nvdaily.com link to home page

Traffic | Weather | Mobile Edition
Archives | Subscribe

Opinion arrow Letters to the Editor

| 0 | 20 Comments

Letter to the Editor: Rebuttal to reader's online comments


Dan Flathers' misstatements published in the Northern Virginia Daily's "Online Comments" column on Friday, Aug. 31, need to be examined carefully.

Flathers states that, "The Anointed One had a unified government his first two years." Just for the record, President Obama had a working (filibuster proof) majority in the Senate for only 25 days during his first two years in office. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was not seated until July 7, 2009. Congress was not in session that August. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) died Aug. 25, 2009.

Furthermore, Flathers states that President Obama's stimulus was a trillion dollars. The stimulus (otherwise known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) authorized only $787 billion. Quibble you say? Not so.

Obama's stimulus package was designed to solve a problem which everyone at the time thought was best measured by the fourth quarter 2008 negative Gross Domestic Product of 3.8 percent. That was the Bureau of Labor Statistics's initial estimate released on January 27, 2009, just seven days after Obama's inauguration.

The economy was in free-fall - in the 31 days between Dec. 12, 2008, and Jan. 12, 2009, we lost another 818,000 jobs. President Obama quickly did something. He got the best deal he could on his stimulus package and signed it into law on Feb. 18, 2009. Nine days later the Board of Labor Statistics revised its fourth quarter 2008 GDP estimate to a negative 6.2 percent. The final figure eventually turned out to be a whopping negative 8.9 percent. So the stimulus package of less than $800 billion which was designed to solve a relatively small problem, was entirely inadequate. The stimulus, which Flathers says was too large, should in fact have been much larger.

According to the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research - the official arbiter of U.S. recession - the "Great Recession" began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009. George Bush did nothing to solve the problem and it continued unabated for the last 12 months of his term. Obama inherited the mess with his inauguration on January 20 and in less than six months the recession was over. All be it slowly, we have been digging ourselves out of a very deep hole ever since.

And for those of you who continue to advocate austerity, just look at what austerity has done for Greece and Spain.

Waller H. Wilson, Front Royal


20 Comments



Thanks for a fact based response to a letter than had few and the ones it did have were as you pointed out wrong.

Silly Ronbo: Wilson was not responding "to a letter" but to an online comment.

A rebuttal with actual fact is forthcoming -- should the editor publish it.

DF; Will your 'actual fact' response have musical accompaniment for melodramatic effect? May I suggest you bring out your well worn Kazoo?

ROFLMAO

A fact based response from you? Really? LMAO.

Assuming that you actually understand the meaning of the word melodramatic, you'd realize that I can't possibly compete in using the devise with the Fellow Travelers of this forum -- yourself included.

This coming from someone who apparently meant device but said devise. ROTFLMAO

Thank you, Mr. Wilson, for setting the record straight and giving us all the actual facts!

For the readers here who would like to know a little more about President Obama, i.e., his life, policies, religion, etc., you may wish to look at this site. They do a fairly reliable job of documenting information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Did you just put "reliable" and "wikipedia" together in one thread? Really???

Good Morning, Sword. Agree, that one can find info which is not absolute in Wikipedia, thus my description of "fairly reliable" job. It does give one a good starting point and I couldn't find anything wrong with the site I referenced; can you?

To prove your point, someone had edited Mitt Romney's page stating that Romney had picked the horse they had in the Olympics as his running mate. If has since been corrected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

I believe the people running Wikipedia will be extremely mindful of what is posted about these two men at this juncture. Wikipedia is a source used by many; and, if it proves to be unreliable, people will stop accessing it. But for the present it does a fairly reliable job.

Sword, I was going to quote what Jane had said in her first comment, "fairly reliable job" as regards Wikipedia's reliability but she got to reply to you before I was able to. I also am going to include a link for an interesting article in April 2011 on research on Wikipedia's reliability from Science Daily in which they say:

" Now a peer-reviewed study by Brigham Young University political scientist Adam Brown validates Wikipedia as a reliable place to get a political education".

And also: "Like all encyclopedias Wikipedia should be used to get a general idea about a subject and then direct users to further sources. Most of all, Brown's study gives confidence that people can start getting more involved in politics by starting with Wikipedia.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110414131855.htm

Science Daily is called an American news website for topical science articles and they pride themselves on calling themselves "your source for the latest research news".

Jane, when you read articles at Wikipedia, you might take a look at the history of the nicknames of those writing and editing. For the Obama article, for instance, there are people like "Goingbatty," "IJethRobot," and "BigDwiki." Democrats lost me the minute half of them booed God, not once but thrice. The rest is irrelevant from my perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=history

That there is the "my religion is the right and only religion that should be" perspective. I was raised Pentecostal and after experiencing a few others chose Baptist for my children, but had I been there, I probably would have booed too.

The USA is a beautiful place. Part of what makes it so beautiful is that like a bouquet of wildflowers, we are all so different. One of our most respected rights is the freedom of religion. Not the freedom of religions believing in God. Just the freedom of religion. There might be alot more green in the bouquet (Christianity and others that worship God) but there is also the yellow (Buddhists), the orange (Hindus), the pinks (Sikhs), even reds (atheists), on and on. The platform recognized faith, whatever faith that may be or lack there of. Which in America where a basic foundation if freedom of religion that should have been enough. But leave it up to the "my religion is the only religion that should be" crowd to show the usual intolerance that they demand and try to use law to garner from others.

Specifically reiterating the United States support for Israel is pointless when you consider just how much we have. Its like going outside and saying "hey, the grass is green, the sky is blue". That's another argument for another day, but I'd bet if the "promise land" was supposed to be in say France, then Israel would just be another country for the US to invade.

Either way, "I" believe they were intentionally left out, so Obama could have his demand that they be put back in after the uproar with the RNC platform and Romney's proclamation that he has no control. That would be classic politics...but again my 2 cents.

I have said this before and I will say this again:

With or without religion you have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.

Before the last election, the Tea Party Tin Foil Hats said government, at all levels, was broken. Now that some of them got elected, they are hard at work proving it. At the local level, they provide no honest debate; they only repeat Big Brother's propaganda, sometimes at the top of their lungs. Their mantra is obliviously hard-headed. The proof of this is their opinions, such as those posted by some of the "regulars" here on the NVD comments page remain locked-in to the one perspective espoused by the far right evangelical fundamentalists who comprised the bulk of the Tea Party membership. Perhaps use of the term 'bulk' is being far too generous. Tea Party membership is less than .001 percent (one person out of a thousand) of the U.S. population. What they lack in sheer numbers they compensate with volume; the loudest voices in the room remain proud of their Tin Foil hats, but they are Republicans in name only.

The far-right radical Tea Party harbors anger, disrespect, contempt, and deep animosity towards people of color, and especially President Obama. Men and women drawn to this Tea Party movement appear to have previously belonged to a broad range of fringe right-wing groups, such as militias, white supremacy groups, pro-gun, and confederacy “armies." Some of these groups advocate violence, secession, or vow to abolish or overthrow our government.

Tea Party radicals cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them, especially towards soldiers serving our country who happen to be different than the average Tea Party radical. What is the root cause of their contempt towards folks facing death for lack of health care? When did evangelical fundamentalism begin to endorse death squads?

America needs a rally — or, better still, a leader or two or three — to restore not just honor or sanity to its citizens but governance that’s not auctioned off to the highest bidder.

Everybody now knows the far right evangelical fundamentalists, formerly known as the Moral Majority, are now calling themselves the Tea Party. Bible thumping, god fearing, all white, senior citizens are easily bamboozled by like minded politicians of the Republican Party who saw the light while the worlds dumbest evangelical Jerry Falwell was still alive. Now comes Flat Earth Pat Roberson, or any one of a dozen or so other television based preachers, claiming his god speaks to him, and apparently no one else, about a future America filled with fire and brimstone if we don't do as he says.

We should always be cautious when someone claims to have powers impossible for others to possess. Blinkered Tea Party fanatics have this special tunnel vision focused on magical men with beards living in the sky who grant wishes... if you don't ask too many questions. A scientific education is dangerous to belief in magic. Ask Galileo.

Religion poisons everything.

With all due respect adieB, TURN OFF FOX.

The Democrats did not "boo" God. They "booed" the deliberate dismissal of their voting rights as members of the delegation. When asked to verbally confirm the motion to reinsert "God" into the party platform, the ayes and nays were almost equal in their voracity. Almost immediately, he tried to say that the vote was confirmed...which it wasn't, because it required 2/3 of the vote (which they clearly didn't get). He then requested a revote, and again the ayes and nays were almost indistinguishable in which was louder. Again, he nearly "confirmed" the vote (to which the delegation began to heckle him), before requesting a third vote. The third time the result was the same, only this time he went ahead with his confirmation, which was CLEARLY not affirmed by 2/3rds, and THEN he got booed.

Fox News and the right wing media blatently framed the entire incident as an angry mob "booing" God, which wasn't the case at all. It is similar in nature to the complete demonizing of the President's "You didn't build that" speech. Had the entire speech been played (rather than just the offending line) so that the line would have been heard in context, you would have recognized that the President's speech was a correct statement, and one that the vast majority (including Mitt Romney) agrees with.

playnotwork, Thank you for explaining this to her. I responded but forgot that I couldn't add more that two websites so my post went for review.

adieB

I learned these as a child in Calvary Baptist Church; do you know them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNsEnWZC1mY&feature=related

Thank you for setting the record straight so well, playnotwork. Of course, Fox and the rest of the right-wing crowd were going to jump on that incident at the convention and misrepresent it as they did with the President's speech as you pointed out and as they tried to exploit.

I just don't understand some people: I have a very strong, unwavering belief in God/Christ and my belief is not threatened in the least when Nativity scenes are not allowed at courthouses, public school prayer is not permitted at school, some people at a political convention do not think putting the word God into a party platform is necessary and my belief is not threatened by those who profess a non-belief in God. It is my opinion that people who do feel threatened by such things----or by anyone or anything professing anything different----- perhaps needs to work on strengthening their own beliefs.

We have a very diverse country and are fortunate in this country to have the right to believe whatever we want---or not believe something. In spite of those who are trying their best to re-interpret the Constitution, there IS the separation of church and state in it. Our government is not a theocracy.

Well said song98. Even if some of the Democrats had booed God, what difference would that have made to Him or to anyone's faith or lake of faith in Him or Her for that matter? None! Whether you believe in God or not, booing God has no consequence to God. My posturing about the booing is just that, posturing. nothing more,

Good read, song98. Unfortunately, too many decisions are made because people just do not understand what is going on as indicated by playnotwork's comment. Sad.

Maybe there would not be the constant state of apprehension in the U.S. if its citizens would learn to fact check the info they hear instead of repeating their news source be it conservative or liberal.

Although this has been posted before, it was never more true than today.

"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." ~ Mark Twain

Fact checking is so easy and takes minimal time.



Leave a comment

What do you think?

(You may use HTML tags for style)

Comments

Comments that are posted on nvdaily.com represent the opinion of the commenter and not the Northern Virginia Daily/nvdaily.com. If you feel that a comment is objectionable, please click on the Report Abuse link above. We will review the reported comment and make a decision on deleting it if we feel that it contains inappropriate content.











top-jobs-logo.jpg



Opinion Sections

Carolyn Long Editorial Cartoons Editorials Jules Witcover Leonard Pitts Jr. Letters to the Editor Linda Ash Mary Sanchez Paul Greenberg Reader Commentary






News | Sports | Business | Lifestyle | Obituaries | Opinion | Multimedia| Entertainment | Homes | Classifieds
Contact Us | NIE | Place a Classified | Privacy Policy | Subscribe

Copyright © The Northern Virginia Daily | nvdaily.com | 152 N. Holliday St., Strasburg, Va. 22657 | (800) 296-5137

nvdaily.com
Best Small Daily Newspaper in Virginia!


nvdaily.com | seeshenandoah.com