"Utahns are...befudfled with Ron Paul's isolationism"- Frank Pignanelli,
from the articleMr. Pignanelli, you lose credibility when you use
terms like "isolationism" to describe Ron Paul's foreign policy
positions. He is a non-interventionist. Ron Paul does not want to cut
ourselves off from other countries. We should talk to them, trade with them, be
able to visit. It is the idea that we have to be mixed up everywhere with
troops in over 130 countries that causes us to be isolated from the other
nations of the world. Or as Dr. Paul says:"It is not we
non-interventionists who are isolationists. The real isolationists are those who
impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because
they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real
isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy,
rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive
example."You see, Frank? You could have done ten minutes of
reading on the internet and used the correct term, non-interventionism. Or you
can continue to lose credibility with your readers by parroting everything they
hear and see on TV.
Interesting takes from our political duo, but as a white, upper middle class guy
who went to an affluent high school, I still didn't learn about sex from my
parents (or teachers) either...
The caucus system is the best way to make sure grass roots movements can work
over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone with $100,000 can go
against someone with $2,000,000 in election funds.There were about
60,000 republicans in Utah that went to the neighborhood caucus elections in
2010 to elect the 3500 delegates. Add to those numbers to democrats and the
primary elections and certainly the municipal elections didn't do any better in
voter representation.Most people that want the caucus system
changed, there are exceptions, are frustrated that they don't have as much power
as people that show up to the neighborhood election caucus meetings. It doesn't
take money, you just have to show up.What we need are more people
getting involved earlier, not shutting down the system that protects us from
power hungry people wanting to take over.
Re: the Sex Ed bill.If you read the current law first, and then
compare it to the proposed law.I believe you will find that the
intent of the current law remains, with added parental input and an option for
the local school not to teach the class if they don't want to follow the law.From the Salt Lake Tribune: "According to the National Conference of
State Legislatures, as of February 2011, 21 states and the District of Columbia
required public schools to teach sex education, and 35 states and the District
of Columbia required students to receive information about sexually transmitted
infections."The bill allows a local school to provide the class
if they follow the law. Currently we have schools in Utah that are required to
provide the class and the claim is that some schools are not following the
current law. Some have even questioned if the State School Board was following
the current law.If that is the case, either the law needs to be
clarified, or we add teeth to the law, or both. This clarifies the law assuming
the schools will follow the law if it is clear.
David King has really nailed it. This is exactly why Americans remain so
uninformed while thinking they're informed. Those who should know better (the
"informed" pundits) just repeat everything they've heard from everyone
else rather than going to the sources. That's why there's no hope for this
train-wreck they call the American political process.
David King has nailed it. As long as journalists just echo what they've heard
other journalists or critics say without bothering to do their own examination,
there's little hope that we'll ever get fair analysis of political candidates.
Who can we trust then?