Letters to the Editor
Margalis
Published Letters: 614 Editor's Choice: 16
-
Glenn hits a home run
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn you've done a great job of cutting to the core appeal of Ron Paul.
The more politicians say and the more specific they are the more likely they are to foster disagreement. We expect people who say nothing but the pendulum has moved too far in that direction and now is swinging back.
Ron Paul is clearly someone who has thought about his positions. Not about what polls say about his positions, not about what God whispered in his ear, not what will help his party or his own career. He is the rare politician that has a rational framework for making decisions, comes to those decisions, then tells us exactly what they are.
While you may not agree with some of his positions (I certainly don't), you have to admire his thought process and honesty. It isn't about what he believes about X and Y but rather his approach to politics.
He is a true "straight shooter", unlike the people the media generally labels as such. The same is true of Kucinich, which is why it makes a certain sense that they work together on some issues.
Of course, thinking for yourself and having consistent principles makes one crazy.
---
There is a discussion on DailyKos centered around a diary supporting Nancy Pelosi. In it one of the Kos luminaries blathers endlessly about "political realities", polling, and says that anyone who believed the Democrats would keep their words about being an opposition party are gullible. His point is that politicians will say anything to get elected - and then he expects us to vote for a Democrat in 2008.
People are sick of the political equivalent of resume-padding, "well hey I just said that because I knew you wanted to hear it, I had no intention of doing it!" Or people like Clinton who do their best to say nothing at all.
I'm not a fan of some of Paul's positions but candidates *like* Paul, who say what they think and actually *think* at all, are just what we need. Imagine a debate between candidates who all spoke with the clarity and passion of Paul.
-
About the tenth and second amendments
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's hard to be serious about the Constitution without acknowledging that there is something to both the 2nd and 10th amendment arguments. "Interstate commerce" has become a ridiculous catch-all.
I used to think that the federal government hand in education made a lot of sense practically speaking because the federal government can help make up for "backwards" states. Unfortunately there is no assurance that it won't be the federal government that is backwards.
That's my big revelation. When I was younger I just naturally assumed that the federal government was better and smarter, and more federal control was automatically a better thing. It isn't.
And you have a lot more hope of changing things at the local level then you do at the federal level. What we have now is an inflexible and idiotic federal government that funds programs that don't work while defunding programs that do, and there is nothing we can do about it.
-
Bravo Glenn
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's why I refuse to accept or reject any of these lables - they're the tools of small-minded people who want to dismiss and discredit others without having to do the work to engage arguments.
Well-stated. There is no need to call oneself a liberal, a libertarian or a progressive, other than to purposely box yourself into a constraining ideology that places conformance above rationality.
Why would anyone *want* to be lumped in with other people who they don't always agree with?
The affliction of stupidity here is something normally reserved for bible-beaters. Talking about something is not the same as advocating it.
Writing a children's book about magic doesn't mean you advocate paganism, and writing a post about Ron Paul doesn't mean you worship Ron Paul.
Not everything is allegory and advocacy. Sometimes a horse is just a horse. I see this a lot of from Christian fundamentalists who literally can't distinguish fiction from non-ficton, I expect more from the people here.
-
Quote the second amendment in full please
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you RPaulers want to get all specific into the words of the Constitution and read it as a fundie reads the bible - rigid and inflexible, then I INSIST we go with the ENTIRE 2nd Amendment (and I say this as a gun owner). We will NOT ignore the first and prominent half of the "right to bear arms" that explicitly addresses a "well regulated militia". The militia IS the National Guard. That is stone-cold fact. If you want to "bear arms" then you MUST join the "militia" (ie, the National Guard) or the actual fundamentalist words of the 2nd aren't being held to.
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
It says nothing about having to be in a militia. This is basic English. The second half of the sentence is the regulation, the first half is the justification for the regulation. You can argue that without the justification existing the regulation itself is invalid but it is not a "stone-cold fact" that you must join a militia to bear arms. It simply does not say that at all.
I hate guns. I've never used or owned one and I never will. That doesn't give me the right to willfully misread plain English.
What sucks about following the Constitution is that it doesn't always say what you would like.
-
If Ron Paul is a racist then Obama hates gays
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When Pam Spaulding was here writing about how Obama was touring with a reformed homosexual her writings got a tepid response. Nobody cared. So forgive me if these cries of Ron Paul racism seem less than genuine.
I don't think I've seen a single person here write that Obama is terrible because he is a homophobe, and this is something happening NOW, not 20 years ago.