Letters: Tea Party, Mike Lee poisoning all institutions


Return To Article
  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 6:55 p.m.

    When you stop playing by the rules, you deserve to lose the respect that the tea party has lost.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    Obviously Mr. McDonald and his ilk (Furry’s word) believe what they want to believe because Tea Party objections to an Obama presidency are far less "self serving, uninformed, irrational or narrow-minded" than the lefts own hatred of George Bush. As bad as he was, Bush was clearly far more competent than Obama. But thanks for once again proving the passive/aggressive, whininess and hypocrisy of left wing faux "victims".

    Obama ratings are far below that of Clinton during the last shutdown, or Reagan during any one of Tip O'Neil’s 6 shutdowns and below Bush at this point in his presidency. That fact would seem to indicate that Barrack has delegitimized his own presidency (and the battered media syndrome press, who keeps justifying Obamas abuse because they "love" him, continues to delegitimize their job as well - including the DN who simply regurgitates AP bias on national stories)

  • durwood kirby South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:36 a.m.

    Mikes Lee/Richards: Year's best argument against the First Amendment. Wow.

  • durwood kirby South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:29 a.m.

    Absolutely agree with the author.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 3:35 p.m.

    Who caused this ask Jason?
    Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), presiding over the chamber, told Van Hollen that the rule he was asking to use had been "altered" and he did not have the privilege of bringing that vote to the floor. In the ensuing back and forth, Chaffetz said the recently passed House Resolution 368 trumped the standing rules. Where any member of the House previously could have brought the clean resolution to the floor under House Rule 22, House Resolution 368 -- passed on the eve of the shutdown -- gave that right exclusively to the House majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia.
    "The Rules Committee, under the rules of the House, changed the standing rules of the House to take away the right of any member to move to vote to open the government, and gave that right exclusively to the Republican Leader," said Van Hollen. "Is that right?"
    "The House adopted that resolution," replied Chaffetz.

  • stuff Provo, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    Actually, the Tea Party is fresh, clean water trying to purify a putrid, filthy stream. There's nothing better than getting back to the basics of the Constitution and getting rid of all the bile on today's version of the government.

  • Pat Salt Lake , UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 2:36 p.m.

    I may not agree with everything Mike Lee does but I admire his sense of integrity. He is doing exactly what he campaigned on (no surprises here) whereas the overwhelming majority of our elected officials say one thing to get elected and then do something entirely different once elected. It gives me some hope.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Oct. 15, 2013 1:00 p.m.

    I think Mike Lee is doing great work. But I don't care anymore. Because I'm moving.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    @Mike Richards;

    Get off your high horse. You don't "believe in freedom"; at least if it applies to people you don't approve of. You've made that clear repeatedly.

  • No One Of Consequence West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 9:52 p.m.

    It's not the Democrats vs the Republicans. It's the Democrats and the Republicans vs freedom. They're both wrong. They see government as a sport. And the rest of us aren't even the spectators, we're the grass on the playing field beneath their feet.

    Mike Lee is breaking the rules of the game, but it's a corrupt game. Playing by corrupt rules corrupts one's soul. Lee is doing the right thing for all of us. The current course of our government is unsustainable. We can try to fix it now or wait till it collapses under the weight of debt.

    Now is the time to take a stand.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 9:14 p.m.

    Mike Richards,

    Obama won and Romney lost.

    Get over it!

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 8:08 p.m.


    Do you understand who or what teaches envy, coveting, and class warfare? What other President in American history ever promoted those kinds of ideas? What other President in American history ever held America hostage if they didn't pay his 18% ObamaCare TAX? Look at history. Wilson told us that income taxes would never be over 7% on the rich guy. That was a laugh. FDR told us that we would be taken care of in our old age if we just gave the government 2% of our income. Yeah, sure. Now Obama sees the 18% that constitutes what most families pay for health-care (one way or another) and he can't keep his greedy hands off that money. He has debts to pay. He owes unions. He owes Soros. He owes Solyndra. He will hold us hostage until he gets what he wants. That is his character. He drew a red line in the sand in Syria. The world told him that he was foolish. Now he's drawn another red line right through America. He actually expects us to think that some "rich guy" will pay our bills. Do you?

  • Rural sport fan DUCHESNE, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 7:05 p.m.

    Its funny how the sheer idiocy of the entire political argument is totally lost on so many people.

    The actual problem with American government these days is the parties themselves. They are the ones driving the insanity.

    As long as we are fighting against the "other" party, or blindly accepting the party leaders' positions as acceptable, regardless of which party it is, America will NEVER succeed.

    The parties have absolutely no interest in making America better, or in making the gov't financially responsible. They actually are better off when America is arguing and fighting, and spending far beyond our means. That's when they get the most donations, the most airtime, the most power. As does the ridiculous circus ring-masters we so stupidly refer to as media.

    You really want America to be better? Get rid of the parties, get rid of the old men playing the political game for their advantage and profit, start paring down the obscenely large federal bureaucracy, and start making OUR government work for US, instead of themselves.

    Sadly, that's a Tea Party idea, so many of you will reject it without thought, as your masters demand.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 14, 2013 6:49 p.m.


    You left off the part about how Obama hates America and wants it to fail.

    And on top of that, he doesn't even wear a flag pin when he golfs.

    The nerve.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 14, 2013 6:03 p.m.

    I find it most interesting that Obama's supporters neglect to remind us that Obama and Reid took food and medicine away from women, infants and children. No other President or Majority Leader in history has done that. I find it most interesting that Obama's supporters cheer Obama when he closed the open-air monuments to those who preserved our freedom. That dispicable act could not have been a budget matter because it cost more to set up the barricades than it cost to leave things as they were.

    Let's get one fact absolutely straight: Obama has thrown all of us under the bus. He just doesn't care about anyone except himself. He did not close the golf courses on the military bases but he ordered that Catholic Chaplins could not perform mass nor give councel to those soldiers of their faith.

    He just doesn't care. He is stomping on the 1st Amendment. He is stomping on our vets. He is stomping on women, infants and children - and some posters cheer him on. The House passed funding for all of those things. Obama and Reid are holding us hostage. They are lower than low.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    I find it very entertaining to see how the dedicated right wingers try to twist the current situation into something it is not. The tea partiers are sane. Obama is a socialist. It's Harry Reid who shut down the gummint. Mike Lee is simply standing on principle. Oh please. Come out of the echo chamber. You'd see how silly you sound.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 3:45 p.m.

    The 9 most terrifying words in the English language are,

    "I'm Mike Lee and I'm your senator."

    I've never been so embarrassed to be a Utahn. I've never even been so embarrassed to be a Mormon. So many of us are working diligently to erase stereotypes and to promote love and understanding. Mike Lee's poisoning only hurts America's perception of our state and predominant religion.

    Which is why I cannot wait until these next elections. Hopefully, we can get a recall amendment passed before then so we can call Mr. Lee back home. If not, then I hope we can get rid of the ridiculous caucus system which was hijacked by extremists which gave Mr. Lee life.

    In the future, I hope that Jon Huntsman runs for senator. He is someone who we can all support and be proud of. Someone not afraid to take a stand and stick up for what's right rather than obstruct and look for photo ops.

    Mr. Lee, goodbye! Go back to being a lobbyist for Energy Solutions for all I care. Mr. Huntsman, welcome to the nation's proud capitol. We stand proud being represented by you.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 3:18 p.m.

    The tea party wanted all or nothing. Got nothing. Time to disband and start another radical extreme organization trying to bring down the economy. Senator Lee should resign.

  • RSLfanalways West Valley, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    If I was a Democrat I would be thanking Lee, Cruz and Hatch for making the republican's look extreme and ignorant. Republican’s just shot them the next election. Here comes President Hillary Clinton.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Oct. 14, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    You know, I actually like Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, FoxNews, and AM radio...

    They are the best thing to EVER happen to us anti-Republicans.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 1:27 p.m.

    The Constitution is hanging by a thread.

    And Mike Lee is playing with scissors again.


  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    Perhaps a recall election is order.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Oct. 14, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    "1993 — the year of the giant Clinton tax hike — was not the turning point in the deficit wars."

    Note:Clinton's first budget was Oct.1993-Sept 1994. The Deficit Reduction Act was signed by Pres. Clinton Aug. 1993, without a single Republican vote.

    From the CBO 1994:
    "he economic and budget outlook has not Tchanged substantially since last September, but the deficit picture is significantly brighter than it appeared one year ago when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the deficit would soar above $350 billion by fiscal year 1998. CBO now projects that the federal budget deficit will fall from $223 billion in the current year to below $170 billion in 1996, then creep up to around $200 billion in 1999. The dramatic improvement since last January is largely the result of the enactment in August of a major package of tax increases and spending cuts—the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
    Act of 1993 (OBRA-93)."

    There was nary a word from Republicans during Bush yrs regarding spending. Only when TARP was in process (signed by Bush Oct. 2008) was there an outcry from some Republicans.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    The GOP has a major credibility problem. Where was the concern over runaway spending when Reagan tripled the deficit? Or when Bush I ran wild? Or when "The Chosen One" destroyed Clinton's surplus and decided to greatly expand government while cutting taxes?

    How many low information voters rant against Obama's ever shrinking deficit yet were missing in action for 8 years under Bush?

    Where were the cries over charging our children and children's children with Chinese debt when Cheney declared that, "Deficits don't matter?"

    Would anyone here listen to a bishop or missionary who was known for partying, breaking the law of chastity, and rarely came to church? Absolutely not. Why? He wouldn't have any credibility.

    The same thing applies to the GOP.

    If you are to be taken seriously and your calls for fiscal responsibility to be taken as sincere, then you need to ACT like conservatives ESPECIALLY when your party is in power. Not just when it's convenient to bash "the other party."

    It will take years to rebuild the GOP's reputation. Sadly, they don't seem at all concerned over it.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 14, 2013 11:49 a.m.


    It appeared to me that you advocated a GOP congress because
    "Congress is responsible for the budget (not the President)."

    I only pointed out that the GOP congress with a GOP president had free reign.

    And they didn't handle it well, deficit wise.

    I too believe that balance is best. I am actually pulling for the moderates in the GOP to somehow gain back control and bring a bit more "rational" thinking to the party.

    I could possibly vote for a Christie because he would not be a puppet to the wing of the party.
    Romney would have been as evidenced by how much he tried to cater to them.
    I would strongly consider Rice. I would have probably voted for Colin Powell. Or Huntsman

    But, in reality, the wing of the party, who controls the primary process, would not want anyone who will not vote lock step with them. They want someone to rubberstamp only a far right agenda.

    They want a Cruz type.

    And the independents will not go for Cruz.

    Give me reasonable balance. That is what we need. R or D would be fine.

    Most cant admit it but Obama is fairly moderate.

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    I didn't say any time Republicans control Congress we have a balanced budget. That's obviously not true (like you pointed out). But I also never said it.

    I actually said it's best when there is a Democrat President and a Republican Congress (or visa versa a Republican President and Democrat Congress).

    Last time a Democrat President had a balanced budget Congress was controlled by Republicans (empowered by the landslide mid-term election and the contract with America to do something about government spending).

    Last time a Republican President had a balanced budget (Eisenhower) Democrats controlled Congress.

    The point being... it's GOOD for there to be opposition, checks and balance in government (as our founding fathers wanted). And it's BAD when we have a President, Congress and Supreme Court controlled by the same party (as we had the first years of the Obama administration). During those years Congress didn't even SUBMIT a budget... must less BALANCE the budget!

    That's what happens when you have one-party-supermajority, and an arrogant supermajority at that. As you point out... same thing happened during the Bush administration when Republicans controlled everything.

    Balance is key.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    The same people who fight big spending by Obama were fighting big spending under Bush (TARP, etc). That's why Bennett got ousted.

    Maybe they didn't call themselves the Tea Party back then, but they were still there.

    IMO They didn't fight government spending under Bush as they should have. But they did fight it (a losing battle). They became especially active when Obama took office because of his campaign promises to raise taxes (and fighting tax increases on ALL Americans is part of their platform). And no... Racism has never been part of their platform.

    I think their message was mostly ignored during the Bush years because he kept cutting taxes and promising to keep taxes low (which is their main thing). But He also kept spending (mostly on the wars). So anti-tax protests under a President who was CUTTING taxes... didn't get much traction.

    I don't know if Clinton era Republicans slowed government growth, but Welfare-Reform DID produce a documented decrease in entitlement spending (though it wasn't enough to last long or save them from long term bankruptcy).

    IMO best combination in Washington is Democrat President and Republican Congress.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 14, 2013 10:42 a.m.

    "Fact is... last time the budget was balanced Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. Granted Clinton occupied the White House, but Republicans controlled Congress (which controls the budget)."

    Yes 2-Bits. But ...

    The GOP also controlled the congress for 6 years under George W Bush?
    During that time the deficit jumped significantly.

    The passed Medicare Part D which was the largest entitlement expansion in decades.

    Hard to portray the GOP as deficit busters. It would appear that they only scream about spending with a Dem in the white house.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    @2 bits

    Fact is...last time the Republicans controlled the White House, and both houses of Congress they ran up then record deficits. Did nothing to slow down the growth of government (in fact they greatly increased it)

    When either party is in complete control they tend to run away with spending, it only becomes an issue when it is on things you don't like.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    Weren't the King Men a (rich) minority who didn't like Democracy?


    If I have the right scripture it states that the supporters of Amalackiah, who conspired to be a king, .."were the greater part of them the lower judges of the land....And they had been led by the flatteries of Amalckiah, that if they would support him.... he would make them rulers of the people".

    Alma 46:4-5

    In a later rebellion against the laws of liberty it was "almost all the lawyers" and the "kindreds of ...judges" and even "high priests" that conspired to destroy freedom.

    3 Nephi 6: 27-30

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    Look at those who tell us that because Obama was elected that he has the right to dictate to us anything that he wants, regardless of the restrictions put on him by the Constitution! Look at those who think that bribing Congress (Louisiana Purchase, Nebraska, etc.) is lawful and ethical. Look at those who think that changing the rules at the last second, when ObamaCare was going down in flames, is what the people who elected Obama wanted. Look at those who tell us that the government has the right to ignore 59% of the people who told Congress and Obama that they did not want ObamaCare passed.

    Those who tell us that Obama and Reid have the right to hold America hostage until America concedes that those two can dictate to us whatever they want, are clearly wrong. They are the "King Men". They have traded the freedoms, guaranteed by the Constitution to the People, for a handkerchief so that government can wipe their noses.

    Then, they have the gall to tell us that King Obama has the right to stomp on the Constitution because they voted for him.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Oct. 14, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    Hamath said, "When the Republicans are in charge.... they don't balance the budget. They say they will... but always find reasons to spend, spend and spend. When the Democrats are in charge... they don't seem to even talk about trying to balance the budget. "

    Part correct and part incorrect. In the presidential campaign of 1980 Ronoald Reagan claimed that the $75B deficit from President Carter's last year in office was "obscene." Then Reagan was elected and tripled our national debt leaving us with $350B plus deficits. Not once did Reagan present anything close to a balanced budget and on two of his eight years in Congress, the Democratic controlled House passed a budget with a lower deficit than Reagans proposed budget for that year.

    President Clinton, with assistance from a Republican Congress, passed a surplus budget that the CBO said, if continued, would erase the then $5+ trillion debt within ten years. But George Bush gave tax cuts, most to the wealthy and look where we are today.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    Re: Hamath "When the Republicans are in charge.... they don't balance the budget".

    Fact is... last time the budget was balanced Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. Granted Clinton occupied the White House, but Republicans controlled Congress (which controls the budget).

    Google "who controlled congress when clinton balanced the budget".

    You will be exposed to the fact that no Democrat controlled Congress has balanced the budget in over 40 years.

    Here's some history on it...

    1993 — the year of the giant Clinton tax hike — was not the turning point in the deficit wars. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president’s own Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. America disgusted with rampant welfare abuse and out of control government spending elected Gingrich and company giving "Contract with America" empowered Republicans (the Tea Party of their day) control of Congress... and they did balance the budget as promised.

    Congress is responsible for the budget (not the President). People giving Clinton credit for that budget he fought bitterly against are intellectually dishonest.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    "So anything with which you disagree is uninformed and irrational radicalism?"

    My Gpa was a very wise man. He taught, "If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, it probably is."

    Sorry, but sometimes uninformed and irrational radicalism really just is uniformed and irrational radicalism. You may not like this. You may even ignore the evidence that proves this. But you cannot change the fact and the truth that it is.

    I'm sure that Pharisees and the Sadducees were in the same denial. "Us? Evil? But we're children of Abraham! How dare you demand to see our good works! We do great works all the time!"

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    It's ironic that Mike Richards would bring up the King Men from the Book of Mormon on this one.

    Weren't the King Men a (rich) minority who didn't like Democracy? Wasn't Pahoran democratically elected by the majority voice of the people? Yet, wasn't it the King Men who wanted to negate his election and overrule the majority?

    Weren't the King Men those who sought to exasperate a situation for their own political gain?

    Weren't the King Men those who rather than follow the rules and regulations of the land, destroy them?

    Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz, and the Tea Party are modern day examples of King Men. The mere fact that they are running away from their constituents and refusing to do any interviews with KSL only proves this point. They don't care about us. They only care about themselves. About representing their tiny (rich) minority.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Oct. 14, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    The current Tea Party movement began in early 2009. I remember very clearly watching Fox promote them on various programs.

    I've also listened to T Partiers discuss the issues and explain themselves--and not through the "liberal" MSNBC or other liberal,programs.

    It is very possible the Republicans would have the majority in the Senate were it not for the T-Partiers. For example, the Tea Party promoted "i'm not a witch" Christine O'Donnell in DE over a well-liked and well-respected Republican Mike Castle which resulted in the Democrats winning the seat.

    Andrew is spot-on.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    Re: "uninformed and irrational".... this letter takes the cake.

    You can tell when somebody gets all their information from MSNBC or the news, and hasn't bothered to actually talk to a Tea Party person or even go to a rally to see for themselves.

    Tea Party isn't about getting Obama. It was around before Obama. And they have taken on more Republicans and gotten more Republican incumbants unelected than they have Democrats.

    This fear that they are just after Obama, and the constant uninformed insistance that it's all about race... is "uninformed and irrational".

    They are mainly after out of control Government spending. They can't help it if Obama is the poster-child for what they are against.

    I suspect when Obama is gone in a couple of years they will continue, and they will continue to be about reducing our government's spending, out of control taxation to accommodate that spending, reduce the size of the FEDERAL Government (to the boundaries set in the Constitution). They will continue to be about individual liberty (even liberty to make mistakes). And the movement will continue to have zero to do with racism.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    So anything with which you disagree is “uninformed and irrational radicalism”? Ah, the typical “tolerance” of the left. And of course, our typical leftist commenters show the same “tolerance”

    Capable and well intentioned potus? NOW who is being uninformed and irrational?

    There you go,
    Who said cheney was romney’s idol? Making stuff up again?

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    Deficits...Poisoning...and Don Quixote...

    "...Deficits don't matter...".

    So said romney's idol, republican vp dick cheney...


    rafael cruz = Don Quixote

    mike lee = Sancho Panza.

    Where do we go from here?

    The title of a recent book suggests that...

    republicans have lost their minds...

    Democrats are useless...

    And the Middle Class got the shaft...


  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 14, 2013 7:29 a.m.

    Yes, blame those who believe in freedom, for Obama's usurpation of our liberty. The White House directed the parks and monuments of this nation to shut down. Was that a loss of liberty? Can the Americans who fought WWII to retain our freedoms even visit the monument that was erected, with private funds, to honor them and the sacrifice that they made? Why did Obama shut down WIC when funds had been allocated to that program and funds were still available even if no funds had been allocated? Why would anyone hold women, infants and children hostage? Certainly no American President has ever stooped that low. Yet, the letter writer blames the "tea party".

    Who was it that wrote the Declaration of Independence? Was it those who shouted the praises of King George? Was it those who told the people that the King could do whatever he wanted because, after all, he was the King, whether he was "crazy" or not?

    Today, "King Men" shout praises for Obama. They mock our freedoms. They mock those of use who cherish freedom. They want a King. They are incapable of handling freedom.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 4:55 a.m.

    Excellent commentary about the Tea Party, Mike Lee, and their ilk.

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    Oct. 14, 2013 4:42 a.m.

    What I see as sad is that we are stealing so much from our nation's future. So much... they are going to have to pay so badly for our debt.

    When the Republicans are in charge.... they don't balance the budget. They say they will... but always find reasons to spend, spend and spend.

    When the Democrats are in charge... they don't seem to even talk about trying to balance the budget.

    I feel for the children. We are literally stealing from them with these unbalanced budgets.

    Simple math. Spend less or equal to what you take it. If Congress can't figure that out, why exactly do we expect them to figure anything else out?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 14, 2013 4:21 a.m.

    "Beliefs determine what we can see."

    Exactly. And facts don't matter.

    Two examples.

    Got a mass email from someone in our scout troop a couple years ago. It explained how Obama wanted to take "in God we Trust" off of the money. This person called for organized protests. He sent this to 50+ people.

    When I responded (only to him) with several sources showing that this was completely false, I never heard back. He didn't thank me or express happiness that this terrible thing would not be happening.

    Same thing with the ACA. A friend told me that he was Furious with the ACA because Congress has exempted itself. (Seen daily on Fox News.) What a great rant he had. It was his proof as to how bad the ACA was.

    I then showed him, with unbiased or right leaning FACTS how this was false. Congress and staff are the only people in America who are REQUIRED by_law to join the exchanges.
    (I also gave him the facts about their subsidy and_why)

    Was he happy? NOPE.

    He would rather rant about something that was false, than be satisfied with the truth.

    Ask yourself. "Is that ME"?

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Oct. 14, 2013 12:13 a.m.

    Excellent letter, Andrew. Expect the usual suspects to start complaining about how President Obama's a socialist anytime now.