• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Crazy? You Decide.

oddball said:
That the military personnel overwhelmingly would choose Ron Paul as their next commander in chief. I can't speak to their reasons, because I am not in the military. But I suspect that most of them resonate with the sentiment expressed in this short video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY
Click to expand...

That conclusion would be wrong. Military personnel who donate to Ron Paul's campaign may make larger contributions on average than those who choose to donate to other campaigns. Also, the majority of the military personnel who choose to NOT contribute to campaigns at all may lean towards another candidate entirely. A subset of a population, where the subset members all do a particular thing, may not accurately represent the entire population.
 
oddball said:
That the military personnel overwhelmingly would choose Ron Paul as their next commander in chief. I can't speak to their reasons, because I am not in the military. But I suspect that most of them resonate with the sentiment expressed in this short video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY
Click to expand...
Not the ones who understand strategy.

We need forward operating bases in order to respond to emergencies. Preferrably, this will be done in concert with allies who host our forward bases.

We don't need troops in countries that do not want us there. Too bad for the nutjob congress critter that Obama is actually pulling out of Iraq, and that he managed to whack Qadaffi without putting boots on the ground, or that he whacked ObL without losing a team member.

Too bad that the only thing the paultards understand about military force is that you don't use it if you don't have a good reason.
 
oddball said:
You're asking me to write a very lengthy essay if not a book or three. Such materials are already abundant and easily found with the help of a search engine. Check this report for starters: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-28.pdf
Click to expand...

How about just explaining why this time, for the first time in the history of human civilization, education would become more accessible to the poor when government stops subsidizing it?
 
oddball said:
You're asking me to write a very lengthy essay if not a book or three. Such materials are already abundant and easily found with the help of a search engine. Check this report for starters: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-28.pdf
Click to expand...
Well, of course the Cato stink tank would "think"t hey have "proof." Nobody with all their headbolts torqued right thinks they have proof, but th Cato creeps think they have.
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
How about just explaining why this time, for the first time in the history of human civilization, education would become more accessible to the poor when government stops subsidizing it?
Click to expand...

I never claimed this would be the case. I am simply saying - in agreement with Dr. Paul - that subsidizing education is not the proper role of the federal government. It is more efficiently done at the state and local level.

The entire time that I was in school, there was no federal "Department of Education" and there were no federal student loan programs, and yet, although I was from a low-income family and attended an average high school, I was accepted into a prestigious university, and with minimal help from my parents, a small private scholarship, working part time during the school year and full-time summers, graduated debt-free.

The same would not be possible today because tuition has gone sky-high since education started being subsidized by the federal government, I would probably have at least a 5-figure debt after four years of college. And I doubt I could even have gotten into the same school; I knew more as an elementary-school graduate in 1966 than most high-school graduates do today, thanks to the decline in quality of education that has occurred since the federal government got involved in it.
 
oddball said:
I never claimed this would be the case. I am simply saying - in agreement with Dr. Paul - that subsidizing education is not the proper role of the federal government. It is more efficiently done at the state and local level.

The entire time that I was in school, there was no federal "Department of Education" and there were no federal student loan programs, and yet, although I was from a low-income family and attended an average high school, I was accepted into a prestigious university, and with minimal help from my parents, a small private scholarship, working part time during the school year and full-time summers, graduated debt-free.

The same would not be possible today because tuition has gone sky-high since education started being subsidized by the federal government, I would probably have at least a 5-figure debt after four years of college. And I doubt I could even have gotten into the same school; I knew more as an elementary-school graduate in 1966 than most high-school graduates do today, thanks to the decline in quality of education that has occurred since the federal government got involved in it.
Click to expand...



So... you're saying the small wedge is some sort of giant problem?
 
oddball said:
I never claimed this would be the case. I am simply saying - in agreement with Dr. Paul - that subsidizing education is not the proper role of the federal government. It is more efficiently done at the state and local level.
Click to expand...

Yet, the federal government has been supplying federal support for education since at least 1890.

oddball said:
The entire time that I was in school, there was no federal "Department of Education" and there were no federal student loan programs, and yet, although I was from a low-income family and attended an average high school, I was accepted into a prestigious university, and with minimal help from my parents, a small private scholarship, working part time during the school year and full-time summers, graduated debt-free.
Click to expand...

The Department of Education was previously a part of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare which I believe was established in 1954 (I might be wrong about the date). Title IV student loans were established by the Higher Education Act of 1965. These are now called Stafford Loans. That same act also established federal grants for low and middle income students. So, if you were "an elementary school graduate" in 1966, then federal guaranteed student loans were available when you went to college.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom