Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow. I watched both videos and saw the apology video from Fox as well. Thanks for posting those. As I said, Fox lost credibility with some viewers because of the way they treated Dr. Paul last election and it doesn't look as if they are winning any points this go round either. If Fox is guilty of being afraid of Dr. Paul taking away their corporate welfare, and by that I assume you mean tax breaks, then wouldn't the other cable news networks be guilty of the same? At any rate, heres to Dr. Paul. He seems to be a good man with a good heart.
There is a lot more than tax cuts, many corporations receive benefits and liability protections worth a ton. I would imagine the other stations enjoy that he seems to go against the GOP establishment but if he gets the nod, they will go after him big.
For most news outlets they just want the politics simple, basic left/right, good/bad, crisis type issues. Paul is battling the system they have all worked hard to propagate.
Interesting. That is the problem with labels, attempts to put folks in a box and the box doesn't always fit like a glove. Guess I'm one of those hybrids. I like the Libertarian platform, except for their open border stance. Ya can't have everything, I'd still vote for Dr. Paul.
Your exactly right - you can't have everything and you have
to pick your poison and remedies. I'm a Libertarian who likes everything about the platform, except
I'm for single payer, universal health care and I'll vote for Dr. Paul as well
Even Paul knows the ideals we all want to strive for with
private enterprise doesn't really exist in today's corporate
world. So end the perpetual wars - bring the money home -
and as long as we HAVE to pay payroll tax, I might as well
support health care for all our citizens, instead of maiming
or killing them in unjust wars.
Ron Paul has stated several times both verbally and his books that he wants to end the Dept. of Education. He believe education should be handled privately or at the very least through local or state means.
So.. if you know good and well he wants education to be handled at the state level and below, why would you defend the factually incorrect comment that "he wants to End public education" ?
Do people really think he could end public education, the federal reserve, and big government? Are people this naive? There is no way 95% of what Ron Paul says would ever happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgiafrog
I like Ron Paul, but this is the reason why I won't vote for him. Some of his ideas are nuts, and the ones that aren't would never get through congress.
So basically you are saying you will never EVER complain about taxes ever again? You clearly support the redistribution of wealth by force. If you ever make a comment the rest of your life complaining that you don't like paying taxes, then your entire argument or belief in politics goes to ZERO credibility....that is, if you have any credibility to begin with.
So.. if you know good and well he wants education to be handled at the state level and below, why would you defend the factually incorrect comment that "he wants to End public education" ?
Private school ALWAYS do better than public schools. He would like to see the privatization of schooling. It'll increase education efficiency and you won't have to fund it through taxes.
Private school ALWAYS do better than public schools.
not always..
but the dominant reason they typically do better than public schools is because they are attended by kids from wealthier, more educated families.
Quote:
He would like to see the privatization of schooling. It'll increase education efficiency and you won't have to fund it through taxes.
i knew paul wanted to do away with the department of education, and i think that's a great idea. However, most private school initiatives i've seen would hurt public schools, which is the group of kids most in need of strong, empowered public institutions of education, since their parents obviously don't care or don't know any better. Competition in education is good, but i'm not to the point where i think the government should encourage private schools.
private schools are not inherently better, they are just attended disproportionately by the children of the people who are already well educated. I think we would be encouraging large scale class segregation if we did that.
I'm not saying it wouldn't benefit some people -- you could use a model similar to the "South Carolina 1966 white flight" private school that i grew up in, where a middle class area pooled its resources and built a private school, staffed it with teachers from the community, charged minimal tuition, and took things from there.
however, you get the same effect from a public school district that is funded by property taxes, where poor districts with little resources have poor educations, and wealthy, educated districts with more resources yield better educations.
Ever notice that when you call someone an idiot (when they are) on this board and they just happen to be an idiot lib .. Your post is removed 'and' You receive a warning? (Bet I have more points than you)
And yet the same folks who threaten to take away your posting rights .. Never jump on the Teabagger insult!?
Everyone, including the mods know what the word refers to!
Okay .. I know there's some good mods on the boards.
(I just never seem to run into em)
Stop calling people names and you should have no problems.
The president could with the stroke of his pen destroy the federal reserve. He merely has to order that U.S. notes be issued. JFK was planning something similar before he was killed.
but the dominant reason they typically do better than public schools is because they are attended by kids from wealthier, more educated families.
i knew paul wanted to do away with the department of education, and i think that's a great idea. However, most private school initiatives i've seen would hurt public schools, which is the group of kids most in need of strong, empowered public institutions of education, since their parents obviously don't care or don't know any better. Competition in education is good, but i'm not to the point where i think the government should encourage private schools.
private schools are not inherently better, they are just attended disproportionately by the children of the people who are already well educated. I think we would be encouraging large scale class segregation if we did that.
I'm not saying it wouldn't benefit some people -- you could use a model similar to the "South Carolina 1966 white flight" private school that i grew up in, where a middle class area pooled its resources and built a private school, staffed it with teachers from the community, charged minimal tuition, and took things from there.
however, you get the same effect from a public school district that is funded by property taxes, where poor districts with little resources have poor educations, and wealthy, educated districts with more resources yield better educations.
The problem with your argument is that you assume that if all education was privatized, that ONLY rich people would be able to afford it.
What you aren't attributing for is the fact that government control, regulation, testing, and bureaucracy of the education market is what causes the prices of goods and services to rise. If the government no longer had it's hand in education then the price of education would be commoditized (since all children essentially need education), and the price would not be so high.
An example: I work in technology, I sell IT solutions. We have markets: Small business, medium-large business, enterprise. There are just as many, if not MORE solutions available for the small business market to choose from that are more than efficient for their needs in a particular area. I just sold a data replicating storage unit to a customer for each of their two locations for under $6,000. That's extremely cost effective than for a large enterprise business I sold a similar solution to months ago at $50,000. They both essentially do the same things, one has a litte less bells and whistles, but they both are acheiving the goals they are set out to do.
My point is: there will be a market for a business to reach a demographic of poor/low-class/minority/new immgrants or whatever you're referring to as groups "not having access to as good of education". Some company will offer quality education to those children at a fair price point. (There's no reasoning in trying to sell a service that is unaffordable). It will also have to compete with other schools nearby in quality.
My big question: What do YOU see the government doing differently that is going to improve the education system for "under-privaleged" children now? They've had 40-50 years to solve this problem, and despite just throwing money at it, those poor schools STILL haven't improved. I'd really love to know what the government intervention plan is exactly to improve these schools and what candidate supports them. I want quotes...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and I'll vote for Dr. Paul as well
