Error message

  • Notice: Undefined index: taxonomy_term in similarterms_taxonomy_node_get_terms() (line 518 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in similarterms_list() (line 221 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in similarterms_list() (line 222 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).

Letters to the Editor: February 25, 2014

Error message

  • Notice: Undefined index: taxonomy_term in similarterms_taxonomy_node_get_terms() (line 518 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in similarterms_list() (line 221 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in similarterms_list() (line 222 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
West Valley View's picture

Lies, debt and more lies!

Editor:

I grew up in Phoenix raised by parents who loved me and this country. I wonder what kind of family is pleased with the way our beloved country is being ruined? our congress is a disgrace Reid and Pelosi stand in the way to protect our lying POTUS. Republicans are cowards, just because the lying press and the cesspool of entertainment, Hollywood,music, and comedy try to destroy them Daily, all to protect the liar in the WH. A few examples. The POTUS and SOS stood at the foot of the coffins of the four Men killed in Lybia and told the Parents “This was caused by a movie”. Lie. “If you like your insurance you can keep it”. big fat lie! The SOS telling congress “What difference does it make”. Horrible lie!

We have no jobs, and a POTUS who never had a job doesn’t know how to create one and frankly doesn’t care. If he can keep people on the dole, He has permanent Dem. or Dumb voters. Isn’t that all he cares about? How about Hope and Change? The only hope we have is for a new congress, and BO doesn’t destroy our country before He leaves office. We have a DOJ that is a disgrace, guns walking across the border. How many people in Mexico killed because of this disgraceful policy no one knows. How many Americans killed same answer. It goes on and on and the only thing a couple of writers to your paper can write about is who is right or knows more. It’s like trying to figure out what is is.

Come on people start paying attention, call or write your congressman. Start paying attention before it’s too late.

Jean Knack
Litchfield Park

People in glass houses

Editor:

I was outraged to read the recent letter from Louise Larkins from the state of Illinois. Yes, Illinois, where we have former Illinois Governor Blagojevich who is serving 12 yrs in Federal prison for attempting to “sell” Obama’s US Senate seat to the highest bidder, nice move. Oh yes, and what about Jesse Jackson Jr, former US Congressman from Illinois, who is also serving time in the Federal slammer for corruption. Ms. Larkins, how can you have the unmitigated gall to criticize our Arizona politicians? You, from the most corrupt state in the nation, where Mayor Daley committed massive voter fraud to get Kennedy elected? You who live in glass houses should not throw stones!!

Then to make matters worse you act as though we should all support Pres. Obama and Obamacare, because he was duly elected by a majority of the vote. But you went on to trash Republicans Sen. McCain, Gov. Brewer, and Pres. Bush, who were also elected by a majority of the vote. Could it be you don’t like Arizona’s politics or any Republicans? Perhaps you should consider moving back to your corrupt state of Illinois. I’ll even spring for the plane ticket, one way of course!

Oh, one more point, the late US Senator Ted Kennedy (Democrat-MA) far surpassed Sen. McCain as far as “sucking at the public trough”. He served in the US Senate for 47 years, from 1962 until 2009. Undoubtedly, he would have served much longer had he not died of cancer in 2009.

Tom Moore
Goodyear

We are not equal

Editor:

This country is a wonderful country that offers equal opportunity to all, the only problem is that we are not all equal to it. We are equal at birth in that we are all human beings, but equality ends there. By our different DNA (genetic make up) we are differentiated starting at birth. We each are unique individuals, no two exactly alike. As such we are different physically and mentally... from short to tall, thin to obese, white to black, low to high intelligence...etc. By virtue of our genetic make up we are not and cannot be equal to one another.

The progressive, socialist left, touts equality in all respects in order to further their agenda. They use the “myth of equality” to anger the masses against people who have succeeded in life by their hard work, intelligence, opportunity...etc We will not all succeed in life and that is a fact they cannot deny. They use this disparity in success to create envy and division in the country.

Unfortunately, history is replete with charlatans with a gift to gab that have driven multitudes, and ultimately countries, down the wrong path. We only need to look at Greece as the latest failure of socialism in Europe and closer to home Cuba and Venezuela stand out. And as much as it hurts looking in house Detroit is the latest failure after decades of leftist policies.

Jorge Landa
Goodyear

Left, right not black and white

Editor:

Well, we had another letter picking on the Editor, herself! Why didn’t the write just “say” that he disagreed with Obamacare. I also am against the idea of it having ever become law. But taking it out on Cary wasn’t necessary. Why don’t you just give her the facts of all the things wrong with it socially and politically?

Here’s where so many letters writers go wrong; they act as though there is only the left and the right. There are two or three different parts of the Republican Party. Same is true for the Democrats. Then we also have Libertarians, which have more different parts than Democrats or Republicans. Oh! We can’t forget Anarchists. Now I could list at least five other parties, but I won’t.

I had a college Professor explain to the class that the idea of left and right was too simplistic! We should see a horizontal line for politics and a vertical line for economics. The vertical line would run from complete control by the government to no control at all. While the horizontal line would have a Dictatorship or communism on the far left and on the far right a Dictatorship of fascism. He put a circle around these two line segments and told us that the best place to be was near the center of the circle!

Since that time nearly 50 years ago, I have concluded that it isn’t lines and a circle! It is lines on a sphere. If you go left you just keep going left. And if you go right you just keep going farther and farther right! Yes, I’m FAR RIGHT!

Bernard Oviatt
Salome

Land of opportunity!

Editor:

It is appalling to hear our politicians make outrageous statements such as “We need redistribution of wealth.” Russia tried it and it did not work. Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea are still working hard at it without any success. Their system of government is called Communism. We are a Land of opportunity not a land of income equality. Income opportunity is what made this country great. A country of makers not takers, a place created by hard working individuals, People whom believe in freedom, not Government dependence dictating what it’s citizen must do. We have a President that not long ago stated “I am the president I can do whatever I want” to me that sounds like a rising dictator. What do you think?

Jaime Ruiz-Sandoval
Litchfield Park

Bird removal in Estrella

Editor:

Referring to the front page article on February 14; the West Valley View did not do their homework.

Number one, you start the article with the sentence “ A Buckeye resident was strolling along in the Estrella community........” The only people that are permitted to stroll along are residents of the Estrella community, unless they have a resident with them!

Number two, had the man been a resident he would have known what was going on with the coots, and that is being put to sleep to be transported elsewhere.

Number three, I sincerely hope you will print a factual new article on the front page, so that maybe you can regain some of your credibilty.

Bonnie Jansson
Goodyear

Not a smart Republican

Editor:

Regarding Louise Larkin’s Smart Republican letter Feb. 18th:

There is a hierarchy of purpose to the Constitution of the United States, and at the very top of the list is, to secure our individual freedoms and liberties.

Somewhere further down that list is, to promote the general welfare.

Obamacare seeks to promote the general welfare by eliminating our individual freedom of choice of whether or not to buy health insurance. The government (or the Dems in it) have now compelled us all to pay for insurance or pay a tax.

In addition, it violates our rights to privacy by compelling us to supply and store all kinds of personal data on us; something we used to have the freedom and choice NOT to do.

Even though the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate is Constitutional (as a tax), it did not rule on whether or not it goes against our founding principles of individual freedoms and liberties.

So no, someone who believes that promoting the general welfare trumps our individual freedoms and liberties is NOT a smart Republican, but is instead, the makings of a good Progressive.

Patrick Orr
Avondale

Cruelty uncalled for

Editor:

The fear, absolute terror, the struggle for air against a forced suffocating death by drowning... that is what those “100 plus” ducks in the Estrella community in Goodyear felt, at the hands of two HOA men in charge of eliminating them, and went about their heartless job of killing, exterminating, drowning. All the while, they watched the ducks struggle until they died. In the February 14th article in the West Valley View, Lisa Lundskow, community manager for Capital Manager Consultants Management Corp., said the birds are given chemicals (poison) in corn to “induce sleep so they can be transported and relocated.” The HOA has a license to transport and relocate, by the U.S.Dept. of Agriculture. This heinous act most certainly does not sound like transporting and relocating. The two men who were killing the ducks said they would kill any that did not die from drowning. Evidently, there is a difference on how to eliminate ducks, depending on whether they are considered domestic or wild. EITHER WAY, that most sickening cruelty is not called for. Where are those that need to stand up against this heinous cruelty? Or, maybe enough people just don’t know about it yet. Hopefully, now they will.

Jacki Wilso
Avondale

Mainstreet Part 1

Editor:

The idea of incorporating “mainstreet” elements into community plans has received quite a bit of attention in recent months — with several communities (including Surprise, Avondale and potentially Litchfield Park) now either having these plans in place or under active consideration.

With this in mind, it is useful to step back and examine this concept in more detail. Just what is a “mainstreet” development?

As envisioned in Avondale’s City Center plan, this model calls for “a compact, urban development that is a destination for pedestrian-friendly shopping, restaurants, and entertainment’ as well as complementary residential uses.

To support this general concept, the following characteristics are important:

Mainstreets should support as many of the needs of residents as possible, including daily necessities such as groceries, cleaners, etc.,

They should be based on providing transportation options, including automobiles, but also walking, biking, and other types of conveyance (such as golf carts or neighborhood utility vehicles — UTVs),

They should be based on sufficient residential density to enable easy access for those choosing non-mechanized forms of access (e.g. walking)

In Part II in a later edition, we can take a look at a couple of examples and how they exhibit these characteristics.

Jeff Gibbs
Litchfield Park

Kudos to city for fair wages

Editor:

Congratulations to the leaders in the City of Tolleson for recognizing the importance of paying employees a fair wage. For too many years, cities in the West Valley have lagged behind not only in compensation, but in status and reputation. The rapid growth and change in demographics brings new issues for cities to deal with. Yes, Tolleson is a small city in size and population but as Mayor Gamez says, Tolleson faces the same problems as other larger cities. Reyes Medrano, Jr. as City Manager has guided development; residential and industrial; education; and recreation to create a great balance between old and new and the citizens of Tolleson benefit. Mr. Medrano has partnered with surrounding cities and worked hard to improve quality of life for everyone living in the West Valley. Tolleson not only has a rich history, but a very bright future thanks to leaders who really care about their community. Tolleson is a fiscally sound city and the leaders and staff deserve increases in pay for their accomplishments.

Sandra Reagan
Litchfield Park

Rate this article: 
Average: 1 (1 vote)

Comments

porr000's picture

You are mistaken when you say I was making the assertion that  "the general welfare wasn't part of it at all".  

You are also mistaken if you think I feel promoting the general welfare is a bad thing.  You wrote, "You won't find there any complaint about his promoting the general welfare (as if that were a bad thing)."

You are also making a very large assumption if you feel the list laid out in the Preamble is in order of greatest to least importance. There is nothing that says that it's order has any significance.  Why is liberty dead last on the list? Could it be because it rhymes with the word prosperity, and makes the whole thing sound pretty?  

You are also dead wrong in your belief that individual freedom and liberties and promoting the general welfare are both equal.  

 Did Patrick Henry say, Give me WELFARE, or give me death?  Nay! Did he say give me a government to TAX me to death?  Nay!  He was attributed to saying, "Give me LIBERTY, or give me death" when convincing Virginia to send troops to the Revolutionary War.  

Do we send troops today to protect our WELFARE or to protect our FREEDOM?  

Do we pledge our allegence to the flag..."with WELFARE and justice for all", or "with LIBERTY and justice for all?"

But mostly, you are in grave error if you assume I don't know or believe that "to form a more perfect union", what "powers the new government was organized to have"  or "to choose the government we'd live under" is not somewhere in the hirerarchy of purpose of the Constitution.  You spent a great deal of time discussing them and they aren't relevant to my letter.  I was discussing only two of the purposes, securing individual freedoms and liberties, and promoting the general welfare.

Finally, the fundamental belief that our individual freedoms and liberties has more weight than promoting the general welfare is not an idealistic fantasy.  Think about that for a second and ask yourself again if you truly believe they are equal and have always meant to be equal.  Think of where the courts have upheld individual liberties and freedoms above government action in the interest of promoting the general welfare.           

  

   

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Note: a response to this Comment may be found in the April 15th issue

http://www.westvalleyview.com/comment/1373#comment-1373

porr000's picture

Mr. Posner:

Of course there is!

The main reason we faught a revolutionary war and established a new government and created it's Constitution was for freedom, not to promote the general welfare.

To suggest anything else you would be on the wrong side of history.

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Patrick:

   That would be you, then.  History doesn't consist of taking an ideological position, and then clinging to it in defiance of all facts and reason.  That's the sort of thing the two great totalitarian powers of the 20th century (operating on 19th Century philosophies) did.  (Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.)

   In addition, talk about being on the "right side of history" (or its opposite, as you did) is the same kind of pompous rhetoric those "worthies" used to engage in.  Marx was convinced that not only was Communism preferable, but that it was the "final stage" in history, towards which humanity was inevitably moving.  The reporter Lincoln Steffens is famous (or infamous) for saying (after a trip to the Soviet Union) "I have seen the future, and it works".  Hitler, of course, was certain his "Third Reich" would last a thousand years.

   Forgive me if I'm skeptical about such assertions.

   So, what about fact and reason?  How do they "support" your claim?  They don't, instead they refute it.

   First of all the "freedom" we fought the revolution for was the freedom to choose the government we'd live under.  Remember, though members of the Tea Party like to mangle it, the battle-cry was "No taxation, without representation!  It was the denial of the latter, refusal to allow the colonies to have any say in the laws Britain passed to govern them, which caused our revolt.

   The Declaration of Independence confirms this.  Yes, it talks about "unalienable rights", but does it say that the listed ones are exclusive?  (No.)  And what does it go on to say?

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

   This, of course, is what we proceeded to do, twice!  (Something I'll discuss more fully later.)  Meanwhile, review the list of complaints the Declaration goes on to make, the "bill of indictment" against King George the Third.  You won't find there any complaint about his promoting the general welfare (as if that were a bad thing).  Instead, it's a list of his failure to do things a government should do.  Let's just look at the first three (there are 28 in all):

  1. He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
  2. He has forbidden his Governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his asset should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly negelected to attend to them.
  3. He has refused to pass other laws for the accomodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

   Hmm, doesn't sound to me as if they're complaining about the King doing too much, but rather too little.  (And that he's making them give up self-rule in the process!)

   Even if we look at the 17th complaint (the one about taxes - the issue the Tea Party, Republicans, and "conservatives" obsess over) we find that it isn't merely about imposing taxes, but:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent

   Furthermore, as I've said before, to truly understand the Declaration, you have to know the history behind it, where it's ideas come from.  (Jefferson didn't just dream them up on his own.)  They are simply the American form of what's known as the "social contract" theory of government, which goes all the way back to the book Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, and was further developed by John Locke and Rousseau.  To fully understand the Declaration you must know about those writings too.  Far from being a rejection of government, they are an assertion of the necessity of government.  (Though, execpt for Hobbes perhaps, they all endorse representative government, "deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed".  That's the freedom in question!)

   (In the same way, to fully understand our Constitution, you should be aware of the book The Spirit of the Laws, by Montesquie.  It was probably the single greatest influence on those who drafted the Constitution.)

   So, having won that freedom, what did we do with it?  Well, as I said before, we exercised our right "to institute a new government" twice.  First, in the Articles of Confederation, then in the Constitution.

   Frankly, when I hear today's "conservatives" (or "libertarians", though there's not much of a difference between them where this is concerned) chatter about "small government" or "freedom", they sound like advocates for the Articles of Confederation.  Those had almost everything these "freedom lovers" want, and almost nothing they dislike.  State sovereignty?  The Federal government under the Articles was wholly the creature of the States.  Unlike the Constitution, the Articles made it plain that the States (not "We, the people") are creating this government.  Its Second Article expressly states that:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

   This, of course, is a perfect statement of what "conservatives" want: a Federal government limited only to those powers expressly stated in the Constitution.  But, as we've discussed before, even when the Founders had the chance to put something comparable in the Constitution (the Tenth Amendment), the deliberately chose to omit that key word "expressly".

   It's worth noting as well that the next Article (dealing with the "league of friendship" beteween the States being created) mentions as among its purposes:

their common defense, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare

   But, of course, in contrast to the Constitution, its the States' common defense, security, liberties, and general welfare that's mentioned, not that of "the people".  (After all, these Articles were made by and for the States, not "the people".)  But even here general welfare is on the list.  (And while, if we regard this as an order of priority, it comes after securing the States' liberties, what comes before that is "their common defense".  Gee, almost sounds like "national security" comes before all!

   Except, of course, the Articles were a failure.  They had so many flaws that, in 1787, the decision was made to scrap them altogether!  Once again the basic freedom of the Declaration was exercised, the people (not the States) acted:

to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

   And what were the principles on which it was formed?  Why, the Preamble lists them:

to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

   Now, as I asked you before (in a different fashion) if "freedom" was the "main reason" for the Constitution, why is "the blessings of liberty" dead last on that list.  Shouldn't it be the first, or better yet the exclusive item there?  You haven't answered the question, only evade and avoided it with ideology (divorced from history).

   Furthermore, note what's first on the list ("to form a more perfect union").  The Constitution was created precisely to provide a stronger Federal government, with a stronger union between the States.

   And what were the powers the new government was organized to have?  Well, while there are many places in the Constitution where power is granted to the goverment, let's just focus on the "laundry list" of (so-called) "enumerated powers" beloved of "conservatives".  What is the very first power listed?  Why

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises

   How odd, the people who fought a revolution in the name of "freedom", particularly (so you've been told) freedom from taxation, choose first to bestow the power to tax!  (I guess they didn't get the memo.)

   And for what purpose is this power to tax (and raise revenue in other ways) being granted?

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

   That's odd too, the thing you insist the Constitution wasn't created to address appears twice in the document!  And both times it comes before any mention of "freedom".  (Actually, the "laundry list" doesn't mention freedom at all.)

   Now, of course, the Constitution wasn't created merely to empower the government.  It contains many provisions removing power as well.  A big one is in the "laundry list" itself.  The Founders feared the tyranny that a standing army could lead to, so they required that the money for the army had to be reappropriated every two years.  (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 12).  No such restriction exists for the navy, by the way.

    The very next Section of the Constitution has further important denials of power.  The writ of Habeas Corpus (considered to be one of the great safeguards against tyranny) can't be suspended (except under certain limited circumstances).  No bills of attainder or ex post facto laws (considered to be two of the greatest instruments of tyranny) are allowed.  There are others I could cite.

   And then the next Section (Ten) turns around and denies power to the States!  For example, they (also) can't have bills of attainder or ex post facto laws.

   The point, of course, as I've had to repeat far too many times, is that the Constitution was about both creating a new government for this land, empowering it, and limiting its powers in certain ways (and the States' as well).  But the text and the history of the Constitution gives no support for your assertion that "freedom" was its main reason, or that the general welfare wasn't part of it at all.

   All this, and what I wrote before, is what I've got to support my position, and you've got nothing.  Empty rhetoric is a poor way to do either history or Law!  It's certainly not the way to be on "the right side of history".

   Stop confusing your ideological fantasies with truth.

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Patrick:

   But before I "sign off", I have to ask: Where the heck do you get the idea such a "hierarchy" exists, much less the "order of priority" you claim?  Certainly not from the Constiution itself!  Here, in order, are the reasons it gives for its existence, to:

  1. Form a more perfect union,
  2. Establish justice,
  3. Insure domestic tranquility,
  4. Provide for the common defense,
  5. Promote the general welfare, and
  6. Secure the blessings of liberty.

  Gee, looks like the thing you cite comes at the bottom of that list!

   If you bother to study history, and Law, you'll discover that all of those things are equally important.  There's no such "hierarchy" at all.  Of course, in fulfilling those purposes, the government must act within the Constitution, but that's not the same thing as the nonsense you wrote.

 

P.S. - As for the other nonsense in your letter, I'll get back to you another time.  All part of my "makeup" assignment.

Gordon Posner's picture

 

   Yeah, I know, I never believed I would right that either, but her veto of SB1062 deserves it.

   By the way, to the "usual suspects" who might be tempted to rail against her taking such a "progressive" action, might I suggest you bother to read the bill before praising it?  You'll find that she was absolutely correct: it wouldn't do what its supporters claimed, and would instead do a lot most sane people should oppose.

   You see, Arizona has no State law protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination, so the ostensible reason for the bill (to prevent lawsuits such as in Colorado) doesn't exist.

   But, it does have laws protecting almost everyone <i>else</i> from discrimination, and SB1062 would have destroyed that!

   (Too bad she vetoed it, really. I was so looking forward to placing a "Help Wanted" ad that would read: "Godless goyim need not apply."  Oh well.)

P.S. - But don’t take my word for this.  Set forth below is where you can get a copy of the proposed law.  Please identify, quote, (and cite by section number, etc.) the part you claim supports your views, or contradicts mine.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf
 

 

Gordon Posner's picture

 

To my legion of "fans":

   I hope you haven't been bored in my absence.  I've been taking a "vacation" from the View.  (Plus, I'm switching to a new computer running Windows 8.1 - pray for me.)  It'll be awhile before I'm ready to resume "full time" (and it looks like I have a lot of "make up" work to do), but it I thought I'd comment on today's big event.  (Well, "yesterday's" now.)

I was in the US Army Security Agency (ASA now known as the NSA) with Top Secret Security Clearance during the Vietnam period, (they chose me for a very good reason), and like most people my age was properly brought up to do the right thing including saying, "thank you; you are welcome; etc.,), along with following the law.
 
However, in the towns of Buckeye and Goodyear the above is meaningless - despite my numerous attempts, (and being an excellent witness), to stop two drug sellers and several thieves, my attempts have been futile and the cases I filed are on a shelf or computer somewhere.
 
I called the DES, Sheriff Joe's Office, the Goodyear and Buckeye Police Departments, Channel-3, the West Valley View, etc., etc., etc., with absolutely NO success.
 
So, despite the many claims and advertisements - it is OK to buy and sell drugs plus steal from people and companies.
 
Apparently, we pay more taxes for less public services - what happened to America and what it once stood for?!? Ask the politicians, they are happily spending our money.
 
Unfortunately, I have learned that most people care - however, most people don't want to get involved. Very sad :-(

Tom Moore, I can not agree with you more. There is a play on words. Especially your comments about corruption in Illinois. That state is more corrupt politically than all the others put together.

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Roy:

   Actually, an objective appraisal would probably find that neither State deserves that "honor".  But even if what you and Mr. Moore wrote were true, I hardly think being a little "less" corrupt is anything to crow about!

   (However, not having read Ms. Larkins Letter, yet, I'll refrain from saying more until I do.)

PRAISE GOD !!!!  You are back, Gordon. You are back.  The truth is that it was really nice and quiet around these pages without your comments. Actually it was quite refreshing However I am glad you have returned. Kind of like the proverbial son whos'e father threw a big feast for his lost son. All rejoyced upon seeing him. Now I am not saying that Iam going to take you to Ruth Crist Steak House, Gordon but you were missed. At first I thought maybe the View banned your outrageous comments.Then I figured that you probably went back to New York to practice law. After that I really became concerned because I figured you were in a hispital somewhere with a terrible disease. Then it dawned on me. I figured that you got yourself a hot date and went to Hawaii for a long time. But you are back to stir up agitate, make outrageous comments and correct all of us Conservatives when we step over the line. Good, sometimes we need that. I say 'sometimes" not all the time.

So  LET'SSSSSSSS Rumble !

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Roy:

   Thanks (assuming you're being sincere).  I was wondering if things would really get "quiet" in my absence.  Judging just from the Comments that appeared here before yesterday I have to say it appears it merely got quieter!

   I've never been to that restaurant, but Texas Road House or Monti's is a "Go!".  (We never did meet for that cup of coffee you mentioned so long ago.  Bring Judy and Patrick you  like.)  But my own choice is still the Friday Seafood Buffet at Casino Arizona.

Take care.

Gordon

The reason we never met for that cup of coffee I suggested we have a few years ago was because of your insistence that we had to discusss, debate etc politics. You wanted to make a cup of coffee an extension of the letters and comments in this section. I thank you for your honesty, but as I told you then and restate now is that I would want to get to know you as a person, one human being to another with divergent views never the less.It would serve no purpose to make such a meeting confrontational. If such a get together were to ever happen I would like to talk about where we came from, what we did, what sports teams we like etc. etc. If the meeting turned political I would just leave. If it is not a social meeting it is not worth having as far as I am concerned.

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Roy:

   I realize that coming from me this is an act of epic hypocrisy, but I have to point out that your long dissertation on why we never had coffee was hardly necessary.  Silence, or a simple "no thanks", would have sufficed.

   Yes, I realize why we've never gotten that coffee, and we don't need to debate it again. Perhaps I'm naive, but I think political discussions need not be "confrontational".  One can disagree politely in person - however we may do it here. So, if you'd like to "risk" it, I'm game.  If not, it's your loss.  (Or, maybe, your gain.)

   Just remember, I'd like you to bring Judy and Patrick along, if possible.  Three to one, am I really so intimidating?

 

;-)