The unkind, untruthful letters and comments in the JS are overwhelmingly written by Democrat "chatterer's". On 9/27/08, Danuta Dynda made a long spiel why she wouldn't vote for Aaron Schock. Danuta and her husband Walter who live at 11310 North trail Dr. are registered Democrats who do not consistently vote according to public records but when they do it is Democrat. Of course, they don't have to. It's a free country to tell lies, tell half-truths or vote even if you know nothing about the candidate for who you voted.
She, like a bevy other "chatterer's", including Sherry Matulis at 4509 Thornhill Ct. probably never intended to vote for a Republican in the first place. If Sherry did she would have said she could support the Republican male candidate (John McCain) but not a "woman" as his running mate. Sherry writes "why would we want to put a woman in office who would set the both genders back a couple of hundred years". Wow. She also says she would not vote for her just because she is a woman. Wow. What a feminist and since I've never heard of her just what "womanly" traits would cause Sherry Manulis to vote for a woman. Or is it because Mrs. Palin is a dreaded Republican woman? Maybe Sherry is envious. What would Sherry's qualifications be? Mother of five. Wow. Had a successful business career? Wow. So did probably a couple of hundred thousand other women have "successful" business careers. What is a "successful " business career? A secretary or an office manager? Many women have "successful" business careers but FEW would be qualified to be a mayor, a Governor of Alaska or a Vice-President of the United States. Or because Sherry can pronounce nuclear, wow, but I suspect from the tone of her letter, she would be on the front line of protesters if a nuclear energy project were ever proposed for the Peoria area. None of these non- spectacular accomplishments would not cause any major political party to select Sherry as their running mate for the office of the presidency.
Hey, you left winged Democrats, just come out and say who you are so we can "consider the source" of your vicious spiel.
3 comments:
mr. widmer,
if you did your research correctly you would find that i had actually voted for Mr. Schock previously and whether you believe it or not was planning on voting for him this time around because i found him very promising and impressive. My article was simply trying to dispell his argument in comparing a private Bush visit to that of a rock star, and thought it was ridiculous that he was haggling with his voters.
Secondly Walter Dynda is not my husband, so check your records and facts before you write things in public as well but of course, how did you put it in your blog..."it's a free country to tell lies, tell half-truths..." There was no reason to bring Mr. Dynda into your blog as he had nothing to do with my editorial and there is especially no need to put our addresses in your blog. And if you read some of the other editorials in the journal star, there were plenty that defended Mr. Schock as well. However, your life appears to be so full, that you have nothing better to do than insult and wrongly accuse people being ignorant and telling lies just because their beliefs don't match yours. Mr. Widmer can i suggest that you worry about carefully vetting and researching who you vote for (and not just simply that they are a republican) before you accuse me of not doing the same. I am sick of arrogant republicans (you are not the first) thinking that i don't do my research before i vote on a candidate that they don't agree with. But as you said it is a free country so i can choose to vote for who i want just like you can, but that does not make me wrong, just different then you.
hope you had a great holiday and a prosperous new year.
danuta dynda
and furthermore mister widmer, how would you know how we voted since, as far as i am aware that is kept confidential...unless you are pulling some strings and getting into private records that you shouldn't be.
What is Defamation?
False and untrue communication published with the specific intent of injuring another person’s reputation
Injured person must be identifiable
Libel—written form of defamation;
this is exactly what you have committed regarding Mr. Dynda and myself, by accusing us of being a liars. once again mr. dynda had nothing to do with my article and you are wrongly accusing a very good man of lying (not one his traits)...
although your true colors are clearly coming across. hopefully i can calm down enough not to contact my lawyer.
Post a Comment