ShareThis Page

Debate hijacked

| Thursday, Feb. 13, 2014, 8:55 p.m.

Debate hijacked

I vividly remember hearing “there was another hijacking today” on the news when I was a young child. The fear engendered by hijackers was very real. When I put it into the context of what has taken place in our culture, we should have the same kind of fear.

The takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy — you know it as ObamaCare — is a great example. The real goal is not as the administration projects it to be. It is to further control the populace by taking control of health care so a group of people who know better can tell you what you can and can't do, based upon your health.

The White House suggested 2.5 million workers would have the freedom to choose working part-time (to make less money to qualify) so they could have health care. That is the hijacking of the American dream. It grows poverty, not eliminates it.

“Tea party Republicans” is a mischaracterization meant to drive a wedge in the American public's mind. Rest assured that is not true. The millions of citizens who are part of the tea party value the Constitution, not the radical agendas of the “progressives” in power.

The culture war for political control has been waged by these progressives, who really are communists. Using the active debates to split the populace and confuse the real issues of the day is hijacking. We should all be afraid.

Raymond Schratz


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.