To the editor,
In my opinion, we have heard quite enough of these histrionics from both Selectman John O'Brien and Budget Committee member Kevin Leandro as to the Gilford Engine #4 issues. The pop music icon Stills once quipping that, "Nobody's right if everybody's wrong". The two gentleman have both spoken their piece on this beating of a dead horse issue. Some of us are ready to declare the last letter poster to be published as the loser to this tiresome debate.
Selectman O'Brien, by it seems his own admission, admits that not initially recommending a new engine to the town at the 2012 Deliberative Session was probably a mistake. There were some at that meeting that categorized Engine #4 as "a piece of junk".
Kevin has continued to insist spending the money so far expended on Engine #4 has saved taxpayer money. Maybe, maybe not, but that is now a moot point as the engine has had the money sunk into it as of now. So that may or may not prove over time to be of some worth? The second Town Meeting warrant was defeated so I think that even though I did not personally agree with that decision, the voters were probably correct in not establishing a precedent in allowing a second bite at the apple.
It now only remains to be seen which party in this feud will be declared the LOSER by being the one to get in the last word in a local newspaper.
Tim Sullivan
Gilford

To the editor,
When there is a problem, the best idea is to go back and read the directions. In the United States, the "directions" for all government are in our Constitutions.
The "directions" in the N.H. Constitution, Part I, Article 1', say, "all government of right originates from the people,". Any one who has spent time in government has seen examples where those in government have violated "all government of right originates from the people". For example, in Part II, Article 6a, the Constitution says that gas taxes are to go to construction and maintenance of highways, or part II, Article 6b, lottery funds are to go to education, or Part I, Article 21, jurors are "to be fully compensated"; (but currently, jurors are paid at the rate of $2.50 an hour — with a possible penalty of being jailed if they object), etc.
Therefore any claim the County Commissioners may be making about their governmental abilities, must be able to be found in the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, which, if you were to read it, you would find, while it mentions other county officers, the Constitution does not mention County Commissioners.
Part I in the N.H. Constitution is followed by Part II. In Part II, Article 2 says; "The supreme legislative power within this state shall be vested in the Senate and House of Representatives". The County Delegation of every county, Belknap County included, is composed of representatives. And in N.H. it is the representatives who, per the N.H. Constitution hold the "supreme legislative powers". The County Commissioners are not mentioned in the N.H. Constitution. The County Commissioners have no powers of a legislative nature. Therefore the County Commissioners cannot lawfully reapportion money in the county budget in any manner that is different from that set by the County Delegation.
Oh yes, essentially all purely governmental activities of those in office are to be public, nothing with a governmental content that the County Commissioners do, that applies only to themselves, is to be "confidential". The governmental activities of the County Commissioners are not private. If they wish to keep a report of their hired attorneys "confidential" then they can do that only if they pay for such "confidential" services out of their own pocket and do not use such "confidential" information in any way that affects the County Delegation or of anything they might do in county government.
Robert Kingsbury
Laconia

To the editor,
I opened my paper on Wednesday and finally got to my favorite section, the letters. I was so impressed with the letter I read from 11 year old Adam I had to write and tell him that I found it totally refreshing to find an 11 year old not afraid to voice his opinion and feelings on the subject of homelessness.
What amazed me most was the compassion and caring in his words. I've read many letters written by adults who do not show any legitimate concern on the matter of these unfortunate individuals' well being.
Too often adults don't think young people see what is going on, that they have no opinions, and that they not care and adults just say things like "they don't understand". But his letter shows that he is, in fact, thinking about this subject and it is clear it is of importance to him.
Homelessness is a very legitimate concern in any community. Although our local police and some very concerned individuals do try to help the homeless in our community it is not enough. People seem to forget that the best way to assimilate these people (some homeless due to nothing they have done) is by not ignoring them but by lending a helping hand and helping them to become productive members in our society again.
I do agree with him on the fact that we need more shelters for these people. There are many buildings that are vacant that could be opened to them so they aren't out in the cold and through fund raising it seems money could be found to do this.
Nancy Parsons
Laconia

To the editor,
How is it possible to debate with people who refuse to acknowledge facts and instead continue the argument ad nauseam? Let me present some examples of the hogwash and buffoonery that I've come upon in the last few weeks:
1. The government (police — state and local — FBI, ATF, the county coroner's office, etc.) have all conspired to cover up the Newtown shooting. You cannot believe anything they say nor any of the evidence they present. This "big lie" has been perpetrated in order to advance President Obama's gun legislation (some quick calls were made that December morning to apprise the Connecticut officials of this plot).
2. President Obama (who is only the president of the people who voted for him) intends to ban all guns; to believe otherwise is naive and treasonous.
3. Doors will be kicked in, houses invaded (perhaps by my family and me), communities turned into battle zones, a civil war will erupt, the nation will fall — the end is near (so get some more guns and ammo).
4. I am an evil gun hater who sides with the anti-gun people because I think something should be done regarding background checks, the preposterous proliferation of semi-automatic AR-15 rifles like the Bushmaster (which wasn't used in the Newtown shooting!), armor-piercing bullets, high-capacity clips and so on.
5. The NRA is an infallible and benevolent organization that isn't connected with and supported by gun manufacturers.
6. Nothing should change. The government can't restrict anything! It will not work. Nothing will work except the status quo.
My initial letter in early February pointed out this flaw in the overall debate: consistent appeal to lower emotions, a complete lack of logos and ethos to go with all the pathos, and a reliance on redirection, distraction and rot. While discussing this nonsense with a friend in Arkansas, I was reminded of the George Bernard Shaw quote, "I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
At some point, I hope the debate moves beyond the sty.
John Rodgers
Moultonborough