Try facism label for ObamaCare
A teacher who identified himself as a government teacher admonished the editor for using the term “socialism” to describe the health care law.
The letter challenged me to look up the use of the term in my Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary 11th edition. The definition says “any of various economic and political theories advocating government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
Sounds mighty close to what ObamaCare is about.
Perhaps the government teacher would prefer “fascism” when referring to the health care law?
Fascism is “any of various economic systems in which the production and distribution of goods is privately owned but a severe, autocratic agency dictates the price and quality and distribution of goods and services.”
If the editor is to be criticized, it may be for redundancy. The phrase “ObamaCare socialized medicine law” definitely is redundant.
GARY McDONALD
Cleveland, Tenn.
Send freeloaders to the moon
I think Gingrich has the right idea!
Start a colony on the moon and send the ones in jail, the ones too lazy to work, and all those who we have to pay for their up-keep, and let them support themselves.
I get so tired of having to pay taxes for those who do wrong, and we’re the ones that have to pay for it.
We have to take a drug test for a job, but those who get our tax money for food stamps and welfare do not. They get food with food stamps, then buy their smokes, beer and drugs with what money they have.
We are sick of this!
These are the kinds of changes that need to be made!
Those in jail should have to work to pay for their own upkeep!
Let them clean the road, grow their own food. There’s a lot they could do. Build homes for the needy.
JOHN MARTIN
Spring City, Tenn.
Fabricating things shows desperation
The Saturday, Feb. 4, opinion page “A wise decision, sadly reversed“: I could not find anywhere on the Internet that donations increased to Komen after the funding cutoff to Planned Parenthood.
It seems just the opposite happened; donors abandoned Komen. That was the real reason for the reversal: All they care about is the $$$$.
If you can’t be truthful and have to fabricate things to make a right-wing point you are really getting desperate. Actually funding increased directly to Planned Parenthood by over a million dollars.
How do expect anyone to respect your opinions if you’re not truthful?
NELSON SULLIVAN
Hixson
(Editor’s Note: The Washington Times on Feb. 2, “In a conference call with reporters Thursday, (Komen CEO Nancy) Bringer said Komen’s own donations ‘are up 100 percent in the past two days’ since the Associated Press first reported the cutoff.”
Funding reversal a win for women
In the Saturday Op-ed section, the Free Press editor said that the Susan G. Komen Foundation decision to reverse cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood was a “win” for abortionists.
Komen reversed the decision, hopefully because they realize their funding has absolutely nothing to do with abortions and has everything to do with saving women from cancer.
Komen cut the funding initially because of new rules implemented to curtail grants to institutions under investigation. This is curious because under the new guidelines, Planned Parenthood is the only institution under investigation.
The new rules were tailored to make sure PP lost their funding.
If you listen to political pundits on the right they will tell you that’s all PP does, provide abortions, which is very curious because it only represents 3 percent of their funding.
Maybe it’s just me, but I have to question why these pundits and other folks feel the need to lie if their cause is righteous?
This wasn’t a win for Planned Parenthood as the editor so callously claims. It’s a win for every woman whose life has been saved by cancer screening.
JASON MUNSON-JACKSON
How can you take liberals seriously?
In reply to the gentleman (letters, Feb. 2) who, as a proud Democrat, laughingly suggested that conservatives are prejudiced and uneducated.
Really?
Just this week at a long held, pro-life rally in Rhode Island, an occupy group throws condoms at Catholic school girls, shouting down their rally. Next there is a story in Memphis about a black radio talk show host conducting a racist, profanity-filled interview of a black lady running as a Republican for Tennessee District 9, silencing her just because she is not Democrat.
What a show of class and maturity those folks are, huh?
Whether you agree with the other side or not, is that the kind of “educated” behavior the writer is so proud of? So much for enlightened, civil conversation.
It never ceases to amaze how liberals constantly embrace totally indefensible positions like nanny state socialism or that taxpayes’ money somehow grows on trees — even though it never works — so how can they ever be taken seriously?
WARREN DANIEL
The ‘occupiers’ are superfluous
Most of us are not in the top 1 percent. However, almost all of us are in the 95 percent or so who are well- fed, well-clothed and well-sheltered.
It seems that the “occupiers” have acknowledged that they are superfluous humans. “I have a problem; someone else solve it.”
ROBERT F. CAHILL
Hixson