Misinformed voters are the real danger

Posted by veneratio (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Seems Amanda Lester is guilty of the same hypocrisy of which she is preaching about here, just reading her letter is obvious that she would never consider a different view point other than the mainstream news organizations. As pointed out in her very opinionated view of WorldNetDaily. I am curious as to what virus warnings of which she speaks, as at my work we have dozens of workers who visit that site and there has never been malware or virii from that site, otherwise I would have blocked the site.

Obviously Amanda is also ignorant of the life and views of John Adams and other Founding Fathers. Not only do their memoirs give a clue in to their daily life beliefs so does the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.

I am curious to know if Amanda would label our Founding Fathers as Rightwing lunatics if they were to exist today? I find it sad and troubling today that people who have the conviction of upholding the Constitution of the United States is somehow labeled a racist or rightwing nut.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 5:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am glad that people are using their opinions to scare others and to call people names.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here you go again, saying that your opinion is the only one that defends the Constitution. That tired old argument is played out and just wrong. I love this country just as much as you or anyone.

Posted by allake (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would agree the misinformed voters are a problem. Ms. Lester is misinformed if she thinks this is a tool used only by the far right.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Funny thing Ms. Lester never took on the task that the white house has refused to do. She could not explain how these people could say what they have said and believe what they believe. Why because they say it in their own words.

So what do they do? They attack the messanger and my bet is you will see them attack the messanger now. Just use their words. Everyone listed in the letter attacked by Ms. Lester has a radical socialist marxist past and ideas. This is an issue. Do your own search. Just type in their names and listen to their words. It will be clear but again it is much easier to attack the messanger than to attack the facts.

Posted by Culture_Warrior (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Or an electorate who believes every piece of propaganda that their unions hand out to them.

Posted by bornFree (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think LEFTYS and Amanda are married, they both read like left wing buddies.

Posted by Pierre (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

WOW! What a refreshing letter to the ed! Thank You Amanda.

Posted by MissIndependent (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I posted this on another story but this is why I have such a dislike for politics.

Each President we have had probably or has had ties to people we think are questionable. I'll be the first to raise my hand and say that I have a strong dislike for Karl Rove. I will also raise my hand and express concerns around some of Obama's associates. I will freely admit I was not happy with the appointment of Sotomayor, for example, due to how she ruled in the firefighter case.

But my point is that it goes both ways and of course depends on what your "hot buttons" are or what side of the political fence you are on.

I will also remind all of you that it isn't always guilt by association. How many of us have friends and/or family members that have engaged in activities or behaviors that we don't approve of? Would we be want to be judged just because we know them, love them and care about them? It doesn't necessarily mean we share their values or agree with all of their behavior just because we have a relationship with them.

Same can apply here.

Posted by jcorey2 (Jeremy Corey-Gruenes) on November 1, 2009 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Great letter. Voters from all parties should do their best to be well-informed. I like Amanda's thoughts on the difference between historical speculation and fact in her closing as well.

Posted by veneratio (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A misinformed voter I can deal with, it those who blindly follow their beloved leader / party with-out question, are the ones that are dangerous.

Always question authority and govt.

Posted by bornFree (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

veneratio, I agree with you when you said this "Always question authority and govt." It's beginning to look like Obama doesn't what the conservatives or for that matter indpendents to question his "change" for this country.

Posted by ErnieGann (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Missindependent "I will also remind all of you that it isn't always guilt by association. How many of us have friends and/or family members that have engaged in activities or behaviors that we don't approve of?"

The issue here is not relatives, or friends. We may very well care about friends and relatives--but that doesn't mean that we would put them in positions of authority as this President has.

Obama campaigned as a centrist, but he has since shown his far-left connections. Saul Alinsky, William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Revs. Wright and Phleger, and the host of embarrassing "Czars" are as far-left as you can get. Can anybody show anybody connected to Obama from the RIGHT? Even CENTER?

Finally, put away the personalities, and look at Obama's actions. Nationalizing banks, insurance companies, car companies, government bailouts, cash for clunkers, huge stimulus bills, proposed cap & trade taxes, increased government regulation, eliminating secret elections, using the White House to propose National Endowment of the Arts art projects to glorify him, and using the same pulpit to attack anyone that dares criticize him shows the man to be a far-leftist.

A man may be known by the company he keeps, but in this case--Obama has shown who he really is--IF PEOPLE PAY ATTENTION--and misinformed (or apathetic) voters ARE the real problem.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ernie,

Had to borrower you line from another post.

"Facts are to liberals as Kryptonite is to Superman."

Love it just love it

Posted by MissIndependent (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was an informed voter and voted for Obama versus McCain - mainly because when I looked at all of the candidates, I thought he was the most centrist and McCain picked Palin as a running mate. If he had picked Pawlenty, I may have changed my mind. I actually was a big Dean Barkley supporter so this past election was very disappointing to me.

I consider Joe Biden fairly moderate. Yes, he is liberal but not as extreme as others. And if I recall correctly, Obama received an endorsement from one Republican named Colin Powell.

NoDFL - Can you dispute the fact that the deficit issues started when Bush was in office? That Hussein, while a terrible person, had nothing to do with 9-11 attacks (interestingly Hussein and Bin Laden hated each other)? Or that he was in office when the first round of bailouts occurred? I can take that same quote and replace "liberal" with "conservative" as well.

Having said ALL of that, I am disappointed. Disappointed that someone who was supposed to be centrist is continuing bailouts, pushing through a health care reform agenda that we can't afford and doesn't seem to be too concerned or decisive on the war in Afghanastan. I am not ready to give up or write him off yet but I will be taking a good, hard look at all of this come next election.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MissIndependent,

If you look at post I was against the bailouts under Bush. I thought them wrong then and still do. Nothing has changed that. I was very happy when the house first voted them down even with my retirement taking a huge hit.

I am wondering what information you used to think Obama was a centrist? His words and his voting record had showed he was left of Stalin. Obama is doing just what he said he would do. Read his books. He lays it out. Listen to what he said to Joe the Plumber. He was not hiding his ideas and his plans. Look at who he has in his White House. Their words and action match his and they are way far left. McCain was more independent than Obama or Biden. Speaking of old Joe he is (was) the most bias liberal person that Obama could have choosen. Biden wanted to cut off funding to the troops and run (not walk) away from of soliders in Iraq. McCain's problem was he was too liberal. He had to pick Palin and it was the right choice for the time. The American people wanted to look to the world as a people who had changed. They wanted to show how smart and open they were so they did not listen to Obama's, or Joe's words. They refused to look at his votes and action. Now we are getting what he said he would do.

Now the action in Iraq may have been a mistake but remember Clinton said there was weapons, the UN said there was weapons. Also the French and German's were making big money off the oil for food scam. They had a real reason to not have a war there. Also remember all but 1 voted to go to war. If it was a wrong war than Congress should have taken a stand. They supported it until they could make political hay out of it.

Once we were there we had to unite and do everthing that was needed to win the war. While Bush made a lot of mistakes he did do something right. He listen to the guys on the ground and when they said send more he did. He did take his time yes and I would say it would be a very hard decision to make but he did what was right. He saved lives. Now Obama who ran on saying Afghanastan was the real war and we had to win is now playing politics with it. I have family there right now. I can tell you the men on the ground have no respect for Obama. They don't trust him. They are waiting for their Tet moment so that Obama can cut and run. It will happen if he refuses to listen to the guys who are fighting and dieing for us.

Colin Powell was (is) pissed at Bush because he chose not to listen to him. Maybe he should have. Powell was the man who first brought the wmds to the attention of the American people. He may have had a change of heart but to say his endorsement means something to the average American is like saying Howard Dean means anything.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

2nd part

You have a right to be disappointed but wasting time talking about things that can not be changed does no good. Obama's health care is going to ruin this country. Many people have started going over the bill. You can not keep your doctor. You must get insurance or pay a fine. There are death pannels. There are huge cuts to Medicare. There is still government funded abortion. It will cost TRILLIONS of dollars and it still will not insure everyone. Illegals will still get health care and it will be paid for us. It will destroy the middle class and increase taxes. It will cost us jobs (Why do you think they keep talking about 10%+ unemployment that will be around for a long time). All you have to do is look to France and G.B.

You need to take your good hard look now. You talk about health care and bail outs. If you don't take a stand now it will be to late. But again each of us will make up our own minds just use facts when you do it. Remember the media is not your friend..... Van Jones or Acorn need I say more.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Boy I would hate it if these facts were because of miss informed government officals. Just shows can't trust them.

http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/...

The AP reviewed a sample of federal contracts, not all 9,000 reported to date, and discovered errors in one in six jobs credited to the $787 billion stimulus program -- or 5,000 of the 30,000 jobs claimed so far.

Even in its limited review, the AP found job counts that were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of paid positions; jobs credited to the stimulus program that were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs that were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.

For example:

-- Some recipients of stimulus money used the cash to give existing employees pay raises, but each reported saving dozens of jobs with the money, including one Florida day care that claimed 129 jobs saved.

-- A Texas contractor whose business kept 22 employees to handle stimulus contracts saw its job count inflated to 88 because the same workers were counted four times.

-- The water department in Palm Beach County, Fla., hired 57 meter readers, customer service representatives and other positions to handle two water projects. But their total job count was incorrectly doubled to 114.

Those errors were included in an early progress report on the stimulus released two weeks ago that featured numerous mistakes, including a Colorado business' claim that its stimulus contract created more than 4,200 jobs. TeleTech Government Solutions actually hired 4,231 temporary workers for its stimulus project, but most of them worked for five weeks or less and the others no more than five months, company president Mariano Tan said.

The short-term positions should have been reported as 635 full-time, 40-hour-a-week jobs under the government's method of calculating stimulus work, Tan said.

Posted by carrillomark1 (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

B Obama promised transparency. Instead he gives us the Czar state. People appointed to the executive branch of the government with no oversight from the Democrat super majority congress, What is up with that? The only reason for not having the members of his administration (Czars) vetted, is that he was not willing to disclose their past. There is, after all, no way that whomever he nominated, would indeed be approved. No, this is a President filled with hubris and not considerate of the people who put him in office. MRC

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama's health care is going to ruin this country......really....you think that it will actually end the country?

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There is a difference between ending and ruining something. You should know that. But yes Obama's health care plan will ruin this once great country. It will cause higher unemployment and will end the middle class as we know it.

Posted by ErnieGann (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

" It will cause higher unemployment and will END THE MIDDLE CLASS as we know it."

Isn't that the goal of Socialists/Communists/Liberals/Progressives--to "make everyone equal" and eliminate "classes"?

Instead of Obamatrauma's "spread the wealth around"--it is "spread the misery around."

Posted by Truthbetold (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It will be exciting to see the major election results on the 3rd of Nov. and hopefully we will see the trend of ejecting the bums who don't care about the country, but just want to push their own agendas, no matter the cost. I'm really looking forward to 2010... we're going to see lots of new Representatives and Senators and the incumbents are booted. Maybe it won't be too late to reverse the disastrous bills that have been passed and might be passed. There's always hope that Americans will see the light and decide this "Change" wasn't the kind of change they really wanted!

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do really like how you guys try to win an arguement by making the other group look bad. Always associating Liberalism with socialism or communism. Very interesting.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Liberalism or as the kids now call it "progressivism" is all about how you define it. The word itself has been hijaked by the left. Under the current use of the word you can call it socialism and when push it is communism. When you read the policy and the words used by you and others it does not match the definition.

Liberalism: an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market. wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

or you could follow this one.

Progressivism: Belief in reforming government to rid it of bureaucracy and corruption, and to improve the quality of a society as a whole. ...
reds.linefeed.org/vocab.html

Posted by MITCHRAPPGUY (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They are doing a good enough job by themselves, most of us are not trying or don't need to make anyone look bad.
There were things that Obama said pre-election that sounded great, but had no chance of becoming reality. It was enough to get him elected though. Too many people bought into the phantom economic theories, and the promises that had no chance of being kept. No wonder they are dissapointed, it was inevitable.

Posted by ErnieGann (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In the early 1900s, those that advocated big government control called themselves "progressives."

The term became meaningless, and they called themselves "Socialists"--still believing that government should be the great leveler of mankind.

The more radical became Communists--believing in the Engels/Marx theory of economic equality and again--central government control. Communism was actually fairly popular in the U.S. in the 1930s.

When Communists tried to seize control of the Minnesota Democrat Farmer Labor party in 1945, Hubert Humphrey threw them out--though the party still showed the far-left influence. Read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Hump...

Since Socialism had developed a negative connotation in the world, leftists became Liberals. That fell out of favor with the failed programs of the Great Society and the feckless foreign policy of Jimmy Carter.

Casting about for another descriptive name, liberals morphed once again--this time taking on their old name, "Progressives."

Any way you look at it, it is the same old failed ideology for the last 100 years--government control and building up the lower classes by destroying the upper classes has been a recipe for disaster wherever it has been tried. It is amazing that so many of our grandparents ran away from Socialism in Europe early in the 1900s--only to watch their grandkids experiment with it again.

Progressive/Socialist/Communist/Liberal/Progressive--it is leftist rubble by any name. You have to wonder what their NEXT incarnation is?

Posted by mankind (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you Amanda for a wonderful letter.

Posted by bornFree (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey mankind, it's a very good letter, IF your a liberal.

I think the last sentence was very interesting. "Rather, the biggest threat to our country is an electorate who believes everything they read online and hear on television." Don't forget the news print, other then that, that's exactly where most people get their info from, I wonder if Amanda has other suggestions?

Posted by cabinman (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

born, how are misinformed voters not a dangerous thing? Are you implying by stating that this letter is for Liberals that Conservatives want misinformed voters and that they are trying to mislead?

Posted by bornFree (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cabinman, when you said "how are misinformed voters not a dangerous thing?" What did you mean? What I was trying to say is people become misinformed by the media or any source of news they might read, how else would people become misinformed in AL?