nationality just because they may be different from us, or the condemnation of a specific religion because it differs from our beliefs but the action is necessary to create conditions in which it is safe to live without a constant fear of terrorism.

The enemy is within us or waiting to come in, not in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan where we have squandered trillions of dollars (which make up a sizable percentage of our 14 trillions of dollar-plus federal deficit) and thousands of American lives.

To sum it up, we have to get out of the Mideast and get the Muslims out of the U.S.

Fish in a barrel in my state. Fish in a barrel.

RC and Moon Pie
May 5, 2011

At least this one isn't upfront racist like the ones I usually find in my neck of the woods.

From the Tifton Gazette:


TIFTON — In an era of mistrust by many Americans in the federal government, Congress must pass a constitutional amendment requiring a non-partisan primary election for the local, state and federal governments. The candidates with the most votes — Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Libertarian — would run against each other in the general election. The winner candidate must be elected with 50 percent of the popular vote.

The recommended amendment will weaken the Democratic and Republican parties, but in doing it, the foundation of the American democracy will be strengthened. After all, for over 60 years Republicans and Democrats have controlled Congress and the presidency and provided a very weak government.

Today's national debt is a perfect example. The amendment would result in more Independents and Libertarians elected to the local, state and federal governments. Independents and Libertarians would surely place allegiance to America first and loyalty to the principles of a political party second.

RC and Moon Pie
May 5, 2011

Bruce Leroy posted:

I've read my local newspaper for years and one of my favorite sections is always the "letters to the editor" section, simply for the sheer stupidity and insanity expressed in the letters.

I recently started going online to the paper's website, where you can actually comment on the letters that have been printed. Interestingly, most of the comments on the website are quite intelligent, sane, and insightful critiques of the printed bullshit.

So, does this mean that the newspaper's editorial staff just sucks, that most of the people writing to the newspaper (you can submit the letters via email, too) looking to have their letters printed are stupid and crazy, or that there is some kind of age divide between the reactionaries that write to the paper and the younger, more sensible people that comment on the paper's website?

It may be because of where I'm from, but I've never run into an intelligent online newspaper audience. THIS is the talkback section of the Athens Banner-Herald. It's a universe where the letters (which are on the paper's actual website) are more sane than the comments. That stated, in Athens if it isn't associated with directly UGA or directly with the Banner-Herald, there is a 95% chance it's insane.

As far as the printing of letters, it depends on the paper you have, really. Some editors get their jollies with insanity. Some do it for readership, to try to get responses. A few do it to try to say their views are balanced.

RC and Moon Pie
May 5, 2011

Ned posted:

Do you post on there? I do as Ned, obviously, and let me tell you that I am so happy I have moved half way across the world from those idiots.

No, I don't bother with it. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is the only paper where I post comments.

Even with the idiots and Paul Broun, it's still more liberal than the south Georgia podunk where I'm from.

RC and Moon Pie
May 5, 2011

I haven't picked on the Gainesville Times lately. Their letters to the editor are absolutely gold.


Look for Obama to take on gun control if he wins second term

Believing that something won't happen, doesn't mean it won't. Many people think that despite the many negative factors that exist, President Barack Obama will barely cross the next presidential election finish line as victor.

Should that happen, among the many facets of his new term will be additional gun control regulations. The facts bear out that a second-term Obama administration will most definitely not be citizen friendly to the Second Amendment.

In 1996, then-Illinois State Sen. Obama answered a gun control questionnaire. He wrote that he supported a complete ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.

In 1998, he expressed his support for a complete ban on the sale or transfer of all semi-automatic firearms. He supported Illinois law that bans concealed carry permits.

In 1999, Obama endorsed a 500 percent increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition. This was obviously intended to increase the price of gun ownership so drastically as to make it unaffordable for most Americans. Also in 1999, he supported a proposal to ban gun stores within five miles of a school or park. This was a reasonable-sounding scheme that would have had the effect of banning nearly every gun store in America.

In 2000, Obama voted against allowing citizens to violate local weapon bans where self-defense was involved. In 2005, he voted in the U.S. Senate to ban nearly all rifle ammunition in common civilian use.

The point: President Obama's anti-freedom inclinations have not abated. He has merely put them aside temporarily in the pursuit of larger progressive goals. Just because gun control has not had the kind of exposure enjoyed by ObamaCare does not mean it is not part of his agenda.

How will he do it? A second Obama term will involve greater restrictive laws for private citizens' gun ownership. According to the Huffington Post, the Department of Justice has been meeting to plan options for enacting gun controls by bypassing the legislative process though executive orders or regulation making by federal bureaucrats.

Obama will use his appointed, unaccountable czars, who will make up the rules as they go. And he will use the imperial courts. By appointing the right kind of judges or jurisdiction shopping, predictable rulings are easy to obtain. Whatever mischief bureaucrats aren't able to secure often can be accomplished through liberal activist judges.

Even if lower court decisions are eventually and inevitably overturned, the process takes years, and any rulings adverse to Obama's desires usually can be safely ignored.

Remember, you heard it here: Unburdened with the necessity of a second campaign, President Obama will almost certainly go for broke on every item on his progressive wish list. Gun control has always been near the very top of every progressives' wish list, and he is nothing if not a good progressive. The Second Amendment is in great peril.

If that's not enough, a follow-up from another reader:


In response to Dr. Tom Smiley's letter about President Barack Obama and guns, I have to make a few comments.
Dr. Smiley's comments are factual and accurate and unfortunately incomplete. I suppose space was limited in what could be published.

His czars have already made changes that will have a direct impact on private firearms use and ownership. The brass, for example, from once-fired rounds at Fort Benning have been sold on contract to a company to be reused as reloaded ammunition for the general public. Not any more. As soon as this contract is over, a million rounds a year will be ground into powder instead.

Lead, the main component of bullets from the beginning, is being held out as a problem. Finally, the truth has surfaced that the studies that were being used to prove issues around lead "poisoning" crows and other scavenger birds were made up. Shooting clubs in coastal areas have been shut down with the argument the lead is "leaching" into the water and soil. Sorry, but in a base environment (as opposed to acidic) lead won't leach. Science doesn't matter anymore.

There is a plan in the United Nations that isn't getting any press: a worldwide treaty against private citizens owning firearms. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is deeply involved in this. The plan is to bring the treaty to the U.S. and have it ratified by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The only hope then is that the Supreme Court would rule that the Senate cannot agree to a treaty that goes against the Constitution, but that could be a coin toss.

Voting does matter. Unfortunately, informing the public is near impossible. I appreciate Dr. Smiley making his points and I hope he keeps it up.

RC and Moon Pie
May 5, 2011

I was on the lookout for a negative letter or column about Martin Luther King, Jr. Whenever I'm looking for insanity or right-wing mumbo-jumbo, I always check the Gainesville (Ga.) Times first. It never disappoints.

Some racist rear end in a top hat from Flowery Branch posted:

Celebrations of historic birthdays don’t match up

This month we observe the birthday of two famous American men. Since it is no longer politically correct to study truth in history, it is only fair and honest for someone to make a comparison of the two individuals in question. I will make a description and you decide the identity of these two men.

Famous American No. 1 has a national holiday named for him. He is famous for disobedience, disorder and civil unrest. This individual has a record of plagiarizing his doctoral thesis. His credentials for earning his advanced degree were called into question. He was a known womanizer. This information was confirmed by one of his own buddies, the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy, in the book "And the Walls Came Tumbling Down."

This man was a socialist by his own admission. At least three of his high-ranking advisers were Communists (Bayard Rustin, Stanley David Levison and Hunter Pitts O'Dell). Prior to his death he was dabbling in the anti-war movement along with the likes of Jane Fonda.

For those of you who at this point know whom I am talking about and are screaming outrageous about these comments, let me ask you a question: Why did a federal judge seal this man's FBI record for 50 years? Fifteen file cabinets of documents out of public view for 50 years. I doubt the information contained in these files will ever see the light of day. Were his records sealed because of his sterling character? I don't think so.

Let's look at famous American No. 2. This individual is hardly recognized, seldom studied in government schools, yet he completed his studies at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point without so much as one demerit. He is the only cadet to have accomplished this remarkable feat. Surprisingly, to the good credit of the Academy they still tout this American as one of their finest.

This individual has no record of an attack on his character and integrity by either friend or foe. Today military experts still study his leadership of troops in the armies of two nations. This man was an unsurpassed military officer, exception educator and a gentleman of the highest degree. He has been praised and honored by such notables as President Dwight Eisenhower and Sir Winston Churchill.

It is sad that history has pushed American No. 1 to the forefront and American No. 2 is mostly forgotten. I long for the day, if it ever happens, when we can once again have truth in history.

In case you're wondering who this totally ignored individual is, it's Robert E. Lee. We have a loving state holiday for him, too.

RC and Moon Pie
May 5, 2011

I had been surprised by the lack of reaction in my very southern section of the world, but someone linked to this on Facebook (and not to poke fun at it) and we have a lovely cornucopia of misinformation and DURN LIBERALS.


President Obama will live in infamy.

On Wednesday, he used the bully pulpit of the presidency to declare his support for gay marriage. With a smile, he flipped off the God he professes to follow and thumbed his nose at our Christian forefathers who sacrificed their lives to establish the country over which he presides.

He has made a mockery of our God-fearing presidents like Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Lincoln, who agreed with President John Adams that our Constitution “is meant for a wholly and religious people and is inadequate to govern any other.”

By perverting God’s institution of marriage, President Obama pounded the final nail in the coffin of our forefathers’ American dream to function as “one nation under God.”

Mr. Obama follows in the long line of secular progressives, who have methodically executed their century-long assault on God, attempting to remove Him as the author of America’s moral code and “unalienable rights.”

Our president and his fellow progressives have plotted to transform America into “one nation under man,” choosing government over God as their provider, man’s knowledge and science over God’s wisdom, and the pursuit of comfort over character.

They have abandoned America’s pledge to seek “justice for all” and replaced it with the childish notion of “fairness for all.” What grown-up believes that life is fair?

One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and former president of Princeton University, John Witherspoon said it best: “Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not, to call him an enemy of his country.” President Obama is just such an enemy.



Yeah. What grown-up believes that life is fair?


RC and Moon Pie
May 5, 2011

cafel posted:

Wow, that starts off pretty poo poo and then somehow manages to get worse.

'Don't worry guys, only 1 in 9 British soldiers died, the rest quite enjoyed it. The western front was basically a picnic.'

"I adore war. It is like a big picnic but without the objectivelessness of a picnic. I have never been more well or more happy." - Julian Grenfell (1888-1915); Grenfell's brother was also killed in action, two months later.

If anyone needs a primer in just how the upper class could play off whatever they want, Catherine Bailey's The Secret Rooms. Though he initially protested, Violet Rutland went up through the ranks to keep her boy out of the front lines. Because she knew them all. And solely because was the last heir to a dukedom and like hell she was going to lose that.

Siegfried Sassoon also had things fixed up for him. Robert Graves, who was just upper class enough to be put in the officers' pool, helped to get a medical board fixed so Sassoon wouldn't be court-martialed, which sometimes carried the death penalty. Graves was still suffering the effects of shellshock when he published Good-Bye to All That in 1929.

  • Locked thread