News-Record.com

I just now reading about LBJ .. and so far do not disagree with this writers assessment .. but I sense Johnson was blending what he thought was the right thing to do with his own agenda ... and that's about how I feel towards Bushie.

We'll see how history treats Georgie Boy.

I just now reading about LBJ .. and so far do not disagree with this writers assessment .. but I sense Johnson was blending what he thought was the right thing to do with his own agenda ... and that's about how I feel towards Bushie.

We'll see how history treats Georgie Boy.

JDR, I wonder the same thing as those ending comments.

While LBJ would not be a role model for me, why should I reject someone else just because that person chose him? At least LBJ had the foresight to seek to do something for the downtrodden! How many other Presidents can say the same?

Shalom

Another thing that sticks out to me about this post is the following comment: "If I lived in North Carolina, I would vote against him not based on his sexual orientation but because of his ignorance of the Emancipation Proclamation and his choice of Lyndon Johnson as his "role model.""

Undoubtedly Jim Neal's sexuality does matter to Charles or it would not have been mentioned. Since he had to state that was NOT the reason for his displeasure with Neal, why even state it? Rather, just state that he would not vote for him due to his "...because of his ignorance of the Emancipation Proclamation and his choice of Lyndon Johnson as his "role model.""

I find it humorous at how people really reveal things without the realization of even having done so!

Shalom

Darryl,

Your points are well taken re the real reason Charles opposes Neal. It reminded me of folks being opposed to blacks holding office but seeks "hide" their real agenda by stating "Some of my best friends are black.". If Charles stated facts that disqualified Neal for the position he is seeking, based on inexperience or a criminal record, I would not give his opposition a second thought.

Also, Charles shows some ignorance of his own by blaming LBJ for the Viet Nam war. While that war did escalate under Johnson's leadership, Eisenhower was the one who sent the first troops into 'Nam in 1958. Although Eisenhower preferred to call them "advisers", they were combat troops. In fact, the first American soldier killed during combat was an "adviser".

Yvonne said:
While that war did escalate under Johnson's leadership, What an understatement!

LBJ lied ....people died.

Sound like anything you've heard before?

Sounds like " Your guy bad, my guy good."

And no, some of my best friends are not black
or blue nor green.

"LBJ lied ....people died"

Oh, how quickly we forget.....Ghost, so does that make you feel stupid about your support of W? Just wondering.

Oxymoron LBJ lied ....people died.
It was a reminder to all the looney left who always love to make that comment about Bush.
In fact you could make that statement about any president.

Wonder no more:

I don't need to spend time feeling stupid, you tell me and several others how stupid we are and how smart you are every day .

Darryl,

From the 10-plus article:

"The Chapel Hill Democrat made news last week when he confirmed that he was gay, a revelation that focused national attention on his campaign."

The article goes on to talk about whether or not it matters that Jim is gay.

Since this letter is responding to an article who's primary reason for being written is because of Jim Neal's revelation that he was gay, I can see why the writer might want to clarify that his sexuality is not the problem he has with Neal before he is demonized into being a homophobic, right-wing nut.

Didn't do him much good, though.

Yvonne,

You are almost as cynical as I am. Dan says he's sorry about your son and take it as an attack. This guy plainly says he would not vote again Neal for being homosexual and you automatically reject his statement based on what? Your knowledge of Charles Jones?

Or is it your knowledge of Chip. (being the one on your shoulder?)

Seriously, I know you can't take everything at face value but unless you can prove otherwise, don't naturally assume the worst.

Or else you'll look like me.....

correct nit, the article noted Neal's sexuality.

I stand by my comments, "Undoubtedly Jim Neal's sexuality does matter to Charles or it would not have been mentioned. Since he had to state that was NOT the reason for his displeasure with Neal, why even state it? Rather, just state that he would not vote for him due to his "...because of his ignorance of the Emancipation Proclamation and his choice of Lyndon Johnson as his "role model."""

Why not just state why there is displeasure? Charles is seeking to hide in a roundabout way everything that truly matter. Say what you mean and be done with it! Rather, Charles has severely weakened his stand by not really making his stand from the outset! It sounds like Charles is a politician!

Shalom