# Minot Daily News Letter



## BigDaddy

The letter below was recently published in the Minot Daily News. What a great contrast between FDR and W. One president defined his presidency by overcoming fear, taking care of our people, and increasing the power and influence of the working class. The other has defined his presidency by spreading fear, focusing on foreign affairs more than his own citizens, and increasing the power and influence of the privileged class.



> Surviving more years of Bush
> 
> Larry Lange, Devils Lake
> 
> Franklin Deleno Roosevelt and George W. Bush, both dynamic leaders, FDR for the poor and middle class, and GWB for the rich, privileged class. What a contrast in their actions.
> 
> GWB, in the infamous Patriot Act and pre-emptive strike legislation, unravels the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and does everything he can to weaken the United Nations.
> 
> FDR, on the other hand, did everything he could to strengthen the Bill of Rights by making sure the accused had adequate defense funding and whose wife, Eleanor, devoted endless hours to creating the United Nations.
> 
> FDR set in motion the legislation creating the labor movement, while GWB has done everything possible to end it.
> 
> FDR set in motion the legislation creating Social Security. GWB is now trying to pass legislation to privatized and ultimately end it as we know it today.
> 
> Two men, both of the privileged class; FDR spreading hope with his famous saying, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." GWB spreading fear with his constant war on terrorists.
> 
> There is a serious question in my mind. It is this: Can the land of the free and the home of the brave survive another four years of this president?


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

The author needs help! :eyeroll:


----------



## DJRooster

Time will tell....FDR's legacy speaks for himself. George W's legacy has yet to be determined but I doubt it will be what most people pump him up to be!!


----------



## jamartinmg2

Remmi_&_I said:


> The author needs help! :eyeroll:


Yes.... I kind of knew what the tone of the letter would be as soon as I read the title, "Surviving more years of Bush".  It makes it sound like the country is in a depression or something. Not to say we don't have some problems, but I would venture a guess that not too many of us would move out of the country if given the chance. (MT excluded of course oke I guess the great thing about this country, though, is that everybody is entitled to their respective opinion. Thats what I like about this forum.... even though I disagree with alot of what is said!


----------



## Storm

I guess some people have a different outlook on President Bush than others.

First of all I would like to point out a few things. when FDR was president we were attacked by the Japanesse at Pearl Harbor killing some where around 2,500 americans. How did FDR respond to this....he declared war on the Axis powers and rightly so. Ultamatly over 300,000 americans lost their lives in WWII. Now fastforward 60 years and this time the U.S. was attacked in New York by terrorist killing over 3,000 people, most who where U.S. citizens. How did President Bush react to this. He declared war on the terrorist and countrys who harbor terrorism, and rightly so. To date there have been roughly 1,100 U.S. soldiers die in combat. Has the U.S. been attacked again. No. Bush has done a wonderful job protecting all of us, including you Liberals so that you can continue to express your right of free speech bashing him.

The United Nations is a joke. Have any of you been following the Food for oil scandel at all. The U.N. was completely in on this including Kofi Annan's (the head of the U.N.'s) son. What did the U.N. do in Iraq the first time they were bombed. They packed up their bags and went crying away. Nothing like giving the terrorist more confidence. Thank God President Bush didn't do this, and there is about 4 million Iraqis who would say the same thing. Look how the U.N. preformed in Somalia back in 1993 I believe. If you don't remember watch or read "Black Hawk Down."

The labor movent, and I am assuming the author is talking about Unions have done themselves in. They are shrinking in numbers, and I don't think George Bush is going around telling guys to quite paying their dues. Workers are figuring out what Unions are really about and how politicized they have become.

The last statement is the funniest. Do we have to replay tape of 9/11. President Bush is right for letting the U.S. public know that there is a large group of people out there that would love to kill every U.S. citizen out there....even Liberals. If you don't think the terrorist are a threat, go back and review the tapes of 757's flying into buildings. Very scarey!

FDR never ment for Social Security to be a totaly retirement plan for the elderly, but rather would help them to become wealthy. Todays landscape is totally different. There's not as many younger people coming up to support the retirees and this if a fact. I can remember when Clinton was in office all the Dems were saying social security is going broke we need to have a "Lockbox" on social security. Now all the sudden they all say Social Security is just fine. Logical sense tell you that social security is going to be broke in the future unless something is done. President Bush has taken the lead on doing something about besides raising your taxes. Hey theres a concept for you Liberals, we won't raise your taxes but let the private sector (Stock Market) make up the diffrence on only 4% of social security withholdings. %4, the other 96% will stay the same.

So the author of this article is abvioulsy clueless.


----------



## huntin1

Yeah, FDR was a fine, honest, upstanding man. Here's one of his quotes:

"You know I am a juggler, and I never let my right hand know what my left hand does. I'm perfectly willing to mislead and tell untruths"...FDR, May 1941 (p 550, Morgan - FDR A Biography, 1985, Ted Morgan)

What would you liberals do if President Bush addressed the nation and made a statement like that today?

FDR was also a great economic leader, right. Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gingrich toted FDR as the man of the century, saving capitalism and bringing us out of the depression. Here's another opinion:

"FDR did not "bring us out of the Depression," as Gingrich, who claims to be a historian, argued. The fact is, he made the Depression much worse. Roosevelt doubled federal expenditures between 1933 and 1940, draining much of the economic lifeblood out of the economy. That is why the government's own measure of the unemployment rate was at 19 percent in 1938, compared to 15.9 percent in 1931, the year before Roosevelt was elected president." (The Phony of the Century-Thomas J. DiLorenzo)

Read the whole article here:

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail. ... authorlast

Bigdaddy, there are two sides to every story. With just a little bit of research I found many books and articles out there that will tell you how big of a crook FDR was, and just what he stood for. Here's one that happens to be on line:

http://www.rooseveltmyth.com/book/hbzfrm.htm

But then most liberals I know don't bother to look at both sides and try to find truth, they only care about the parts that agree with their agenda. :eyeroll:

If the author of that letter is the same Larry Lange that used to live in Jamestown, he is one of the biggest idiots in the state.

huntin1


----------



## ej4prmc

Author is *DEAD ON* :beer:


----------



## Storm

I grew up listening to my grandfather cuss FDR. He grew up through the depression and said WWII is what brought our country out of the depression not FDR.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

The author is an idiot.......PERIOD! He obviously has nothing better to do than ***** and moan. Does he even know what FDR did when he was president?

I just remembered another reason I left MINDROT (minot) the TRAGIC CITY (magic city)......... the Minot Diddly News!


----------



## DJRooster

We all need to be loved! Minot and George W need love, too!!


----------



## Plainsman

I really enjoyed this post. The only down side, the liberals are making me feel old. I'm not limber enough anymore to get my head where some of you have yours. Haaaaaa.
:fiddle:


----------



## tail chaser

Mindrot?

Now you have stooped to calling whole towns names? Way to be part of the solution! Hey don't you have clients in Mindrot? maybe not anymore if you keep that up. I continue to be amazed at how many of you on both sides claim that your political affiliat is the best thing since sliced bread. Evil has many faces and criminals and wrong doers will exist in a third or forth party it doesn't matter. The term liberal is thrown around as if they are felons, and for what? Standing up for what they believe, I thought that was democracy? Conservatives believe the private sector and the corporate world is the best way to remedy everything. If this is so then why have we recently seen the huge increase in corp crime? How can they claim the economy is so good for everyone yet they complain about the increase in welfare? The left nor the right ever comes up with the solution its always a compromise thank god! What FDR did was take the chance that the private sector was not willing to do, SPEND MONEY and pay people a living wage, when nobody else would, and it did help, was it the cure all? No, there is no such thing.

Left, right, Dem, or Rep who cares! if your a criminal your a criminal! Its not a crime to be one or the other. I did not vote for or like Bush but he is my President as well as yours. Remember thats a right I have. I question all poloticians not just the other side.

Yes, I think the letter makes some leaps, but so did the person who posted the statements about Unions, they don't know what a Union stands for or does, anybody can make a mistake, without them we would have no opinions.

Just a suggestion, next time a political news story comes your way think about how it effects you instead of how your side thinks of it. If the hunting issues of North Dakota were national news how many of you would be on the Republican or Democrats side? It really doesn't matter does it? No, because hunting and the outdoors means more to us than party polotics right? Why can't some of you see other things that same way?

Party polotics, a tool for organizing? Or does it exist for those to stupid to think for themselvs? You decide.

TC


----------



## Plainsman

tail chaser wrote:



> Party polotics, a tool for organizing? Or does it exist for those to stupid to think for themselvs? You decide.


With that comment I must apologize for thinking you were a mindless lefty. That was evidently a misconception on my part. I don't always agree with you, but I do agree completely with your last comment. I would rather be thought of as mid range conservative than republican, because I don't want to be pigeonholed.

I think most of the comments are retaliatory. If someone is as blind and short sighted as the author of that article, and make it partisan the opposition will react in like manner. The attitudes against him are a reflection of his own bias. Never the less you made some good points, and so did others. I enjoyed your comment, but must also admit I got a chuckle out of Mindrot diddly news.

With the elections over things are becoming more light hearted. Thus my comment about some people having their heads where the sun doesn't shine. I really am amazed at what some people will believe. I think it is perhaps a reflection of age and where they live.

Things have been getting quiet on the political form as of late, but I am sure we can all rely on MT to say something off the wall for our entertainment.

I should also say that I think unions started as a good thing, to protect people from being taken advantage of by rich corporations with no sense of compassion or feelings of fairness for their employees. I think they are dying now because they have become nothing but a partisan tool for the left. If I worked for a company, paid my union dues, only to have them donate money to a politician I found disgusting I would be very angry. The common member doesn't have a voice anymore.


----------



## Plainsman

It is odd how things happen sometimes. People are on here talking about their hero FDR and guess what they were talking about on the news tonight. They were talking about mistakes that the supreme court has made. One was they backed FDR when he locked up all the oriental people in internment camps during World War II. I didn't realize he was the one that made that decision, and went all the way to the supreme court with it.

Oh, also, his fiscal policies were a disaster. That's why some people who gravitate towards the conspiracy theories think FDR knew about Pearl Harbor before hand but wanted into the war to save his failed economic policies. I don't think any president in history has been that morally corrupt, but the war did camouflage his disastrous economic failures.


----------



## the_duckinator

Here's some quotes for you huntin1.

"It's not a dictatorship in Washington, but I tried to make it one in that instance."
-- George Bush, New Orleans, Louisiana, Jan. 15, 2004

"It's important for people to know that I'm the president of everybody."
-- George Bush, Air Force One, Jan. 14, 2005

"One of the most amazing events of my life, at least as the presidency, was to go to the NASCAR Race here at the Daytona 500."
-- OK, two things: (1) Dubya is the president, not the presidency, and (2) How could going to a NASCAR race be the most amazing event of his life or of the last four years? Daytona Beach, Florida, Oct. 16, 2004

"I'm the master of low expectations."
-- You said it, Dubya, aboard Air Force One, Jun. 4, 2003

www.dubyaspeak.com

And Remmi,



> He obviously has nothing better to do than b#tch and moan. Does he even know what FDR did when he was president?


Do you know what Bush has done while he's been president? Things like destroying foreign relations, opening 131.4 million acres of forest to logging without environmental review, cutting 440,000 miles of roads through national forests, opening 9 million acres of land in Alaska to oil drilling, and 4 million acres in the lower 48, he has REMOVED PROTECTIONS FROM 234 MILLION ACRES OF WILDLANDS-A THIRD OF OUR PUBLIC LANDS, OR ONE TENTH OF THE LANDMASS OF THE UNITED STATES, he has cut 16.4 million acres of land from from "critical habitat" status and refused to offer protection to struggling species, Bush is trying to strip endangered species status from the grizzly bear, manatee, and other threatened animals, failed to sign the kyoto treaty (which his father helped create), need I go on? If you would like me to I'd be more than happy to, I have loads of info. Actually, I have one more little blurb-
Acres of wildlerness designated, by president:
Johnson:9,900,000
Nixon: 1,600,000
Ford: 3,100,000
Carter: 66,300,000
Reagan: 10,600,000
G.H.W. Bush: 4,000,000
Clinton: 9,500,000
George Bush: 500,000 
(As of early 2004)

Now if any of you have facts proving me wrong I'd love to see them.


----------



## backhome

Great stats, duckinator. Along with Bush's poor (to put it mildly) environmental record as you point out, there is his fiscal record. I am a fiscal conservative. The current state of the budget and trade deficits concerns me more than anything else. His fiscal record is horrendous. I have enjoyed the tax cuts as much as anyone else, but to put the US into such a bad financial situation? People that support Bush must do so because of his "views" on social issues (gay marriage, etc.) because his "results" in pretty much all regards are dismal.


----------



## the_duckinator

Right on.


----------



## Plainsman

Not many of us are willing to spend the time looking up all the stats you presented duckinator, so to make it easy can you list credible references. They sound a little off the wall. Like the liberal sites MT goes to where it's Americas fault for all the Iraqi dead etc.

As I have stated before I am not happy with the republican environmental record myself. It is my main beef with the conservatives. If we are truly conservative should we not conserve our natural environment? However with that being said I think your stats are exaggerated. Where did you get them. I call republican senators and voice my disappointment with their environmental record, but with people exaggerating it will backfire and we will loose. I would like to make a difference in their environment view, but exaggeration undercuts sincere efforts. They do more damage than good. If we agree on a need for the republicans to be more environmental then get real. Divisive fair tails will not help us.

Backhome, I do support Bush because of social issues. I do believe however that tax cuts stimulate the economy. From the economic perspective I am sometimes suspicious that Bush spends like a liberal to take away the beef that liberals would otherwise have with him. I find it extremely ironic to hear liberals say he spends to much. Of course they overlook his social spending, but want to see very little spent on defense. Defense has always been a liberal weakness. They prefer to appease.


----------



## the_duckinator

Plainsman, all of those stats are from the Sierra Club, which is a very credible source. And no I am not exaggerating them.



> I call republican senators and voice my disappointment with their environmental record


Good for you, the only way anything will get done about this is for every one to take an active role.

Lets put it this way, more environment preserved, more animals. Every time I see a "Sportsmen for Bush" bumper-sticker I cringe, because true sportsmen know that there's no animals, and therefore no hunting, without proper conservation of the enviornment.


----------



## Plainsman

Likewise every time I seen a Kerry, Schummer, or Hillary bumper sticker I cringe. Without weapons I will hunt with what? Perhaps with spit balls like Zell Miller proposed defending ourselves with if the liberals run defense. The it would be like how Dr. Valerius Geist described the situation with wildlife management in Canada. He said that gun control had reduced hunter numbers. Reduced hunter numbers had reduced interest in wildlife. Reduced interest had resulted in nearly no management as of late.

Both parties need to improve. Republicans need to be more environmentally aware, and democrats need to drop their anti gun agenda. I call and tell republican representatives this, do any of you liberals call democrat representatives and take an active part, or do you just whine "Bush is naughty" .


----------



## backhome

Plainsman said:


> From the economic perspective I am sometimes suspicious that Bush spends like a liberal to take away the beef that liberals would otherwise have with him. I find it extremely ironic to hear liberals say he spends to much.


Bush spends like a liberal to make liberals happy? Political genius. His father should have thought of that.

I am a fiscal conservative, and I say Bush spends too much. The only irony I see is when conservatives try to suggest his fiscal record is anything other than horrible.


----------



## the_duckinator

Plainsman, there's always baseball bats, chickenwire, stones...lol. But on the serious side, I never heard Kerry say that he was going to take away or ban firearms. I could be wrong though, and if you have any Kerry quotes that say anything about banning guns that'd be great.


----------



## Plainsman

Backhome

I agree he is spending to much, some on the wrong things, some on the right things.

Duckinator

I don't know of any quotes, it's his voting record that scares me. You are rather new here, you perhaps don't remember the picture I posted (got permission from the people at Vote Your Sport) of Kerry, Hillary, Shummer, and Kennedy exiting the capitol rotunda happy after having cast anti gun votes.

Liked your humor though. Not as nuts as that guy posting on here that wants to kill a deer with his bare hands. Did you see his posts?


----------



## the_duckinator

No, I didn't see that, but I'd like too. I'd like to watch him do that :roll: All I can say to him is "good luck"


----------



## Plainsman

duckinator

Nice talking with you , but I am getting to old to stay up this late. Later.


----------



## tail chaser

Plainsman, I consider myself liberal, I have been in Bismarck 6 times this session to testify and have all three of the DC deligation on speed dial. All 3 know me by my first name, and I don't whine about Bush being bad, I back it up with facts. What do you do? One mistake you are making is calling only Republican representatives and not the Dems. If control group "A" keeps doing something you don't like then why do you only contact control group "B" that does what you want?

TC


----------



## the_duckinator

Good point TC.


----------



## Plainsman

tail chaser

Perhaps you are right. I call mostly republicans because I think they will listen to me as a conservative. I skip calling democrats because I think they will write me off without listening. I think the republicans would do the same to a democrat. What I am saying is people of your own party are more responsive to you republican or democrat. Maybe I shouldn't give up that easy. I will take your advice. In the past I have had Dorgans aids start arguing with me when I called in with my opinion.

Oh, I might add, I call the republicans when they are not doing what I want, more often than when I agree with what they are doing.


----------



## tail chaser

I must admit I have had it out with those very same aids. Its mostly the local republicans that have written me off as the wacko but I still praise and scold them when deserved.

TC


----------

