Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Our real origins

August 8, 2013

Thank you, Mr. Phillip Miller of Montandon. You just confirmed that it was liberals and socialist who made the nation now known as the United States of America....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(42)

CaymanJim

Aug-08-13 2:17 AM

Actually, the 18th century was 1701-1801.

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Aug-08-13 3:03 AM

Reeder, once again making a fool of himself!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

14 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GoBB62

Aug-08-13 4:57 AM

With no facts to back up their claims, this just another case of 2 liberals agreeing with each other.

Chalk up another yawner for chuck.

10 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Aug-08-13 5:28 AM

I'd like to quote Chuck, "This is a stupid letter".

Thank you.

15 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CitizenX

Aug-08-13 6:06 AM

Typical. Reeder trying to make himself look like "somebody" by belittling someone else, but succeeding only in once again proving himself a very small man.

15 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

Aug-08-13 6:09 AM

Sorry Jim - 1801 was the start of the 19th century. The 18th century was in fact 1701 - 1800. Perhaps for the first time on these pages, Chuck Reeder included a fact in a letter that was true and provable.

But beyond that, the rest was incoherent babble. Was Chuck saying that Liberals and Socialists (but I repeat myself) founded this country? Seems to me that it was revolt against the imperialism of the British monarchy that spurred the founding of this country.

Sorry - I was trying to make sense of something Chuck wrote.

11 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Aug-08-13 6:09 AM

"Notice me! Notice me!" —Charles M. Reeder

Happy?

14 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Aug-08-13 6:15 AM

I've been to places where the local paper has a "sound off" page once a week that they use for people to right in just about anything and they really are funny to read most times. They used the "letters to the editors" section for real thought out submissions that addressed real issues. When I read letters such as this I wonder why the Sun Gazette doesn't do the same thing. It smacks of playground banter of nah nah-nah nah-nah nah.

13 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Aug-08-13 6:53 AM

Mother taught you well; use please and thank-you, twice even.

Liberalism and socialism taken to excess are a millstone around the necks of the people.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sideliner

Aug-08-13 8:14 AM

Texas, I must agree that anything taken in excess can be a millstone around all of our necks.

And on the other end of the spectrum, it appears that the Hard Right is taking control of the Republican party rather than going more toward the middle where most of us live. If the RNC pushes Rand Paul, rather than a candidate with a broader appeal, for a run against Hillary in '16, Republicans can again look for a loss.

I don't understand the extremes on either side of the aisle. It is destructive, divisive, and a recipe for the gridlock we are experiencing now in Congress. Somewhere we have to meet in the middle or somewhere close to it if we expect to see any progress at all.

6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

Aug-08-13 8:48 AM

To a degree sideliner, I agree with you. The problem is that the 'middle' keeps moving farther 'left.

btw, this letter from Chuck is one gigantic brain f a r t.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johnnyad3

Aug-08-13 8:55 AM

Side-With gerrymandering coupled with the way our primaries are run, I see it only getting more polarized. Romney had to pander to the extreme right base to get the nod but then he had to try to come towards the middle for the general election. He said too many things in the primaries and didn't have enough time to soften those remarks in order to draw the independents to him after the primaries.

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Aug-08-13 9:01 AM

As Chuck noted, this country was founded in 1776. Even the term socialism was not coined until 1827. Socialism in its present form was not theorized until the 1840s. The first country founded on modern socialism/communism was in 1917. He's right about liberalism, but is was the exact opposite of modern liberalism. As in everything else they do the left took a word with positive meaning and used it to advance their unpopular ideas. Just like they've done with the word 'choice'. People didn't like abortion, so they called it choice. People didn't like socialism so they called it liberalism. Bottom line; no Chuck, this country wasn't founded on your beliefs, it was founded on individual freedom and that means as little government as possible. Thomas Jefferson said, "That government is best which governs least."

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

Aug-08-13 10:02 AM

He's right about liberalism, but is was the exact opposite of modern liberalism. As in everything else they do the left took a word with positive meaning and used it to advance their unpopular ideas.

There are a couple great Milton Friedman lectures in You Tube that talk about that exact habit of today's Liberals. In fact, you can learn more in an hour of listening to Milton Friedman than you will learn in a year of public school.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

Aug-08-13 10:03 AM

Steeler - btw, this letter from Chuck is one gigantic brain f a r t.

I was thinking about the old adage involving monkeys and typewriters, myself.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mahs81

Aug-08-13 10:17 AM

This makes print ... hmmm... oh I see, slow letter day at the Sun-Gazette. Now I understand why it was printed.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Aug-08-13 11:57 AM

Sideliner, what are some of the positions of the "Hard Right" with which you disagree? Who, if any, of the current Congress do you consider obviously "Hard Right"?

Enjoy your day.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KrazyK

Aug-08-13 12:45 PM

Mr. Reeder's devout liberalism shows in his letters and he tries to confirm his liberal talking points. His letters are no different than devout conservatives who attempt to do the same with their talking points. The difference in this forum is the number of conservatives greatly outweigh the number of liberals; so Reeder takes a beating. Just because all the conservatives pat each other on the back and agree with each other doesn't make their points any more valid.

6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Aug-08-13 1:07 PM

KrazyK, Finally, a liberal comes to the defense of poor Chuck. He offers no backup, but at least some defense. Good for you. All of the other liberals are too scared to defend such outright foolishness and lies. Krazy calls it talking points. I'm not sure that would pass muster, but hey,why not run it up the old flag pole? Krazy says that being in the majority doesn't make you right. He's right, but maybe he should tell that to the Obama voters.

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Aug-08-13 1:14 PM

KrazyK I would have to disagree. While Reeder's views are extremely hard left with no cushion for intelligent debate or conversation, many others on here tow closer to center. Yes there are those that are also far right, but you can pick out the extremes on both sides and I just choose to ignore them. Reeder's problem is most times he doesn't put much thought or fact in what he writes or comments on and most times they come off with the "I know you are, but what am I" mentality.

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Aug-08-13 2:05 PM

"When I read letters such as this I wonder why the Sun Gazette doesn't do the same thing. It smacks of playground banter of nah nah-nah nah-nah nah." - Capricorn1

*

Ya' gotta figure...our local T-Baggers are much-the-same as the others, nationwide...NASCAR-fans, who'd just-recently "discovered" politics..."coincidentally", right after we'd elected the first Black-President. They're not the most-sophisticated folks...when it comes to politics...but, they're trying.

By the time we elect our first Hispanic-President...right after Hillary's eight-years...they just might have the process figured-out. It should be pretty-amusing, watching them trashing the new-minorities (then); themselves.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Aug-08-13 2:14 PM

"Somewhere we have to meet in the middle or somewhere close to it if we expect to see any progress at all." - sideliner

*

That's not the way Gridlock works.

You'd have to jettison all o' those T-Baggin' rookies, from The House, before you consider any form o' meeting-in-the-middle.

2 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Aug-08-13 2:19 PM

"Romney had to pander to the extreme right base to get the nod but then he had to try to come towards the middle for the general election. He said too many things in the primaries and didn't have enough time to soften those remarks in order to draw the independents to him after the primaries." - johnnyad3

*

Romeny was (merely) the most-current Republican "throw-away" candidate...much like John McCain & Bob Dole. I don't expect Chris Christie has any desire to be the next, in 2016.

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Aug-08-13 2:24 PM

"There are a couple great Milton Friedman lectures in You Tube that talk about that exact habit of today's Liberals. In fact, you can learn more in an hour of listening to Milton Friedman than you will learn in a year of public school." - VinceKnauff

*

..."listening", being the operative-word...when you consider the T-Baggers' literacy-"issues". If they'd try working ON their reading-skills...as-opposed-to listening to the Missouri Lard-Bucket, daily...their expanded-horizons would amaze even THEM!!!!

2 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mahs81

Aug-08-13 2:34 PM

A great American wished that one day we would judge a man not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character. Well, in keeping with that man's dream, many are judging the President by the content of his character and not the color of his skin. Unfortunately, those who drink the kool-aid would rather ignore his character and call those whom disagree all kind of bad names and accuse them of being extreme righties, tea baggers, faux news watchers, Rush worshippers or god forbid a NASCAR fan. Let’s face it he was at the time and continues to prove that he is not prepared or qualified to be POUS any more than those that claimed the former Governor of Alaska was to be the VPOUS. We can only hope that the next POUS regardless of race, sex or creed is qualified to do the job and once again raise this great nation out of the dump we have been in since about 2002. That is if 6 years of W and 8 of O have not made the hole to deep.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 42 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web