The Western Herald published two more letters responding to the letter attacking Ron Paul.
The original letter-writer wrote a second letter responding to one of the first responses. Both letters attack Paul for wanting to eliminate federal government funding for education. The author fails to understand that government subsidies of college are the reason why the cost of tuition is so high and increasing so fast.
Ironically, the author is a great example of the results of government control of education. For fun, let's proofread his latest letter.
Ron Paul candidacy offers little substance
While I certainly respect Derek Getman's opinion in response to my opposition to the Ron Paul candidacy, I challenge him to explain to me exactly how a Paul presidency would expand our nation's intellectual horizons or make the lives of average Americans even marginally better? [This is a statement, not a question. It shouldn't end with a question mark.] It is true that I look upon the Paul candidacy the way one looks upon a kindergartner's finger painting, respecting the effort but not fully understanding the principle [Can anyone understand this analogy?] and it's also true that I identify Rep. Paul as a lunatic and radical only for the lack of more foolish words. [This is a run-on sentence.] ["Foolish words" means that the person who writes them is a fool. Oops.]
Getman cites the Constitution as Rep. Paul's ideological centerpiece, [centerpiece?] but his platform strays from the document somewhere between "we the people" and "more perfect union." I view the Constitution as a timeless document not meant to be strictly followed to the T, but in a way many look at the Bible or other historic documents - as guidelines to be applied to the times. [It doesn't matter what you think. The Constitution is the law.] Our willingness to apply progressive principals [School principals? Or does he mean principles?] to the Constitution in order to deal with the troubles of the day is why we are the greatest county to ever serve humankind. [Really?]
The destruction [DESTRUCTION!] of the Department of Education and termination of Pell Grants and Stafford Loans would dramatically decline [decrease] enrollment in institutions of higher education and severely inflate prices for those still able to attend. [Learn some economics.] How exactly is that going to help our country? Paul's strict constitutionalism [As opposed to lenient constitutionalism?] would fast track [!] us back to the economy of 1776 and effectively put most college graduates on the same social level as high school dropouts. [social level?]
While it is true that government spending is out of control, we need only to look to the sitting president and his "fiscal conservatism" to put things in perspective. [what perspective?] Ron Paul's platform lacks substance [Could he be more wrong?] and practicality and will ultimately shine just enough light on the congressman from Texas to get him ousted from his house seat in 2008. [Care to bet?] Ideas are good, [always?] but in the Oval Office you don't get points just for trying - that's why students need to get over Paul candidacy. [Can anyone follow this?]