Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor
In their letter to the Idaho Statesman, a couple from Boise continued the "arguments" against voting for Barack Obama. The couple chastised The Statesman for its endorsement of Obama and said that they would no longer purchase the newspaper.
Their letter is interesting on so many levels to say the least.
First of all, although this is an assumption, I believe that if McCain would have won the election, the couple wouldn't have cancelled its subscription, in spite of who the Statesman endorsed. This begs the question is the couple cancelling its subscription because it thinks that The Statesman's endorsement put Obama over the top? Considering that McCain won Idaho, it seems the couple is giving the paper's endorsement way too much credit.
Another question is does this couple believe in The US Constitution? Obama ran for president in accordance with the laws as stated in The Constitution. Granted, The Constitution doesn't state that it should cost $72 million to run for president, but that's a different issue which needs to be tackled at another time (but soon).
Obama is of age, is an American citizen and is not a felon. Does the couple believe that there should be an amendment to The Constitution which states that people ought not to be allowed to run for president if they don't agree with its opinions? If that's the case, the couple is obviously saying that 52% of Americans who voted in 2008 were wrong, while the rest were right (with the possible exception of those who voted for Ralph Nader, Bob Barr or Cynthia McKinney). I bet that lots of people would say that the 50% of Americans who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 were wrong and the 47% who voted for him in 2000 were wrong.
Is it possible that the couple believes that the 48% who voted for Al Gore in 2000 were wrong and this it's OK for a candidate to win an election while garnishing fewer votes than his or her opponent?
I've written letters to the editor and, although those letters are called opinions, I've attempted to try to squeeze at least one fact into each letter.
However, the couple from Boise, like so many of Obama's detractors, let their opinions speak for any facts.
For example, the couple informs The Statesman that, by endorsing Obama, it "put all that we hold dear at risk."
What the couple appears to "hold dear" is ill advised borrowing. It states that Paul is the only winner when the government "robs Peter to pay Paul."
Not only does the couple not back up the implication that Obama plans to steal money to pay whoever Paul may be in this case, but it describes what The Regime has been doing for eight years.
It would have been easy for the couple to see their misstatement if they only substituted the words "the middle class" for the name "Peter" and the words "the wealthy" or "wealthy corporations" for the name "Paul". See how much better it would have worked out for them?
With no supporting reference, the couple also states that "51% of the electorate" are "on government entitlements paid for by the rest of us" or, using their logic, paid for by 49% of the electorate.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and not use any supporting reference, but I bet if I did use supporting references, I'd find that 49% of the American electorate does not support 51% of the American electorate.
The couple states that Obama's agenda "is not prosperity for those willing to work."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
