Hey Bartcop,
Just thought I'd
send in a copy of an e-mail I sent out to the dozens
of supportive responses I received to my posting.
Surprisingly, they far
outnumber the negative ones that were immediately
deleted upon opening.
They are insignificant and certainly undeserving
of attention.
Pal, your readers
are laughing at you! I bet you won't make the mistake
of posting this one in its entirety. Man, your
audience is playing you like a cheap fiddle!
Don,
I'm happy to hear you deleted the negative e-mails "immediately."
I wouldn't want them to contaminate the other, positive e-mails.
============================================================
To you all,
Thanks for all
the positive responses. I'm sure you know this, but I
sent in my letter just to piss them off. Judging
by the number of responses I
received from those snivelling, "poor me, I need
a 12-step program bacause
the man is holding me down" dirtbags....I succeeded
to some extent. I was
pleasantly surprised to see positives outnumbering
negatives though. I wonder
if other people experience the same? I'll probably
receive even more negative
though......further proving my point. Insecure,
spineless losers. Actually
not worth my time, but it is fun nonetheless.
Don, you seem to be addicted to name-calling.
Have you ever thought about using humor to get
your message out?
You sound like Rush in that paragraph.
I come from a working-class,
Southern family. The old-style, pro-Union
Democrats when Democrats really cared about America.
I come from a family of
carpenters and farmer/ranchers who worked hard
their whole lives to build this country.
The liberal Democrats have long since abandoned
their Pro-America platform in favor
of one of borderline Socialism, in my opinion.
They pander to the cries and whimpers
of the poor, downtrodden non-producers. Those
who would rather leech off every
goverment program rather than stand on their
own two feet.
There you go again.
How dare the Democrats lend an ear to
the poor and downtrodden.
Tell me, are you ashamed of the Statue of Liberty?
What should we do with the poor?
Kick them in the teeth and say, "Knock it
off?"
The shame and disgrace
that Bill Clinton brought to the office of President
of the greatest and most powerful Nation on this
planet disgusts me beyond words.
He has no moral character. He is a liar. He lacks
the fiber of a man of honor.
Don, how did you feel about Reagan/Bush making
a secret, illegal deal with
Islamic Jihad to have them hold the hostages
until after the election?
Do you know how many Marines were murdered by
Reagan's trading partners?
How did you feel when Reagan looked America in
the eye and promised,
"We did not trade arms for hostages?"
That was a lie, wasn't it?
Did that show moral character?
Did that prove Reagan was a liar?
Or will you claim he didn't know, thus making
him a senile, old fool?
Funny, you get very upset when Clinton lied about
a blow job, but you defend Reagan
after he armed a terrorist nation and rewarded
the cowardly fucks who drove a truck
full of explosives in to that Beruit barracks
where the Marines were sleeping.
Don't those lives mean anything to you, Don?
Wait - I forgot.
Reagan kept his coat on when he gave those weapons
away, so it's OK?
These traits are so easy for his fellow liberals
to overlook....as long as they
perceive a good, strong, healthy, growing economy.
The technologial economic
boom we experienced was already on the brink
when Clinton took over. It was,
deny it or not, set up by the Reagan and Bush
administrations. Some things take
longer to come to fruition than others.
But Don, if Reagan's policies took a dozen years
to have an effect,
how can you blame the current downturn on Clinton?
Do you really think Wall Street is a decade behind?
If Greenspan speaks at noon, there can
be a severe market correction by 12:10.
Who told you it takes a decade for the stock
market to react?
Firming up the U.S. economy is certainly one of
those things. It's almost as if the liberals
think that a Democratic President alone makes
all the decisions that influence economic prosperity.
It takes a partnership with Congress to establish
and enact legislative and economic policies.
Republicans and Democratics working in concert
made valuable contributions to that rapid growth.
The problem is, there is no way the economy could
have sustained such a rapid and over-inflated
growth rate. We are finding out now that, like
Clinton, that growth lacked substance.
No matter who is in office, it would still have
to eventually correct itself. Simple economics here...
not brain surgery. Numbers. They can deny all
they want, but to no avail...the truth stands.
Cool! You into numbers?
How about the stock market tripling under
Clinton?
How about the debt turning into a surplus
under Clinton?
(Which Smirk has now turned back into a deficit)
How about the lowest unemployment numbers in
history?
...and when Wall Street saw big-spending Bush
and his massive tax breaks for the wealthy,
they knew the debt would grow and now we have
stagnation, bordering on a recession.
You say the truth stands, right?
They will still ignore though. It's their nature.....it's
the easy way out. In my short 36 years on Earth,
I have discovered one shining truth in life:
Sometimes good things feel bad at first; sometimes bad things
feel good. There is a beauty and practicality
in having patience to endure in order to ensure sustained growth.
You cannot have it all right now. Not always.
I am a Sergeant
First Class in the U.S. Army, proudly serving for 14 years. I matured during
the
Reagan administration. I witnessed first-hand
what the policies of his administration did for the world.
Yes, he ran up a huge debt and deficit.
Thank you for admitting that.
Some people like to say Reagan wasn't resposible
for that, THEN they want to give him credit
for breaking the Russians. At least you're honest
and went with the honest argument that we spent
the Soviet Union into bankruptcy.
I agree - Reagan deserves the credit for that.
He also built our Armed Forces up from the quagmire
of Vietnam and the shame of the Carter years.
I actually think Jimmy Carter is a good man,
but 1977-80 was, to say the least, dismal. Reagan-omics made
Mother Russia spend so much money to keep up
with the arms race that the Iron Curtain could not help but fall.
Communism, once a world-wide plague, is now confined
to small corners in our world. Clinton could never
affect that kind of profound world-wide impact.
He wouldn't even try.
You can't blame Clinton because Russia fell before
he took the wheel.
Clinton may not get FDR's numbers because he
didn't have any huge crisis to save us from.
All we got from Clinton was peace and incredible
prosperity - dammit.
I am a proud veteran
of Desert Shield and Desert Storm and I was overwhelmed by the pride our
Nation
had in her Armed Forces and the job we did.
Our return home was one of triumph....for a worthy cause.
The liberals will have us believe it was all
for oil. Not all, it wasn't. We stood up to a tyrant who had no problem
practicing genocide on his own people, much less
his tiny neighbor. I saw for myself. I know.
No, we went to stop Saddam from grabbing Saudi's
oil.
How can you not know that?
If we went for humanitarian reasons, why didn't
Bush help Cuba, North Korea and Afghanistan?
Have you ever thought out any of your positions?
Have you ever bounced them off of somebody else
to find out how easily they could be dismissed?
Hey, let me ask Kimberly a question - is she nearby?
Kimberly, would you rather lose Donald under President
Reagan?
Or would you rather he come home safely under
President Clinton?
The reason I ask, Don, is Clinton never sent
a man into battle who didn't come home.
Reagan and Bush lost HUNDREDS of men, each.
Reagan's Lebanon policy killed 240 Marines, and
Bush's bungling of the Glaspie Telex
forced us to put 500,000 people in the desert
in 1990, many of whom didn't make it back.
...but you say Clinton was a disaster for the military?
Does Kimberly agree?
You might not BE here to call Clinton
names if he had the bungling tendencies of Reagan & Bush.
In 1992, our soldiers went to Somalia for another worthy cause.
Thanks you for admitting that.
Most right-wingers claim Clinton sent those men
to Somalia,
but he wasn't sworn in as Commander-in-Chief
until January of 1993.
In 1993,
not long after Clinton was sworn in, his band of lackies changed the mission
and goals of the forces
deployed there. Then Secretary of Defense Les
Aspin's lack of knowledge of policy as it relates to rules of
engagement resulted in wasted lives of fine soldiers.
Gee, didn't he resign his post shortly after that? Hmmm.....
Hold on.
Bush, trying to prove he wasn't a typical heartless
Republican, turned the fighting men in our military into a
"Meals on Wheels" program. The Somali
warlords were stealing the food, so yes, the mission changed.
Why didn't Bush know that the warlords controlled
Somalia and would be a problem for the food distribution?
Yes, Aspin resigned, and Somalia was a disaster.
Why did Bush think a few hundred Marines could
tame an entire country?
Why didn't Bush send APCs with the initial invading
force?
I'll bet President Bush would like to have that
decision to make over again.
Your damn right
I am glad we have a Republican back in office. It took only eight years
of Democratic
neglect to cause so much deterioration in our
forces. The deterioration is far too wide-spread to begin describing.
Don, open your eyes.
Cheney and Rumsfeld are downsizing the military
right
now.
They're saying,
"The cold war is over - we don't need that big of a force anymore."
How can you be in the Army and not know what's
going on?
Don't you get newspapers in your barracks?
I, along with my fellow dedicated servicemembers,
have made sacrifices and endured these past eight years
knowing that brighter times would be ahead. We
watched corporate America pass us by and leave us in the dust.
We watched salaries skyrocket while ours crept
along at a snail's pace by comparison. I have soldiers living at
or near the poverty level while serving their
country.
Don, the Repuiblicans took the House & Senate
in 1995.
Why didn't they help you guys out?
Do you think there's a chance in 10,000 that
Bill Clinton would've vetoed a single bill to increased your pay?
That would've been the smart political move,
and Clinton is a genius at politics.
Why did the GOP think you weren't worth it?
They do it because it needs to be done. Just as
any other profession, not all are totally dedicated.
Que sera sera. We are still, by far, more dedicated,
goal-oriented, respectable Americans than your average Joe.
We get by as best we can because our country
needs us to. If you think we don't protect our Nation from enemies,
then just imagine an America without us. We protect
and guarantee the liberals' right to speak out against us.
That is called a dichotomy. It is not right,
but it will likely always be that way. We deal with it.
Maybe you haven't read enough of bartcop.com
to know, but I'm with you guys.
Say, is Bush trying to cut prescription drug
benefits?
A WWII vet wrote to say he thought that was coming.
Doesn't that make you angry?
After saying "Help
is on the way" at every
campaign stop, where is that help Bush promised?
Am I an Economist?
No...I don't have to be. I am an educated, hard-working, patriotic American.
My eyes are open. I know the truth. I don't base
my perceptions of the truth on what I hear and see
on CNN or read in one of those biased news publications.
I do research to form my opinions and take
a stand on what I know in my heart and mind to
be right. I have a spine, a concept that all too many people
these days cannot even begin to fathom.
I cannot stand Rush Limbaugh!!!
He is a pompous windbag who
is only out to make himself rich by rattling his head.
Yes!
Don shoots - he scores!
He is, however, usually oriented in the correct
direction with his views. He does speak much truth,
which scares some people and annoys many others.
They would much rather hear "I'm OK...you're
OK" and sleep secure believeing that their inadequacies
are someone else's fault.
How in the world could it possibly be their own?
How in the world,
indeed?
Thanks again,
Donald Simmons,
proud American
Don, I sure liked the second half of your letter
better than the first.
Sounds like you've got some valid opinions.
Why not, next time, keep all that angry name-calling
in check and tell us what you think?
If you were a little more likeable, I'd give
you a regular column.
You could speak to dozens of people and
get your message out.