Hahaha, it's worst than beer.Originally Posted by GreyBlood
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” - Thomas Jefferson
All your base are belong to us
ROFLIt is an aggravated abuse of the government because Paul works for the government and paid the salary of a congressman plus all of the emoluments he receives appurtenant thereto, all paid for out of the tax money that the government had raised which he attacked. The image he projects to angry Americans as an “oddball” that has risen from the catacomb of Hell is never held in doubt.
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
He's a politician in disguise, or maybe he helps write the tax code.
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” - Thomas Jefferson
I tried to email this piece of crap....
It looks like it wouldn't send....
Go ahead...
Try to send this piece of crap an email....
I think he might have a script to prevent getting his real email...
Anyone know how to reach him???
I have a few choice words for this piece of garbage.......
edwin.sumcad@cox.net
The email doesn't work?
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” - Thomas Jefferson
http://www.americanchronicle.com/not...tor_policy.asp
....Political Writers. Our policy prohibits caustic attacks on elected leaders, government officials, politicians, and non-elected (appointed) policymakers. We expect your submissions to be truthful, civil, and well-mannered, following the established traditions of polite society and good taste. If you are not able to write about important issues of the day and, instead, repeatedly make personal or insulting attacks on anyone, your account will be closed. And if you are unable to provide a source or reference for a questionable statement, your submission will not be published and/or deleted. Do not request an author account with the specific intention to personally attack, denigrate, or defeat politicians, candidates or propositions because (a) we are not interested and (b) your articles will not be released.
Heck, if someone wants to take Somecad on, be my guest. He's clearly a neo-con hack wannabee. The article appears to be a direct vitriolic attack on Dr. Ron Paul, counter even to americanchronicle writer guidelines. Thus Somecad should be dismissed as a writer and as a 'contributor' to the americanchronicle.
Plus, Somecad fails to include those 5 or 6 footnotes that he uses to attack RP, because they are too long. What a crock! It's a clear indication that this writer, and I use that term loosely, has much to hide from, not the least of which is the truth.
Hey, great catch.
Here's the letter I just sent:
Dear Editors,
I understand that your editorial policy expressly prohibits vitriolic language, which you define as "language of extreme bitterness and malignancy of temper", which "includes rancor (deep-seated ill-will) and/or spiteful, poisonous, or noxious language."
I am writing to inform you of a most egregious violation of this policy on the part of a Mr. Edwin Sumcad in his attempt at an article entitled "Most Despised GOP Presidential Aspirant Used By Haters Of America To Air Chips On the Shoulder", article number 30953. In this piece of writing, Mr. Sumcad airs his grievances against Congressman Ron Paul in a very disturbing manner.
As if the title alone were not evidence of the vitriolic nature of this screed, we see that within the first two paragraphs of this piece, Mr. Sumcad refers to Dr. Paul's supporters as "incorrigible haters of America and . . . congenital bangers of whatever America represents" and likens expressions of support for Congressman Paul to a "chronic disorder" that can only be relieved when "hatred is puked out of the system".
Leaving aside his misrepresentations of Congressman Paul's message and agenda, we can see that he goes on in paragraph six to again insult Dr. Paul's supporters by likening them to "social lepers in the Bible" and saying that they "they are very toxic to American voters who abhor them".
The venom does not stop flowing at paragraph six, however. In paragraph nine he leaves off insulting Dr. Paul's supporters long enough to throw a few pot-shots at Dr. Paul himself. Here we see that he refers to the congressman as "an 'oddball' that has risen from the catacomb of Hell".
In the next paragraph he returns to slandering Dr. Paul's supporters by accusing them of being "haters of America" suffering from "chronic anxiety or OCD". Immediately after that, in the one short sentence that makes up paragraph ten, he accuses Congressman Paul's supporters of having "no brain".
In paragraph thirteen he adds bigotry to his bag of tricks when he refers to Congressman Paul's followers discussing matters of economics as "hillbillies" who "think that they had become Keynesian experts in macroeconomics overnight".
In paragraph fifteen he again accuses Dr. Paul's supporters of lacking "any brain here anyone can see" because of their stance on the continuation of military operations in Iraq.
Do you see a pattern here? The rest of the article devolves into a barely coherent mass of insults wherein we see Dr. Paul called a "scatterbrain", a "loquacious windtalker", an "extraterrestrial idol", and a "hater". Further insults are thrown at the congressman's supporters as well.
In a supreme twist of irony, near the end of this bizarre diatribe, Sumcad takes a break from spewing venom at Dr. Paul long enough to offer to offer to tutor Dr. Paul in "the rudiments of protocol, diplomatic niceties and international leadership [to refine his language as a congressman who wants to be President of the United States]" and pledges to help provide the congressman with a "special makeover" of "his vulgar public persona".
As if the clear vitriol were not bad enough, the sheer number of typographical, grammatical, and idiomatic errors found in the article do no service to the American Chronicle's editorial reputation. This is certainly not an article of which your publication can be proud.
I hope that you will stand by your editorial standards, as this is without doubt a clear violation of your policy regarding vitriol. I urge you to take steps to protect your reputation as a credible journalistic publication by removing this article from your archives and/or printing an apology to Congressman Paul and his numerous supporters.
Thank you for your consideration.
Most sincerely,
etc. etc. etc.
They'll ignore emails criticizing the article, or they'll be defending it some way.
You should have signed it, JOE KICKASS!
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Dude, don't reveal my alter ego!
As pilots said in WWII, "when you're flying over the target, that's when you get the flak". Dr. Paul is making lots of progress. How much the MSM smears him is a good way to measure how much progress he is making.
I ATTENDED THE RALLY IN IOWA! Only two people debated with me, only one for more than 5 minutes, and Tancredo supporter. The other complained about abortion and gays, he couldn't debate more than 30 seconds.
Nice letter Spirit of '76. It's beyond my talents.
Thanks, but I'm sure you could do just as well.
I couldn't even force myself to read all that.
Is that the best they have?
Nice find from their contributor policy...
Does anyone know what's Ron Paul's position with regard to libel lawsuits? There are a couple of straightforward slanders in this article, for example: "...which he believed justified the terrorists’ attacks killing thousands of innocent Americans". If this article was about someone other than RP, he might sue the writer and the publisher. But I think that RP rejects libel lawsuits on libertarian principles, i.e. that everyone has a right to free expression as long as it doesn't involve violence, and that it's not legitimate to use the power of the state in order to punish others via libel lawsuits. Anyone knows if I'm correct and that's RP's position?
Maybe we could then start a petition saying that because RP is a libertarian and doesn't agree that the state is authorized to deal with libel, we instead demand that they fire the guy who wrote this article? Or maybe it's not worth it to waste time on this clown...?
I emailed him this:
"You sir, like all in this great country are entitled to their own opinion. Just like the Paul supporters, we too, are entitled to our opinion. The man speaks a powerful message that appeals to most that hear it. This is not communist China, or the old Soviet Union! We can support whomever we feel like supporting and that is the beauty of America! If the man has no chance of winning, like you believe, why bother? Makes perfect sense to me. You have a good day sir and a happy 4th!"
As Paul said, win them with our kindness!
Let's please try to follow the good doctor's lead and kill them with kindness--no more "angry emails" please.
My review of the For Liberty documentary:
digg.com/d315eji
(please Digg and post comments on the HuffPost site)
"This political train-wreck Republicans face can largely be traced to Bush’s philosophical metamorphosis from a traditional, non-interventionist conservative to the neoconservatives’ exemplar of a 'War President', and his positioning of the Republicans as the 'War Party'."
Nicholas Sanchez on Bush's legacy, September 30, 2007.
No answer yet, so:
Dear Editors,
As I have not yet received a response indicating whether or not you plan to uphold your own editorial policy regarding vitriol in this case, I am forwarding my original letter to you, as it might have escaped your attention the first time.
I will also be opening this letter up and forwarding it to the Society of Professional Journalists, the International Press Institute, the Organization of News Ombudsmen, a number of popular blogs, and a number of top Journalism Schools around the country. Don't you agree that this would make an excellent case study for students learning about journalistic ethics?
Thanks again for your consideration. I look forward to your acknowledgment that you intend to stand by the standards that you yourself have set for works included in your publication.
Most sincerely,
etc. etc. etc.
Last edited by Spirit of '76; 07-03-2007 at 10:55 AM.
Bra - effing - VO!
VO?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us