Good did not defeat evil
Re. the Rev. Darlene Ryniec's letter, “Put aside the hate” (Nov. 26), in which she stated that good defeated evil in the election: Where did she acquire her Bible and training? Apparently her Bible teaches that we should be accepting and nonjudgmental of whatever vile behavior someone chooses.
How does President Obama's acceptance of abortion and homosexual marriage, association with communists and socialists, and 20 years of listening to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons espousing hatred for America and white people define him as “good”?
This writer is one of the millions of misguided, naive and/or apathetic people who form their opinions from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and PBS. These so-called unbiased news sources have been exposed as essentially Democratic Party operatives. I believe their propaganda guided and effected the election outcome.
Consider just one example of media bias: When Mitt Romney downsized failing companies to make them more efficient and avoid failing, the media called him a “corporate raider.” When Obama did the same at GM and Chrysler — costing untold thousands of jobs — he was proclaimed a “savior.”
Obama has accomplished nothing “good” for the country. He has demonstrated amoral behavior and the ability to do nothing well except read a teleprompter.
By re-electing Obama, we have abandoned traditional Judeo-Christian and American values. To call that good over evil is preposterous.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.