Re: “Reject wrathful diatribes, or find someone who will,” April 12:
To accomplish this, The Times, as suggested by the writer could hire someone; maybe, from one of the writer’s favorite liberal news outlets and this problem would be solved since a letter of conservative views would never be printed. Just think, no more letters of meaningless discussions, as the writer labels my letters.
The writer could read the letters knowing his blood pressure would not rise and would not have to contend with miscomputes who never enter into a “meaningful discussion.” I suspect that the writer believes anything short of liberalism is meaningless discussion.
It appears to me letters that criticize welfare cheats, entitlement frauds, wasteful government spending and bureaucratic gurus are letters, and I repeat, of meaningless discussion and anyone stating this publicly is engaged in in the same. I believe this opinion is in the eyes of the beholder and everyone does not behold as the writer beholds.
If the writer is naïve to the point to believe that there is no cheating as defined above, I will be happy to enlighten him and furthermore, I can positively identify some of them. I can also identify the victims, who are the taxpayers. I have never contended that all social programs be abolished; there is a need for some of them, but that is not to say that closer management and policing is unnecessary.
The writer seems to be quite pleased that I have been publicly insulted and deserve the term; I would not expect anything else. I haven’t insulted anyone unless you call defending the taxpayers insulting. I do not believe this gives reason to call me a bigot and a racist as one of the writer’s cohorts label me.
In closing, I would like to encourage the writer to get off his high horse and get on level ground with the common-sense citizens and maybe his haughty offensiveness will settle down.
This question to the writer. Is your letter an example of “meaningful discussion” or is it a letter of vengeance, rudeness and belittlement?