The Readers' Forum: Friday letters

Disagreements

I'm a simple man who understands simple things. What I can't understand is why anyone who disagrees with the current administration in Washington, or disagrees with people who want our borders closed, or disagrees with policies that promote teaching about GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual) issues in grade schools, is considered a racist or worse. What has happened to our country? Why do people have to be "shouted down" and have labels placed on them because they disagree with an opinion?

I disagree with the policies of this administration, but I am not a racist. I want our borders secure, but I am not a racist. I don't think children in elementary schools should be confronted with GLBT issues, but I am not a homophobe. I want a strong military in our country, and I want our outrageous national debt addressed by the administration and Congress, and spending reined in.

This country is fast falling apart. Sure, taxes will have to be raised, but spending must be reduced. But if I disagree with the current policies, the media and others place labels on me, and others like me.

At one time, I considered myself a patriot, but now I have to be careful what I say in public, as I will have labels placed on me by others who disagree with my thoughts. Our country cannot survive with this attitude. It's time for civil discourse. Where did it go?

HOWARD W. MOFFATT

Winston-Salem

Open season

I have read the local response to new concealed-weapon laws, both in the city and the county as well as the newspaper ("County should curb, not promote," Jan. 19). Most concealed-weapon holders abide by the laws. Also, most concealed-weapon holders do not go where they are not wanted.

For the criminals who want to do harm to those who go to the local parks, there will be no concealed-weapon holders there; open season has been declared.

If these regulations are enacted, who will feel safe in a city park knowing the only people who have concealed weapons there are the criminals?

ED WALL

Winston-Salem

The opposite game

When my kids were little, we used to play the "opposite game," in which we would say the opposite of what we really meant. As fun as it is for short periods of time, it's time for the Republicans to quit it.

Case in point: The two leading presidential candidates of the party that claims ownership of Christian morals, family values and job creation are a thrice-married adulterer who was disciplined for ethics violations the last time he held office and a venture capitalist who has made millions by laying off workers. Lest anyone think that Newt Gingrich has an ounce of integrity, note how, in South Carolina, he twisted blame to the "liberal media" for his unprincipled behavior, as if the media forced him to bed a mistress while married. And Mitt Romney would like us to believe that corporate raiding, laying off workers and putting families on the street for the benefit of the 1 percent is the epitome of capitalism.

Let's be honest. The GOP really doesn't care about these values except when using them as criteria to evaluate non-Republicans. And, as Gingrich himself embodies, the more of these one violates, the more "conservative" one is. Which brings us back to the "opposite game."

It's all been a lot of fun … a hoot, really. But they should stop before someone actually believes what they say.

JAMES KEVIN BOKENO

Advance

Gets a pass

Why does Newt Gingrich get a pass from the family-values voters after his leaving two wives with serious health issues? His actions were very similar to those of John Edwards. Edwards, however, was forced to abandon his campaign.

Maybe their private lives are just that: private. But it does seem that there is a different standard for Gingrich. He just rails vehemently at the press for uncovering his skeletons and plows forward. Somehow that doesn't seem right. Or is it?

PATRICIA WILLIAMS

Lewisville

Sum It Up

The Sum It Up question from Sunday was: Are questions about a candidate's sexual morality fair game in presidential races?

The former first lady of South Carolina, Jenny Sanford, says it well, that a candidate's behavior reflects his character, which will be reflected in his policy. Candidates' sexual morality should not be treated casually. In the South Carolina GOP debate last Thursday, Newt Gingrich skillfully deflected the open-marriage question to the delight of the audience, but he could not wipe off the question from general voters' mind. It will dog him during the presidential race.

BOON T. LEE

Winston-Salem

I assume this topic refers to the Gingrich news of late. Why should such an event that happened so many years ago be important when what Bill Clinton did in the White House while he was "on the job," so to speak, meant nothing to the Democrats at the time? The double standard is hard to understand.

TONY GAGLIARDI

East Bend

Ask away, but obviously it doesn't matter. Clinton remained in office. Gingrich won big in South Carolina. Americans don't really care; if they think their guy can beat the hated opposition, that's all that matters. (Unless it's something out of the norm like texting pictures of your privates, maintaining a $4,500/per session hooker, flying off to Argentina to be with your mistress while telling your staff you're hiking on the Appalachian Trail, or anything involving small animals.)

KAM BENFIELD

Rural Hall

Yes, especially when in the candidate's past, he was hypocritically leading the efforts to impeach President Clinton for the same illicit sexual activity he himself was secretly enjoying.

RUDY DIAMOND

Lewisville

Yes, questions about a candidate's sexual morality are fair game in a presidential race. These questions were certainly applied to President Clinton while in office by Newt Gingrich while he was having his own sexual discretions. What's different now? Oh that's right, the liberal media!

SUZANNE A. CARROLL

Clemmons

I firmly believe that morality in any form is definitely fair game in a presidential race or in any other important race where public trust and ethics are of a concern.

LOUIS W. JONES

Winston-Salem

Yes. Now people want to change what is and what is not acceptable. President Obama or any Democrat would be run over, with certain people having a "holier-than-thou" attitude. I am so sick and tired of the double standards that the lawmakers continue to force down the American people's throats. When it's not something that benefits them, they change the rules. Shame, shame, shame.

DAPHNE S. TUCKER

Winston-Salem