Letters to the Editor
Chris Sinnard
Published Letters: 1157 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Putting your money where your mouth is
[Read the article: Giuliani's Christian-right foes to meet again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Good thing he has no chance of winning.
Just because you say it doesn't mean it is true, and it doesn't change the facts. Money talks. Paul has surpassed Obama in donations from the Military. Paul will raise more money in one month than most of the other Republicans could raise in the whole third quarter, and his money doesn't come from people buying favors. Paul is the only Republican who raised more money in the 3rd Q than the previous one. Paul has a LOT of feet on the ground and stronger grassroots support than any other candidate, especially in states like NH. But some random person on a message board calls Paul names and claims he can't win, so all those facts must be irrelevant and this random person must be right.
BTW, there is more than one branch of Government, and Paul respects them. He has stated that he will most likely be working with a Democratic Congress, and understands that people are dependent on their entitlements. I guess it is hard to see the forest for the trees when you are wearing partisan blinders.
And besides. I've donated quite a bit of money to Paul's campaign, I volunteer, I am part of my local meetup group. What are the True Beleivers doing, especially the Antiwar crowd on the Internet? Writing blogs? Calling people names? All while their canidates get their money from 2K a plate dinners and people paying for influence. Wow, I'm impressed.
All I see from those that back the establishment candidates are name calling in blogs and smarmy articles while the big moneyed interest supply the war chest. I don't see them volunteering to help out, I don't see them giving their own money. I don't see 1,000 to 2,000 Scoop and Dump supporters driving to see him speak. All I see are name calling bloggers on the Internet.
Sing a new tune already, the "Ron Paul is a kook" crap stopped working a long time ago. You can't smear integrity, why don't we start smearing him for not taking junkets or money from lobbyists too? Paul supporters that have been following him for a long time stopped worrying about the name calling games months ago and started putting their money and time where their mouth is. Let me know when the True Believer Military Draft Internet Petition gets somewhere.
-
Wow...
[Read the article: Brownback heads for the exit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Okay. I wouldn't bet the farm, but I bet there's a 50-50 chance that Darth Cheney will put his (black) hat in the ring.
From reading your last to wagers, I would recommend that you stay away from Casinos and race tracks. If you want a safe bet, here is one: You are not a bookie.
I don't really care that Huckabee left the race (was he ever in it) but I do care that you don't have your favorite blog links posted anymore. You have messed up my morning routine of going directly from the War Room to Atrios and then to Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo
Huckabee isn't the one that left, the DailyKos must keep informed. How is the True Believer Military Draft Internet Petition going? Any clever new names for Bush or the Republicans?
-
Wikipedia is your friend...
[Read the article: The Iran hawks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism
Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:
1. Non-interventionism - Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
2. Protectionism - There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
Not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. This "libertarian isolationist" view is best defined as a policy of nonparticipation in foreign political relations, but free trade and affability to all.
Not to be confused, of course, unless you are a journalist, a pundit, or somehow don't have access to an encyclopedia, thesaurus, or dictionary...
If we are going to call someone an "Isolationist" because of one part of the definition of Isolationism, i.e. non-intervention, then quite frankly all the protectionist candidates, e.g. Duncan Hunter, should be labeled "Isolationists" as well, because their rhetoric sure as hell matches the second part of the definition. If we are going to say that matching one part of the definition but not the other implies matching the whole thing, e.g. the way journalists and pundits call Ron Paul an "Isolationist" when an Encyclopedia a 10 year old can easily access, read, and understand says otherwise, then they should be consistent and apply it to people who fit the second part of the definition but not the first, e.g. all of the other Republicans and their rhetoric regarding regarding countries like China.
-
Who cares?
[Read the article: Well, he's the King of something]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Don't the Democrats have another Veto they should be falling short on? All I hear regarding that one are excuses... Oh wait, that's right, the veto... What a joke. Divide and conquer.