If You Are Not a Republican, You are Worthless!

Shocking, I know. I was un-aware of this myself until this morning. I was reading the Daily paper like I do every morning. I always save the Forum section for last, because I don't like it when the rest of my paper reading experience is ruined by the select few who have decided that God made them better than everyone else. Funny thing is...every time someone writes in telling us all how we are wrong and they are right, they always seem to be supporting some kind of Republican issue. I found myself logging on to the papers website so I could respond to this all knowing person's comments. But then I decided I did not want to be "That Guy", so I aborted. I figured I would discuss it here instead. Plus, here I can give you the guys name who wrote in. It is John Lyden from Liberty Township, Ohio. When you respond in the paper they do not let you refer to the author by name, even though it is posted at the bottom of the letter. I was going to include his address and phone number should anyone "want" it, but I was unable to locate it. But it really is not a surprise....it is always better for the high and mighty to be unlisted so us common folk don't try and track them down and tap some of their infinite wisdom. Let me start by posting Mr. Lyden's letter below. We can then go from there:

HILLARY'S NO MAGGIE; BILL'S NO SECRETARIAT
Two observations regarding syndicated columnist Maureen Dowd's whining, hypocritical column ("Clinton presents a flawed test case for women as leaders," Feb. 14), which tries to excuse Sen. Hillary Clinton's failure as a candidate:
First, Margaret Thatcher succeeded brilliantly in a man's world. She did it without surrendering her gender; she simply led. Second, comparing former President Clinton to Secretariat does the greatest racehorse in history an enormous and unwarranted disservice.
John Lyden, Liberty Township

Where do I start? Let's try this: The only thing more irritating than someone who makes statements without every inserting "in my opinion" or "I believe", or "the way I see it"....is being trapped in a corner by a pack of hungry Badgers, while you happen to be carrying 5 raw steaks in your pockets.

Right off the bat we see Mr. Lyden's superior IQ at work. All geniuses start off with name calling. I never saw Maureen Dowd as whining, or being hypocritical, but then again I am 7 brain cells shy of being a talking Monkey. So Thank you for pointing out that she is just a big cry-baby, and not a person with an "OPINION". I guess they should call it the "You people are all retarded, and I'm not" section, as opposed to the Opinion section. Anyway...I digress.

Next Mr. Lyden mentions the author "excusing Hillary Clintons failure as a candidate". Now don't get me wrong, I am not a Hillary supporter. I do however still have those 7 brain cells left, and even they are enough to tell me that being involved in such a historic nomination process points to anything but failure. If she were a failure, Obama would have McCain type numbers compared to her. So again, I guess he is filling in those of us who think "failure" and Successful" mean the same thing. Thank you for that Mr. Lyden.

Then we have the very factual...not opinionated....comment that "Margaret Thatcher succeeded brilliantly in a man's world without surrendering her gender." Look...I get that Hillary has a deep voice, but what the hell are you talking about? Ahh....I get it now. Margaret Thatcher was a member of the "Conservative" Party. Conservative Party...hmmm...why does that ring a bell?. Do you think that Mr. Lyden is aware of the fact that the British Conservative party used to be known as the "Tories"? The word Tories was originally used to describe rural bandits in Ireland. In the 17th century it had become a term applied to monarchists in the House of Commons. By the 18th century the Tories were politicians who favoured royal authority, the established church and who sought to preserve the traditional political structure and opposed parliamentary reform. After 1834 this political group in the House of Commons preferred to use the term Conservative. So they basically changed their name from "bandits" to "conservatives". IN MY OPINION, that sounds about right. Coincidence? Hillary is not my cup of tea, but I'm not sure where she abandoned her gender along the way. Woman voters seem to like her. But what do those silly liberals know. If you are not a Republican, you are worthless...right Mr. Lyden?

As far as the comment about comparing Bill Clinton to the race horse Secretariat, what can you really say about that? Sure Bill acted like a horse's ass now and again. But it is hard to argue facts. Facts can be distorted, sure. But when they are actual facts...they are hard to dispute. And the fact remains that the United States of America was in the best shape it has ever been in during the Clinton years. I don't care if you are a Republican or a Dem....when you look at the numbers as a whole...things were good. If you would like more detail on what he did for the people of this country.....all the people, you can get it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Administration

So what have we learned here today? Probably nothing. But the way I see it, people are more likely to listen to what you have to say if you talk to them....not at them. Express your views as just that....Your Views. If everyone agreed on everything, life would be more boring than attending a 3 day convention on the proper way to watch paint dry. I'm going to go out on a limb and make the assumption that the great horse Secretariat, no matter what dog's stomach he lies in, is not turning in his horsey grave thinking it is a "great disservice" to be compared to Bill Clinton. Who knows, maybe Secretariat was a Democrat.