The Art Of Shaping The Debate
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
As we know, the answer is greatly influenced by the question. As we see here, making sure the answer is more government requires presenting the questions in the format of minimizing the opinions of others who don’t agree with the answer. The members of the majority party in Washington, D.C. (as well as those who ruled the Nevada Legislature) are extremely adept (as are their propaganda agents) at painting the debate to attempt to shape the public logical conclusion to believe that unless government takes the action of taking charge, impending doom will surely result.
If personal responsibility were to be trusted, we likely wouldn’t be so beholding to those who have “saved us”. If we kept our financial resources and spent those dollars as we saw appropriate, we might not come to the same conclusions as the social engineers who know better than we are capable of understanding.
Thank goodness we can rely on our elected representatives to use their ability to spend and tax as part of the way we can be controlled for our own good. They also have the ability to create and support a government infrastructure of bureaucratic who also are empowered to command their determined outcomes and control our actions to comply.
Yes, those who disagree with the course of actions taken by the enlightened majority should be marginalized and discredited. If citizens should start thinking otherwise, they might make mistakes in voting, holding the majority party and their leaders accountable for the actual conditions which result from the mission to expand government’s reach into each aspect of our lives.
As we know, the answer is greatly influenced by the question. As we see here, making sure the answer is more government requires presenting the questions in the format of minimizing the opinions of others who don’t agree with the answer. The members of the majority party in Washington, D.C. (as well as those who ruled the Nevada Legislature) are extremely adept (as are their propaganda agents) at painting the debate to attempt to shape the public logical conclusion to believe that unless government takes the action of taking charge, impending doom will surely result.
If personal responsibility were to be trusted, we likely wouldn’t be so beholding to those who have “saved us”. If we kept our financial resources and spent those dollars as we saw appropriate, we might not come to the same conclusions as the social engineers who know better than we are capable of understanding.
Thank goodness we can rely on our elected representatives to use their ability to spend and tax as part of the way we can be controlled for our own good. They also have the ability to create and support a government infrastructure of bureaucratic who also are empowered to command their determined outcomes and control our actions to comply.
Yes, those who disagree with the course of actions taken by the enlightened majority should be marginalized and discredited. If citizens should start thinking otherwise, they might make mistakes in voting, holding the majority party and their leaders accountable for the actual conditions which result from the mission to expand government’s reach into each aspect of our lives.
Comments