An open letter to Obama

[namvet]

This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it. Big surprise.

Maybe because the NY Times actually has standards. They do not print rants full of half-truths, innuendo, wild assumtions and lies....that they leave for FoxNews

you mean the same NYT that prints classified docs they bought from leaks in the CIA and FBI that puts lives and property at risk???? that one????

 

[namvet]

This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it. Big surprise.

Maybe because the NY Times actually has standards. They do not print rants full of half-truths, innuendo, wild assumtions and lies....that they leave for FoxNews

you should be a comedian, thats hillarious

ill laff with on this one

 

[veritas]

This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it. Big surprise.

Maybe because the NY Times actually has standards. They do not print rants full of half-truths, innuendo, wild assumtions and lies....that they leave for FoxNews

you mean the same NYT that prints classified docs they bought from leaks in the CIA and FBI that puts lives and property at risk???? that one????

Tell it to Novak. Oh wait!! You can't! He left the building. Tell it to Cheney and his lil scooter.

 

[namvet]

post 18 is the joke for today !!!!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The New York Times is to Honest and Diligent reporting as Fox News is to Fair and Balanced reporting.

 

[rdean]

rdean by your definition everyone on the Forrestal was culpable for that particular accident. What was McCain doing on the Forrestal at the time? Sitting in his plane on the launch catapult when someone else blew it out from under him. Precisely what was he supposed to do? There are many reasons to not want John McCain to be president that bit of Obscene blather posted by some ignorant internet hack for which there is not one shred of physical evidence in support of McCain being either incompetent or a bad pilot.

I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion. First of all, John McCain lost 5 multi million dollar jets. The first one due to a bad landing, was lost in a bay, the second was when he hit power lines. The last one was when he flew, against orders, too close to the ground and was shot down. In a bay? Power lines? Seriously?

Come one, who gives someone more chances after three or four? That's because your father and grand father are admirals. How does a guy who graduated 5th from the bottom out of 899 cadets get a chance to destroy 5 multi million dollar fighter jets? Just curious.

As far as the Forrestal goes, John McCain was the ONLY person NOT seriously injured who was air lifted off the Carrier. Why? Because the crew felt he had been "hot dogging". That's when you let kerosene pool in the engine and then blow it out the back in a burst of flame.

Fighter jets have been redesigned and it's not possible to do that anymore.
The Navy said they didn't have enough evidence to prove McCain was hot-dogging, however, some crewmen said another plane moved in behind his and when the flame hit that plane, it set off a rocket which flew into his plane and exploded the gas tank. McCain jumped off the nose of his plane and ran below deck.

The reason he was airlifted is because the crew wanted to kill him. He was the only officer on deck who was NOT decorated. There is a yearly memorial to the more than 160 men who eventually died. McCain has never attended a single memorial. I suspect he may not be enthusiastically welcomed. Your thoughts?

 

[namvet]

rdean by your definition everyone on the Forrestal was culpable for that particular accident. What was McCain doing on the Forrestal at the time? Sitting in his plane on the launch catapult when someone else blew it out from under him. Precisely what was he supposed to do? There are many reasons to not want John McCain to be president that bit of Obscene blather posted by some ignorant internet hack for which there is not one shred of physical evidence in support of McCain being either incompetent or a bad pilot.

I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion. First of all, John McCain lost 5 multi million dollar jets. The first one due to a bad landing, was lost in a bay, the second was when he hit power lines. The last one was when he flew, against orders, too close to the ground and was shot down. In a bay? Power lines? Seriously?

Come one, who gives someone more chances after three or four? That's because your father and grand father are admirals. How does a guy who graduated 5th from the bottom out of 899 cadets get a chance to destroy 5 multi million dollar fighter jets? Just curious.

As far as the Forrestal goes, John McCain was the ONLY person NOT seriously injured who was air lifted off the Carrier. Why? Because the crew felt he had been "hot dogging". That's when you let kerosene pool in the engine and then blow it out the back in a burst of flame.

Fighter jets have been redesigned and it's not possible to do that anymore.
The Navy said they didn't have enough evidence to prove McCain was hot-dogging, however, some crewmen said another plane moved in behind his and when the flame hit that plane, it set off a rocket which flew into his plane and exploded the gas tank. McCain jumped off the nose of his plane and ran below deck.

The reason he was airlifted is because the crew wanted to kill him. He was the only officer on deck who was NOT decorated. There is a yearly memorial to the more than 160 men who eventually died. McCain has never attended a single memorial. I suspect he may not be enthusiastically welcomed. Your thoughts?

prove it you lying sack a shit !!!!!!!!

 

[rdean]

Trial & Error: An Open Letter to Lou Pritchett

Tuesday, June 16, 2009
An Open Letter to Lou Pritchett

Emblematic of the disturbed right-wing fear mongering that has grown up like ringworm on the American body politic since long before Obama was even elected is a piece entitled An Open Letter to President Obama penned by a Lou Pritchett, who was a vice-president of Proctor & Gamble and the author of a business self-help book.

Mr. Pritchett hoped to have had his work published in The New York Times but surprisingly never received any acknowledgement of his submission. Nevertheless, it has become a popular fixture on right-wing websites and fodder for e-mail forwards by conservatives to their friends.

In this letter, Mr. Pritchett sets out the reasons Obama supposedly "scares" him. His work instead has the converse effect of demonstrating the reasons people like Mr. Pritchett scare me.

Dear Mr. Pritchett:

I would like to take this opportunity to comment on your "open letter" to President Obama.


Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.


Who's fault is that? The President's biography and curriculum vitae are public record. You could find out anything you want about Obama by a simple Google search or a trip to your local library.


You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.


FOX News, of all outlets, managed somehow to be aware that Obama paid for his expensive Ivy League education through student loans, which were paid off by the proceeds of his book deals. That you, Mr. Pritchett, were unable to discover this is very interesting.


You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.


Is there an objective definition of what it means to be "culturally" an American? It seems from this that you apparently believe so, and you believe you have the authority to judge others by that standard and determine whether or not they pass muster. That is scary.


You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.


And this is relevant how? You assert that Obama is the first President that has scared you. That implies that Obama's predecessor did not scare you and that you deem George W. Bush a better chief executive than Obama. Bush's record of company management was not exactly stellar. If you prefer a President who proved a repeated failure in running a company to one who has never run a company to ruin, that is scary.


You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.


The response to this concern is similar to that above. If Obama scares you because he has never served in the military, were you likewise scared by Bush whose military experience amounted to a brief cushy stint in the Texas Air National Guard without ever seeing combat? How about his powerful Vice-President who could not volunteer for military service because he had "other priorities?"


You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.


This is a pretty weak allegation. It offers no details, no specifics, just vague character aspersions. You'll have to do better than that, Mr. Pritchett.


You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.


I understand that it is common in conservative media to repeat allegations endlessly until they become memes irretrievably lodged in the public consciousness and thus accepted by many blindly as fact. However, it would be really nice if you happened to be able to name just one "radical extremist" with whom Obama had "aligned himself" and who "hate America" and "wish to see America fail."

While we're at it, what the heck does it mean to want America to "fail?" Fail at what? America is a nation-state, and as such its purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens and advance their general welfare, so I suppose America would "fail" if it defaulted on those goals. I don't know of anyone associated with Obama who actively seeks that outcome, but it's worth noting which party has been most consistently in favor of policies that restrict the freedoms of Americans based on their own narrowly-defined visions of "morality" and "tradition" and which benefit the most privileged strata of society to the exclusion (and all too often at the expense) of the working people who actually produce the wealth we enjoy. And no, the answer is not "the Democrat [sic] Party."


You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.


This suggests that you have apparently never read or listened to a single speech Obama has ever given. Either that, or you equate the honest admission of shortcomings (usually a necessary step in solving those shortcomings and improving oneself) with "blaming America." Perhaps you believe that America is infallible, guaranteed by Divine blessing never to make even the slightest mistake in any policy or program? If so, that is scary.


You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.


Given how well the "private sector" has been shown to regulate itself, why is this a bad thing? Moreover, why should one trust the autocratic and undemocratic corporate sector to run things better than the elected and theoretically democratic government? Europeans in general do not seem to be too upset with lifestyle and standard of living that their close cooperation of government and business provides them.


You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.


Similar to above, why is this scary? Moreover, it displays your ignorance: Obama has never suggested replacing the private health care system but rather augmenting it with a government-subsidized system for those who fall through the cracks. Our health care system as it stands now stinks. One has to wait ridiculously long to just get an appointment with a doctor in your network, and then you have to gamble about whether or not your insurance provider will grudgingly pay for the care you need. Insurance companies have no transparency or accountability, and I have yet to see any kind of convincing argument why a government-subsidized system would do any worse a job. Canadians and Europeans somehow manage just fine. One has to suspect that the root of what "scares" you is the fear that you will have to pay a little bit more of your wealth in taxes to help support programs for those who didn't have the good fortune to become Vice Presidents of major corporations with generous compensation packages. This is selfishness, pure and simple.


You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.


This is absurd, and short-sighted. These "vast oil, coal, and shale reserves" are not infinite. They will run out, probably sooner than we think. Maybe you think that "necessity is the mother of invention" and will trust in market forces to solve the fuel crisis once the world's economy completely collapses; common sense, however, would advise that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That you don't understand this is truly scary.


You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.


This is an example of several memes that are routinely spouted as if they are unquestionable truths.

Can you cite any evidence that Obama has any interest or intention of undermining the capitalist mode of production? That he seeks to abolish private property and collectivize the means of production? Has Obama advocated worker ownership of capital? If so, I would be thrilled. Obama is no threat to capitalism, Mr. Pritchett. Indeed, his policies may succeed in keeping the system up and running for a while longer.

As for the notion that America has the highest standard of living and that capitalism makes this possible, how do you measure and determine that result? Is it taken by average? If so, I hope a businessman of your stature would understand the simple mathematical reality that the obscenely high standard of living enjoyed by our population's wealthy elite games the numbers when applied to rest of us. The wealthiest 1% of the US population owns 33% of the nation's wealth, and the top 10% own nearly 70%. It is an inevitable result in capitalist economies that the greater the over-all wealth of a country, the larger the population of the poor and disadvantaged. Moreover, a disturbing ignorance is further revealed in this limiting focus on national economies; capitalism recognizes no national borders. Ours is a global economy inextricably tied with markets and producers scattered all around the planet. The poverty and economic disenfranchisement experienced by the underprivileged here at home is nothing compared to the simply inhuman conditions endured by the workers in Asia, Latin America, and other Third World locations who suffer to produce these "golden eggs" of yours.


You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.


"Extortion" is very loaded word, Mr. Pritchett. Would you be so kind as to provide examples of any improper coercion employed by the Executive branch?


You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.


Even if were were to assume that Obama's spending proposals are in fact "wild and irresponsible" -- these are your own subjective opinions, for which you again curiously provide no substantive examples -- you apparently seem not to understand how politics and political parties work. Did the Republican Party challenge President Bush on his "wild and irresponsible" policies? I don't think so, at least not until the fallout from those policies had sown enough discontent among the general population that it became unwise for their own political survival to continue to blindly support the man who believed God had chosen him to be President.


You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.


If anything, Obama has bent over backward to accommodate himself to soi-disant "centrists" and conservatives. His agenda has never really been as "liberal" as you and your comrades make it out to be. Regardless, if Obama has not considered opposing viewpoints from intelligent people, it could very well be that no such viewpoints have been presented.


You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.


This is another sad attack, Mr. Pritchett, just like your jab at his supposed lack of humility and class. I cannot find any documentation of Obama claiming for himself God-like powers. I do seem to recall a President not too long ago, however, who claimed that God Himself had selected him for the job...


You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.


Why should that arouse your fear of Obama as opposed to perhaps something more appropriate like maybe disgust at the media? Now, I am not making a fallacious tu quoque argument here, but the point must be restated that Obama scares you but Bush apparently did not. Bush, too, was granted a "free pass" by the media until the market for infotainment shifted. Did that scare you, too?


You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.


I have not noticed any statement in which Obama has "demonized" any of these individuals, although his strategy of treating Limbaugh as the de facto leader of the Republican Party is political genius. More serious, though, is your charge that Obama seeks to "silence" these media figures. Last time I checked, they were all on the air. You wouldn't be engaging in the same kind of groundless fear-mongering these individuals are known for, now, would you?


You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.


Yet another empty accusation. Honestly, what am supposed to do with something so vague?


Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett



Ooohh! Now, that's scary! Is this because you fear that the government will consider your dissenting opinions "unpatriotic" and have you investigated and harassed by the FBI and maybe even the NSA? Do you worry that you might be identified as an "enemy combatant" and whisked away to a concentration camp in Cuba or a secret CIA "black site" -- or just tossed in federal prison and allowed to rot for months or years without charges? Because surely that has never happened in this country before and you have reason to fear Obama more than any other President...

Oops. Wait a minute. I forgot. Another President has done those things.

Let's talk about your "fears," Mr. Pritchett. If this little essay of yours is a sincere expression of your real, honest, personal concerns, then I am very concerned for you. It displays an unhealthy detachment from reality and I would seriously and honestly encourage you to seek out the assistance of a mental health professional to help you work through these issues of anxiety, paranoia, and possible schizophrenia.

If instead this is a crass and venal piece of propaganda, intended for no other purpose but to spread baseless fear and hatred to worsen the polarization of this country, to fuel the fires that divide and weaken us, then you are clearly a person who hates America and a cheerleader for those who wish to see America fail.

And that scares me.

is this an open letter or just another whine????

It looked like a pretty good answer to an "open whine". Glad I could clear that up.

 

[rdean]

rdean by your definition everyone on the Forrestal was culpable for that particular accident. What was McCain doing on the Forrestal at the time? Sitting in his plane on the launch catapult when someone else blew it out from under him. Precisely what was he supposed to do? There are many reasons to not want John McCain to be president that bit of Obscene blather posted by some ignorant internet hack for which there is not one shred of physical evidence in support of McCain being either incompetent or a bad pilot.

I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion. First of all, John McCain lost 5 multi million dollar jets. The first one due to a bad landing, was lost in a bay, the second was when he hit power lines. The last one was when he flew, against orders, too close to the ground and was shot down. In a bay? Power lines? Seriously?

Come one, who gives someone more chances after three or four? That's because your father and grand father are admirals. How does a guy who graduated 5th from the bottom out of 899 cadets get a chance to destroy 5 multi million dollar fighter jets? Just curious.

As far as the Forrestal goes, John McCain was the ONLY person NOT seriously injured who was air lifted off the Carrier. Why? Because the crew felt he had been "hot dogging". That's when you let kerosene pool in the engine and then blow it out the back in a burst of flame.

Fighter jets have been redesigned and it's not possible to do that anymore.
The Navy said they didn't have enough evidence to prove McCain was hot-dogging, however, some crewmen said another plane moved in behind his and when the flame hit that plane, it set off a rocket which flew into his plane and exploded the gas tank. McCain jumped off the nose of his plane and ran below deck.

The reason he was airlifted is because the crew wanted to kill him. He was the only officer on deck who was NOT decorated. There is a yearly memorial to the more than 160 men who eventually died. McCain has never attended a single memorial. I suspect he may not be enthusiastically welcomed. Your thoughts?

prove it you lying sack a shit !!!!!!!!

Prove that he crashed 5 jets? Prove that he didn't. You won't be able to, because he did. Ha ha ha ha ho ho ho ho ha ha ho ho tee hee chuckle chuckle snicker snicker

 

[namvet]

I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion. First of all, John McCain lost 5 multi million dollar jets. The first one due to a bad landing, was lost in a bay, the second was when he hit power lines. The last one was when he flew, against orders, too close to the ground and was shot down. In a bay? Power lines? Seriously?

Come one, who gives someone more chances after three or four? That's because your father and grand father are admirals. How does a guy who graduated 5th from the bottom out of 899 cadets get a chance to destroy 5 multi million dollar fighter jets? Just curious.

As far as the Forrestal goes, John McCain was the ONLY person NOT seriously injured who was air lifted off the Carrier. Why? Because the crew felt he had been "hot dogging". That's when you let kerosene pool in the engine and then blow it out the back in a burst of flame.

Fighter jets have been redesigned and it's not possible to do that anymore.
The Navy said they didn't have enough evidence to prove McCain was hot-dogging, however, some crewmen said another plane moved in behind his and when the flame hit that plane, it set off a rocket which flew into his plane and exploded the gas tank. McCain jumped off the nose of his plane and ran below deck.

The reason he was airlifted is because the crew wanted to kill him. He was the only officer on deck who was NOT decorated. There is a yearly memorial to the more than 160 men who eventually died. McCain has never attended a single memorial. I suspect he may not be enthusiastically welcomed. Your thoughts?

prove it you lying sack a shit !!!!!!!!

Prove that he crashed 5 jets? Prove that he didn't. You won't be able to, because he did. Ha ha ha ha ho ho ho ho ha ha ho ho tee hee chuckle chuckle snicker snicker

then prove it asshole. come on lets see it. yes i can prove he didn't. you first. your made the acusation so the burden of proof is on you. well???

 

[namvet]

come im waiting. prove it asswipe

 

[namvet]

Trial & Error: An Open Letter to Lou Pritchett

Tuesday, June 16, 2009
An Open Letter to Lou Pritchett

Emblematic of the disturbed right-wing fear mongering that has grown up like ringworm on the American body politic since long before Obama was even elected is a piece entitled An Open Letter to President Obama penned by a Lou Pritchett, who was a vice-president of Proctor & Gamble and the author of a business self-help book.

Mr. Pritchett hoped to have had his work published in The New York Times but surprisingly never received any acknowledgement of his submission. Nevertheless, it has become a popular fixture on right-wing websites and fodder for e-mail forwards by conservatives to their friends.

In this letter, Mr. Pritchett sets out the reasons Obama supposedly "scares" him. His work instead has the converse effect of demonstrating the reasons people like Mr. Pritchett scare me.

Dear Mr. Pritchett:

I would like to take this opportunity to comment on your "open letter" to President Obama.


Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.


Who's fault is that? The President's biography and curriculum vitae are public record. You could find out anything you want about Obama by a simple Google search or a trip to your local library.


You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.


FOX News, of all outlets, managed somehow to be aware that Obama paid for his expensive Ivy League education through student loans, which were paid off by the proceeds of his book deals. That you, Mr. Pritchett, were unable to discover this is very interesting.


You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.


Is there an objective definition of what it means to be "culturally" an American? It seems from this that you apparently believe so, and you believe you have the authority to judge others by that standard and determine whether or not they pass muster. That is scary.


You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.


And this is relevant how? You assert that Obama is the first President that has scared you. That implies that Obama's predecessor did not scare you and that you deem George W. Bush a better chief executive than Obama. Bush's record of company management was not exactly stellar. If you prefer a President who proved a repeated failure in running a company to one who has never run a company to ruin, that is scary.


You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.


The response to this concern is similar to that above. If Obama scares you because he has never served in the military, were you likewise scared by Bush whose military experience amounted to a brief cushy stint in the Texas Air National Guard without ever seeing combat? How about his powerful Vice-President who could not volunteer for military service because he had "other priorities?"


You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.


This is a pretty weak allegation. It offers no details, no specifics, just vague character aspersions. You'll have to do better than that, Mr. Pritchett.


You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.


I understand that it is common in conservative media to repeat allegations endlessly until they become memes irretrievably lodged in the public consciousness and thus accepted by many blindly as fact. However, it would be really nice if you happened to be able to name just one "radical extremist" with whom Obama had "aligned himself" and who "hate America" and "wish to see America fail."

While we're at it, what the heck does it mean to want America to "fail?" Fail at what? America is a nation-state, and as such its purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens and advance their general welfare, so I suppose America would "fail" if it defaulted on those goals. I don't know of anyone associated with Obama who actively seeks that outcome, but it's worth noting which party has been most consistently in favor of policies that restrict the freedoms of Americans based on their own narrowly-defined visions of "morality" and "tradition" and which benefit the most privileged strata of society to the exclusion (and all too often at the expense) of the working people who actually produce the wealth we enjoy. And no, the answer is not "the Democrat [sic] Party."


You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.


This suggests that you have apparently never read or listened to a single speech Obama has ever given. Either that, or you equate the honest admission of shortcomings (usually a necessary step in solving those shortcomings and improving oneself) with "blaming America." Perhaps you believe that America is infallible, guaranteed by Divine blessing never to make even the slightest mistake in any policy or program? If so, that is scary.


You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.


Given how well the "private sector" has been shown to regulate itself, why is this a bad thing? Moreover, why should one trust the autocratic and undemocratic corporate sector to run things better than the elected and theoretically democratic government? Europeans in general do not seem to be too upset with lifestyle and standard of living that their close cooperation of government and business provides them.


You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.


Similar to above, why is this scary? Moreover, it displays your ignorance: Obama has never suggested replacing the private health care system but rather augmenting it with a government-subsidized system for those who fall through the cracks. Our health care system as it stands now stinks. One has to wait ridiculously long to just get an appointment with a doctor in your network, and then you have to gamble about whether or not your insurance provider will grudgingly pay for the care you need. Insurance companies have no transparency or accountability, and I have yet to see any kind of convincing argument why a government-subsidized system would do any worse a job. Canadians and Europeans somehow manage just fine. One has to suspect that the root of what "scares" you is the fear that you will have to pay a little bit more of your wealth in taxes to help support programs for those who didn't have the good fortune to become Vice Presidents of major corporations with generous compensation packages. This is selfishness, pure and simple.


You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.


This is absurd, and short-sighted. These "vast oil, coal, and shale reserves" are not infinite. They will run out, probably sooner than we think. Maybe you think that "necessity is the mother of invention" and will trust in market forces to solve the fuel crisis once the world's economy completely collapses; common sense, however, would advise that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That you don't understand this is truly scary.


You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.


This is an example of several memes that are routinely spouted as if they are unquestionable truths.

Can you cite any evidence that Obama has any interest or intention of undermining the capitalist mode of production? That he seeks to abolish private property and collectivize the means of production? Has Obama advocated worker ownership of capital? If so, I would be thrilled. Obama is no threat to capitalism, Mr. Pritchett. Indeed, his policies may succeed in keeping the system up and running for a while longer.

As for the notion that America has the highest standard of living and that capitalism makes this possible, how do you measure and determine that result? Is it taken by average? If so, I hope a businessman of your stature would understand the simple mathematical reality that the obscenely high standard of living enjoyed by our population's wealthy elite games the numbers when applied to rest of us. The wealthiest 1% of the US population owns 33% of the nation's wealth, and the top 10% own nearly 70%. It is an inevitable result in capitalist economies that the greater the over-all wealth of a country, the larger the population of the poor and disadvantaged. Moreover, a disturbing ignorance is further revealed in this limiting focus on national economies; capitalism recognizes no national borders. Ours is a global economy inextricably tied with markets and producers scattered all around the planet. The poverty and economic disenfranchisement experienced by the underprivileged here at home is nothing compared to the simply inhuman conditions endured by the workers in Asia, Latin America, and other Third World locations who suffer to produce these "golden eggs" of yours.


You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.


"Extortion" is very loaded word, Mr. Pritchett. Would you be so kind as to provide examples of any improper coercion employed by the Executive branch?


You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.


Even if were were to assume that Obama's spending proposals are in fact "wild and irresponsible" -- these are your own subjective opinions, for which you again curiously provide no substantive examples -- you apparently seem not to understand how politics and political parties work. Did the Republican Party challenge President Bush on his "wild and irresponsible" policies? I don't think so, at least not until the fallout from those policies had sown enough discontent among the general population that it became unwise for their own political survival to continue to blindly support the man who believed God had chosen him to be President.


You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.


If anything, Obama has bent over backward to accommodate himself to soi-disant "centrists" and conservatives. His agenda has never really been as "liberal" as you and your comrades make it out to be. Regardless, if Obama has not considered opposing viewpoints from intelligent people, it could very well be that no such viewpoints have been presented.


You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.


This is another sad attack, Mr. Pritchett, just like your jab at his supposed lack of humility and class. I cannot find any documentation of Obama claiming for himself God-like powers. I do seem to recall a President not too long ago, however, who claimed that God Himself had selected him for the job...


You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.


Why should that arouse your fear of Obama as opposed to perhaps something more appropriate like maybe disgust at the media? Now, I am not making a fallacious tu quoque argument here, but the point must be restated that Obama scares you but Bush apparently did not. Bush, too, was granted a "free pass" by the media until the market for infotainment shifted. Did that scare you, too?


You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.


I have not noticed any statement in which Obama has "demonized" any of these individuals, although his strategy of treating Limbaugh as the de facto leader of the Republican Party is political genius. More serious, though, is your charge that Obama seeks to "silence" these media figures. Last time I checked, they were all on the air. You wouldn't be engaging in the same kind of groundless fear-mongering these individuals are known for, now, would you?


You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.


Yet another empty accusation. Honestly, what am supposed to do with something so vague?


Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett



Ooohh! Now, that's scary! Is this because you fear that the government will consider your dissenting opinions "unpatriotic" and have you investigated and harassed by the FBI and maybe even the NSA? Do you worry that you might be identified as an "enemy combatant" and whisked away to a concentration camp in Cuba or a secret CIA "black site" -- or just tossed in federal prison and allowed to rot for months or years without charges? Because surely that has never happened in this country before and you have reason to fear Obama more than any other President...

Oops. Wait a minute. I forgot. Another President has done those things.

Let's talk about your "fears," Mr. Pritchett. If this little essay of yours is a sincere expression of your real, honest, personal concerns, then I am very concerned for you. It displays an unhealthy detachment from reality and I would seriously and honestly encourage you to seek out the assistance of a mental health professional to help you work through these issues of anxiety, paranoia, and possible schizophrenia.

If instead this is a crass and venal piece of propaganda, intended for no other purpose but to spread baseless fear and hatred to worsen the polarization of this country, to fuel the fires that divide and weaken us, then you are clearly a person who hates America and a cheerleader for those who wish to see America fail.

And that scares me.

is this an open letter or just another whine????

It looked like a pretty good answer to an "open whine". Glad I could clear that up.

a whine by rightwinger. yes we cleared that up