Yes, the education argument was far fetched. There were a few other thought-streams that seemed bogus to me. It is the way that she lined up the quotes and colored them to suit her assertions that I didn't like. It wasn't as ignorant as it was manipulative, but I think that it required some lack of understanding to oversimplify to the extent that she did. Taking quotes out of context and slanting the arrangement to make an unrelated point is the sort of thing that Fox News specializes in. I could reread her article to answer your question more thoroughly...but I'm not going to. Other things to do.
Ron Paul would remove or reduce government contracts with a long list of military-industrial, contractors and security firms that have grown very fat on our tax dollars. He would end government subsidies to corporate farms, pharmaceutical corporations and insurance businesses. He wouldn't limit corporate power but he would remove the federal revenue stream toward corporations. They would have to make it by selling their products to the people, instead of to the government. This makes better sense to me.
I am sure you are not alone in your dismay at the idea of a return to constitutional minimalist government here in the states. Truth be known, of course it won't happen. But we could use to think and move in that general direction. It is so taboo for most people that just being able to talk is a challenge.
People get very frustrated talking about politics because everyone is wrong. Nobody has the whole answer. Democracy isn't the perfect tool, neither is fascism or socialism, or any other ism. I know that I don't have the whole answer, either. I'm merely pushing in a general direction that seems to be the balance for the direction we've been sliding since I've been politically aware. I don't expect Paul to be elected but I do want people to start thinking about what our founders intended, and why, once again.
no subject
Ron Paul would remove or reduce government contracts with a long list of military-industrial, contractors and security firms that have grown very fat on our tax dollars. He would end government subsidies to corporate farms, pharmaceutical corporations and insurance businesses. He wouldn't limit corporate power but he would remove the federal revenue stream toward corporations. They would have to make it by selling their products to the people, instead of to the government. This makes better sense to me.
I am sure you are not alone in your dismay at the idea of a return to constitutional minimalist government here in the states. Truth be known, of course it won't happen. But we could use to think and move in that general direction. It is so taboo for most people that just being able to talk is a challenge.
People get very frustrated talking about politics because everyone is wrong. Nobody has the whole answer. Democracy isn't the perfect tool, neither is fascism or socialism, or any other ism. I know that I don't have the whole answer, either. I'm merely pushing in a general direction that seems to be the balance for the direction we've been sliding since I've been politically aware. I don't expect Paul to be elected but I do want people to start thinking about what our founders intended, and why, once again.