PDA

View Full Version : I've never been angrier than after reading this...




malkusm
02-05-2008, 12:33 PM
This is an article in today's Collegiate Times, the campus newspaper at Virginia Tech. PLEASE, DO NOT fire off an angry e-mail to the author or a letter to the editor. It will only make the chances of ANY pro-Ron Paul letter making tomorrow's edition go down.

The article can be read here: http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/2008/02/05/editorial__consider_all_issues_when_voting_for_a_p rimary_candidate



Editorial: Consider all issues when voting for a primary candidate

CT Editorial BoardTuesday, February 5; 12:00 AM
With the Virginia primaries one week away and the elections taking place in 24 other states today, it seems the pressure is on to choose your candidate and take a stance on the important issues facing our nation.
However, when any one issue becomes too important to an individual, the risk of becoming a one-issue voter increases drastically.

The risk in becoming this kind of voter is that in supporting any one issue too intensely, you also alienate other important issues.

Both conservative and liberal voters are guilty of this. While we are not trying to affect which issues people choose to care and not care about, voting for a political candidate based on his or her stance on only one issue is just plain ignorant.

One of the most common issues that voters align themselves with is the topic of pro-life vs. pro-choice. The American people elected George Bush to two terms in office, helped by one-issue pro-life supporters.

Bush made it clear from the beginning that he was a pro-life candidate; however, during his time as president, he has yet to make any significant changes dealing with abortion laws in the U.S.

It seems that simply saying he was against abortion was enough to gain evangelical support.

Another candidate attracting support from young voters is Ron Paul for his stance on legalizing marijuana.

What many people do not realize, however, is how conservative Paul truly is. Paul opposes gun show background checks, and citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Through supporting any one issue too intensely, a voter may inadvertently vote for a candidate with whom they share fundamental differences in beliefs.

It is good to be passionate about any one candidate or issue, but when voting in primaries, consider which candidate best represents the majority of your beliefs for the future of whatever party you support; if not now, at least in the 2008 presidential election.

Look at a candidate's entire platform, everything he believes in before making your decision.

Only then will you have the potential to be represented by a candidate who truly encompasses the majority of your beliefs, not just specifically immigration or solely homeland security.


Again, DO NOT WRITE A LETTER TO THEM. I will take care of this myself. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of readers of the forum. They are in for one angry letter from me for labeling all of us as single-issue voters who are stoners and want marijuana legalized, and furthermore, for COMPARING US TO SUPPORTERS OF BUSH.

slantedview
02-05-2008, 12:35 PM
i'm curious what you plan to do, since you say you'll take care of it yourself.

coffeewithchess
02-05-2008, 12:39 PM
How about the fact that he attracted me because he attempts to follow the Constitution...

tonyr1988
02-05-2008, 12:39 PM
It's a campus paper - let those on the campus take care of this. We'll only make it worse.

coffeewithchess
02-05-2008, 12:41 PM
It's a campus paper - let those on the campus take care of this. We'll only make it worse.

Definitely, but it shows the power of the media and the laziness of somebody at the campus paper. Just think of what the parents of some students will think.

malkusm
02-05-2008, 12:42 PM
It's a campus paper - let those on the campus take care of this. We'll only make it worse.

That's exactly my point. I'm writing a letter to the editor, as a concerned student at the university, in hopes of having it published tomorrow. Any letters sent by outsiders would only undermine my work and reduce my chances of having my letter published.

I just wanted to bring the article, and my efforts, to everyone's attention.

rdenner
02-05-2008, 12:42 PM
Why are you angry.. EVERYTHING HE SAID IS TRUE???

I don't get this rightous indignation that many of you take at people disagreeing with Ron Paul. He didn't say anything that was untrue, he just put it in a negative light. Obviously the author is a collectivist who thinks that Ron Paul is dangerous to his view point.

We don't feel that way... Convince him otherwise or give up on him... But getting angry about him having an opinion make no sense??

Robert

malkusm
02-05-2008, 12:43 PM
I will post my letter here, allow some of you to read over it and proofread it for errors and/or submit your feedback on it, before I send it to the editor. Rough draft should be ready in 10-15 minutes.

cayton
02-05-2008, 12:45 PM
At least its coverage

smartpeople4ronpaul
02-05-2008, 12:45 PM
This is an article in today's Collegiate Times, the campus newspaper at Virginia Tech. PLEASE, DO NOT fire off an angry e-mail to the author or a letter to the editor. It will only make the chances of ANY pro-Ron Paul letter making tomorrow's edition go down.

The article can be read here: http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/2008/02/05/editorial__consider_all_issues_when_voting_for_a_p rimary_candidate



Again, DO NOT WRITE A LETTER TO THEM. I will take care of this myself. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of readers of the forum. They are in for one angry letter from me for labeling all of us as single-issue voters who are stoners and want marijuana legalized, and furthermore, for COMPARING US TO SUPPORTERS OF BUSH.

what will YOU do??

malkusm
02-05-2008, 12:46 PM
Why are you angry.. EVERYTHING HE SAID IS TRUE???

I don't get this rightous indignation that many of you take at people disagreeing with Ron Paul. He didn't say anything that was untrue, he just put it in a negative light. Obviously the author is a collectivist who thinks that Ron Paul is dangerous to his view point.

We don't feel that way... Convince him otherwise or give up on him... But getting angry about him having an opinion make no sense??

Robert

No, everything he said is not true. The way the "opinion" is phrased in the article makes ALL Ron Paul supporters out to be uneducated stoners who are only interested in this election for one issue, paints Ron Paul to be a single-issue candidate by comparing this stance of his to Bush's pro-life message when it's not even one of his top 3 issues, and automatically will turn people who haven't heard Dr. Paul's message off.

I only plan on writing a letter to be published tomorrow which will tell people that many of us support Ron Paul because of opposition to the war and our collapsing financial situation, and that readers should take the author's advice, and research ALL candidates on ALL issues before voting...not letting the editor portray one in a negative light and trusting the "opinion."

Kalash
02-05-2008, 12:46 PM
I will post my letter here, allow some of you to read over it and proofread it for errors and/or submit your feedback on it, before I send it to the editor. Rough draft should be ready in 10-15 minutes.

Bring it ;)

If you get stuck, I've got pages of stuff here;

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=50

The Ron Paul thread - and "The world notices the presidential..." thingy thread.

Lots of Individualism v. Collectivism stuff.

And feel free to shove
http://revolutioni.st/ivc.html in there as well.

BreakYourChains
02-05-2008, 12:47 PM
Why are you angry.. EVERYTHING HE SAID IS TRUE???

I don't get this rightous indignation that many of you take at people disagreeing with Ron Paul. He didn't say anything that was untrue, he just put it in a negative light. Obviously the author is a collectivist who thinks that Ron Paul is dangerous to his view point.

We don't feel that way... Convince him otherwise or give up on him... But getting angry about him having an opinion make no sense??

Robert

Well, the writer of the editorial once again, only mentioned Ron Paul, and he misconstrued his platform. Angry? What we have gone through? Yes, I am angry for one, and I understand why others would be too. Go ahead and make an editorial for a campus newspaper. No problem. But, the last I looked, there were 7 candidates. This article only mentions one, and in a negative way.

ziggrl
02-05-2008, 12:48 PM
I haven't heard anyone gloating on about Paul's stance on pot. To me that issue is just a bonus!!!

I want what this "journalist" is smoking.

ARealConservative
02-05-2008, 12:49 PM
Why are you angry.. EVERYTHING HE SAID IS TRUE???

I don't get this rightous indignation that many of you take at people disagreeing with Ron Paul. He didn't say anything that was untrue, he just put it in a negative light. Obviously the author is a collectivist who thinks that Ron Paul is dangerous to his view point.

We don't feel that way... Convince him otherwise or give up on him... But getting angry about him having an opinion make no sense??

Robert

no it isn't.

He isn't going to legalize marijuana - he has no constitutional authority to do so.

rdenner
02-05-2008, 12:55 PM
I think you are missing the authors point. He is not relagating Ron Paul to a ONE issue candidate. He is talking to those who HE FEELS are supporting Ron Paul just because he supports "marijuana" legalization(which I now admit is incorrect as he would just de-criminalize it at a federal level, basicaly NO OPINION at a federal level).

He assumes that all college kids who passionately support Ron Paul must be a bunch of stoners who support him because they'll get their weed made legal.

It's not a slam on Ron Paul whatsoever, but a slam on college kids being to "stupid" to understand that Ron Paul has many other opinions. Opinions that the author obviously finds offensive or dangerous..

Robert

A Ron Paul Rebel
02-05-2008, 12:57 PM
That's not bad at all :)
It'll probably attract more votes than not!

I'd send a letter thanking them for mentioning Paul.
And then I'd list about 15 issues that you agree with
Dr. Paul about.

Pimp it!!!

Hunter

malkusm
02-05-2008, 01:02 PM
Here's the first draft of my letter....feel free to comment on any changes you think I should make, and please check for any spelling or grammatical errors I may have made.

Subject: Ron Paul not a single-issue candidate

I would like to express my concern with a comment made by the editorial board in Tuesday's editorial. While I feel that the goal and message represented in the editorial was noble - it is always good to encourage voters to be well-informed - the article then proceeds to take a cheap shot at presidential candidate Ron Paul.

According to the article, Paul is "attracting support from young voters...for his stance on legalizing marijuana." This not only marginalizes Dr. Paul as a single-issue candidate (even comparing him to George W. Bush in the previous two elections), but it unfairly portrays all of his supporters as uneducated stoners who are only interested in this election for selfish reasons.

In fact, this is a misinformed and inaccurate depiction of many of his supporters, who support him due to his hard-line stances on ending the war in Iraq, solving our inflation and monetary problems, and a more strict adherence to the Constitution, to name a few. I'd be willing to say that those who support him for these reasons far outnumber those who you depict in your article.

If all Ron Paul supporters are truly in support of him for this issue alone, one might ask how he has been able to raise over $25 million since October 1st from people who are spending all their money on marijuana. Perhaps one might ask why he's raised more money from current and former military personnel than any candidate, Republican or Democrat. Such a blanket stereotype displays a lack of knowledge regarding what his campaign is truly about - which is exactly what your article warns against.

I'd like to reenforce the intent of the article, and urge everyone to research all of the candidates, on all of the issues, before going to the polls on February 12th, including Dr. Ron Paul. I personally support him because he's the only candidate who wants to reduce spending in a government that now spends over $3 trillion per year, but I thank the editorial board for generalizing me as an uninformed voter.

Matthew Malkus
Junior, Statistics

LBT
02-05-2008, 01:07 PM
Give the a$$wipe hypocrite crap on the comments section of the article. I did.:)

Wyurm
02-05-2008, 01:12 PM
It's not bad guys, geeze. If I were a reporter and not a supporter, I would probably stop reporting on RP all together like so many others have. Now, the MSM has their own ulterior motives for the exclusion, but local and alternative media have been kind of quiet on Dr. Paul lately. I think I'm understanding why. If you say something slightly unapproved by the support base you get ripped to shreds, so it makes more sense to just not say anything at all.

I hope that those complaining about this piece aren't also posting in threads about no coverage. If so, you don't have a leg to stand on about Dr. Paul not getting coverage with this type of pickiness.

LibertyEagle
02-05-2008, 01:14 PM
It's not bad guys, geeze. If I were a reporter and not a supporter, I would probably stop reporting on RP all together like so many others have. Now, the MSM has their own ulterior motives for the exclusion, but local and alternative media have been kind of quiet on Dr. Paul lately. I think I'm understanding why. If you say something slightly unapproved by the support base you get ripped to shreds, so it makes more sense to just not say anything at all.

I hope that those complaining about this piece aren't also posting in threads about no coverage. If so, you don't have a leg to stand on about Dr. Paul not getting coverage with this type of pickiness.

QUOTED FOR TRUTH

malkusm
02-05-2008, 01:16 PM
It's not bad guys, geeze. If I were a reporter and not a supporter, I would probably stop reporting on RP all together like so many others have. Now, the MSM has their own ulterior motives for the exclusion, but local and alternative media have been kind of quiet on Dr. Paul lately. I think I'm understanding why. If you say something slightly unapproved by the support base you get ripped to shreds, so it makes more sense to just not say anything at all.

I hope that those complaining about this piece aren't also posting in threads about no coverage. If so, you don't have a leg to stand on about Dr. Paul not getting coverage with this type of pickiness.

No, this is a big deal. It misrepresents Ron Paul as a single-issue candidate and turns a lot of young undecided voters off to him by portraying him in a negative light. This is a school of 30,000 students in a town of 10,000 permanent residents, and this is the only publication in the town. It also does its best to have voters NOT research the views of Ron Paul (by condensing and misrepresenting his beliefs), while encouraging them to research all of the other candidates.

acptulsa
02-05-2008, 01:16 PM
The letter's good, but I'd try to cut it to two paragraphs in hopes that they might print it. As it is, they might decide it's too long. I'd also delete the sour grapes at the end, perhaps in favor of a nod to the unique understanding the campus has of the dangers of firearms in the wrong hands... Not coming up with a good way to spin it, though. I'm sure Paul never advocated firearms for the insane, but I don't know if he's ever said anything on the subject.

malkusm
02-05-2008, 01:19 PM
I personally do not see this as a big deal. The only thing that I see that is incorrect is that Ron Paul wants to decriminalize marijuana, rather than "legalize" it. Basically, he wants to take this out of the hands of the federal government. It DOES NOT mean that drugs will necessarily be legal, because the states may enact laws against pot and it would be within their purvue to do so.

Again, what is the problem? I would think a lot of college students would like this. Plus, he mentioned that the good doctor is very pro 2nd amendment, etc. This is good.

Read it in context. It condemns voters who would only vote for Ron Paul because of his efforts in the war on drugs, it doesn't encourage them. It compares his 4th or 5th most important issue (at best) to George W. Bush's efforts to get the pro-life vote in the past two elections.

What really makes me angry is that it portrays you or I as misinformed voters who only support Ron Paul because of this single issue. My letter is written in hopes that the readers of tomorrow's paper will understand that many of us support Ron Paul because he has very good viewpoints on many issues.

I'd appreciate it if some of you would actually comment on the letter I wrote. If you think it's best not to submit it, then say so, but I don't see how it can hurt.

malkusm
02-05-2008, 01:20 PM
The letter's good, but I'd try to cut it to two paragraphs in hopes that they might print it. As it is, they might decide it's too long. I'd also delete the sour grapes at the end, perhaps in favor of a nod to the unique understanding the campus has of the dangers of firearms in the wrong hands... Not coming up with a good way to spin it, though. I'm sure Paul never advocated firearms for the insane, but I don't know if he's ever said anything on the subject.

Point taken, and I'll update it accordingly. Thanks for the input :)

malkusm
02-05-2008, 01:24 PM
acptulsa -

I actually won't be shortening the letter though. Actually the letter is right in line with, if not shorter than, most of the letters they publish on a daily basis. But I'll update the ending though.

Goldwater Conservative
02-05-2008, 01:39 PM
Sounds like the kid who wrote that is a cafeteria civil libertarian. Gotta love 'em.

Kalash
02-05-2008, 01:56 PM
Looks good to me.

Gotta run off and vote ;)

If you want more feedback, PM me... I'll check back in about an hour or so.