ulterior motive?

Mr. Fury brought up a good point about ulterior motives regarding the Highway in Sand Creek, in his letter (Dec 2.) However, childish name calling and adolescent ridiculing of people instead of intelligently and articulately discussing the issue, calls into question the legitimacy of any argument or discussion.

Mr. Fury has the right to say and do whatever he wishes, and as an American, I would always defend his right to do so. However, I do not understand his demand for elected officials to call for illegal boycotts of the very business tax base that keep his taxes from increasing.

Sadly, what I have come to recognize in our community is purposeful, hateful, and hurtful efforts by a small number of narrow minded people, a few elected officials and business representatives, and for some odd reason a local minister.

There have been open and active threats to local businesspeople who are merely expressing their legitimate concerns. They are not impersonal things we are talking about. They are normal, honest employers in our community, your friends and associates, trying to make a reasonable living, raise their kids, and enjoy life. The last time I looked at the constitution. I believe even business people have equal rights to freedom of speech and opinion.

I wonder how many times this call to boycott businesses is going to be presented in our newspaper before our elected officials and newspaper take a stand and say "enough" to the intimidation, hateful spite, and efforts to hurt our local businesses.

I ask the boycotters and intimidators: If you feel it is appropriate to call for the destruction of businesses over a difference of opinion, where are you going to stop? Politics? Religion? Race?

When one uses intimidation as an argument instead of an intelligent argument, "ulterior motive" is a very good issue to explore.

PIERRE BORDENAVE

Sandpoint