Today I got to miss a few periods to go and see Republican Nominee Newt Gingrich at a rally. He ran late, which kind of upset me, but when he got there it was awesome. He talked a lot about the State of the Union Address last night, specifically about Obama wanting to raise taxes to "no less than 30%" for America's rich. It would more than double the standing capital gains tax, the driving force of job creation. He was interrupted constantly by some liberals that decided to show up to protest. He started answering their questions, one in particular about his dealings with Freddie Mac. But he laughed off the rest of the heckles, made a few jokes at their expense, calling them irrational and saying "Noise without knowledge is not democracy, it's anarchy".
His speech today really just further affirmed what I have felt for a while now. My heart says go with Gingrich, but my brain says Romney has to be the guy.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Censored Cyberspace
The recent bill PROTECT IP, also known as US Senate Bill S.968 and Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), is circulating congress about the censoring of the web for the American people. The news declares that the government is censoring our lives or is planning to sensor it. The question is does this violate our rights as American citizens? In my opinion, I believe censoring the Internet is defying Americans rights. This seems like a first step to becoming a censored society. This bill breaks the American peoples’ rights to read and access any public information they please. As a matter of fact, it eliminates the idea that all information is open to the public. Basically, our government will then choose what they deem appropriate for Americans to know. Banning parts of the Internet is like banning specific books. If we will not ban books then why should we ban a different way for people to develop new theories and ideas? I would like to think that most of us agree that the banning of books is outdated, unnecessary and outrageous.
Every once in a while we hear about the idea of taking the N word out of books like Tom Sawyer or other classics. By doing this aren’t we trying to bury a piece of history? In today’s society the N word is not politically correct or just plain nice, but to make an attempt to remove it from documentations of our history is wrong. When we finish reimaging books to be politically correct while erasing history are we going to then start the Internet and bleep something out every time someone is offend by something in history? I am not saying we should be using foul or offensive language, but we should not try to remove it from our history and better yet teach our youth about the offensive meanings behind these words and why they should not use it. There is no full proof system behind making sure little Tommy doesn’t use it, but rather than erase history, wouldn’t it be wiser to teach Tommy why this part of history is crucial and should never be repeated. This isn’t to say that by deleting the N word from books it might lead to trying to delete bigger issues like World War II, but such actions could be a stepping-stone leading to us toward a similar actions. In other words, where will they stop?
We are an Internet based society. Google has become part of our daily vocabularies. Google, one of the largest search engines on the web, has shown its concern by putting up a special bulletin on their website for people to see where and how they can help avoid this bill. Google used modern day technology to produce a modern day online petition. Will this bill eliminate these sorts of uses as well?
Another large website that stood up in defense of this was Wikipedia. Almost every student has heard do not use Wikipedia as a source, but in the end if one is looking for something quick and just want a basic answer, this website has achieved one of the best online public made reference books ever. On the day the bill was released, Wikipedia shut down their website in an attempt to get users to understand the extent of this bill. A 24-hour period of Wikipedia was a great way to get peoples attention on the subject. Wikipedia has 3,853,687 articles on almost any subject you can think of. Now imagine every user that now can’t access this information for 24-hours. That is definitely proving a point; my point – that the government should not be allowed to censor nor define where, how or what Americans can know.
Picture too, all the websites and jobs that face possible shut down as a result of websites being shut down. In my opinion, censoring is archaic and unnecessary and downright wrong. I do not support censoring the Internet or anything else for that matter, but I would like to hear others ideas on why or why not. Please comment and share your opinion with us.Friday, January 20, 2012
Turning Tides
Look at Newt go. After two fantastic showings in the debates in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich is surging in the polls. I am not sure what the concrete results are at the moment, but multiple polls indicate that Newt Gingrich is now leading Romney in South Carolina. According to one source, Gingrich is leading by 6 points. Others show smaller margins of around 1 or 2 or 3 points. And there are still a few sources that have Romney over Gingrich by a slight margin. One is for sure, Gingrich is on the warpath, and gaining on Romney quickly. This could not come at a better time considering that the South Carolina primaries are tomorrow. However, in my opinion, I still think that Romney has this state, and the rest of the states for that matter, in the bag. I heard a quote from one voter that really spoke to how I feel, "I really want Newt to debate the President, but I want Romney to be the President". This is exactly how I feel, if Newt followed through on his Lincoln-Douglas debates, Obama would get manhandled, however I know that Romney is the more electable candidate. Well, we will see the results tomorrow, and keep checking the website for the results.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
And Then There Was Three
So I am sitting in my science class after just finishing my midterm, And I find out that Rick Perry is now dropping out of the race. This comes just a day or two after Jon Huntsman chose to end his campaign. This comes as a bit of surprise because there are only two days before viters in South Carolina head to the polls. But with this news also comes the news that Gov. Perry will be endorsing Former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Now, I'm not sure Perry's voters will help Gingrich close the gap between him and front-runner Romney, who was recently endorsed by both Governor Hailey of SC and Jon Huntsman. But even without those endorsements, Romney still had a lead by over 10 points.
So here we are, three at last, three at last (that was for you Dr. King, if not a few days late). Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum. I know what your thinking, wheres Paul? He is still there of course, and still has his strong following, but really? He is not going to win this bid, especially after his poor performance at the debate two days ago. He was booed constantly, poor guy. Greg from The Five summed it up nicely saying that it is so odd and frustrating that he can say one thing that you can totally get onboard with, like eliminating the Fed, and then go and say something like Iran can have a nuke if they want.
If the election was a math equation it would look something like this ((Romney vs. (Gingrich vs. Santorum)) vs. Obama. I hope that makes sense, I have a C in math. In words though, Gingrich and Santorum are really competing against each other for the spot to compete against Romney as the conservative choice. Then of course the winner of the Romney-Gingrich/Santorum battle will beat Obama for the Presidency.
So here we are, three at last, three at last (that was for you Dr. King, if not a few days late). Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum. I know what your thinking, wheres Paul? He is still there of course, and still has his strong following, but really? He is not going to win this bid, especially after his poor performance at the debate two days ago. He was booed constantly, poor guy. Greg from The Five summed it up nicely saying that it is so odd and frustrating that he can say one thing that you can totally get onboard with, like eliminating the Fed, and then go and say something like Iran can have a nuke if they want.
If the election was a math equation it would look something like this ((Romney vs. (Gingrich vs. Santorum)) vs. Obama. I hope that makes sense, I have a C in math. In words though, Gingrich and Santorum are really competing against each other for the spot to compete against Romney as the conservative choice. Then of course the winner of the Romney-Gingrich/Santorum battle will beat Obama for the Presidency.
Friday, January 13, 2012
America's Taxation system explained in beer
This is something that has been floating atound the internet for a little, I really appreciate it. Enjoy...
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
New Hampshire Primaries
Sorry for the delay, but the New Hampshire primaries, the first primary, was yesterday. I was not surprised at all by the results.
Romney won. No surprises there, this has been the predicted outcome for quite a while. He has a summer house in New Hampshire, so he is there constantly, he has had "boots on the ground" in the state for forever. The state is the backyard of his own Massachusetts. Romney got 39% of the vote with no one coming close to him in the polls.
The closest was Ron Paul's 23%. He has done surprisingly well I think. So far he has done well in Iowa and now in New Hampshire, but South Carolina will probably be the end of his streak. In that state, he is polling at around 11% with both Gingrich and Santorum polling above him.
My predictions were correct. Santorum, though he had a lot of momentum going into Tuesday thanks to Iowa, it was not nearly enough. In the Live Free or Die State, Santorum polled second to last, albeit with Gingrich only 50 votes ahead of him.
Jon Huntsman came in third, good for him, except that he is from the state and currently lives there, so...I think he should be the next to drop because seriously? Does he really think that he can win, but it is his money...
Rick Perry only had .7% of the vote. 1,766 votes. Nice.
There is a debate and yet another primary, South Carolina, in the coming weeks, I will try to write about both of them, however I have my mid-terms next week so we shall see. Until next time...
Romney won. No surprises there, this has been the predicted outcome for quite a while. He has a summer house in New Hampshire, so he is there constantly, he has had "boots on the ground" in the state for forever. The state is the backyard of his own Massachusetts. Romney got 39% of the vote with no one coming close to him in the polls.
The closest was Ron Paul's 23%. He has done surprisingly well I think. So far he has done well in Iowa and now in New Hampshire, but South Carolina will probably be the end of his streak. In that state, he is polling at around 11% with both Gingrich and Santorum polling above him.
My predictions were correct. Santorum, though he had a lot of momentum going into Tuesday thanks to Iowa, it was not nearly enough. In the Live Free or Die State, Santorum polled second to last, albeit with Gingrich only 50 votes ahead of him.
Jon Huntsman came in third, good for him, except that he is from the state and currently lives there, so...I think he should be the next to drop because seriously? Does he really think that he can win, but it is his money...
Rick Perry only had .7% of the vote. 1,766 votes. Nice.
There is a debate and yet another primary, South Carolina, in the coming weeks, I will try to write about both of them, however I have my mid-terms next week so we shall see. Until next time...
My opinion on gay rights, gay marriage, abortion, right to life etc.
I don't care.
Well, let me clarify, I do have an opinion. On all of these things. But it is irrelevant.. Looking at it from Steven's view, I can understand where he is coming from, it is where a lot of people come from. Then there is the other side that says same sex marriage is blasphemy, a sin, sanctity-ruining, I can see where they are coming from too. I have my own opinions on these issues, but to be honest, these opinions are some of the very few that I won't share. Not because I am afraid of what people will think of my opinions, I couldn't care less, but because it doesn't matter. On the political floor, all of this is irrelevant, useless. Keep your social issues out of my politics, I don't want them. First of all, this is not a national issue, at all. This should be handled on a state level and a state level only. Actually, no, it should be handled by the church/temple/other religious institution, make it up to them and leave it out of politics entirely. Whether or not two men or two women can get married is not going to effect the state of America's economy. Abortion laws will not determine if the Keystone Pipeline is built. All these issues serve to do, in a political forum anyway, is alienate voters. No politician wants that. We all know that Santorum, and at one point Bachmann, was the social conservative to current leader Mitt Romney, no need to shove it down our throats.
Well, let me clarify, I do have an opinion. On all of these things. But it is irrelevant.. Looking at it from Steven's view, I can understand where he is coming from, it is where a lot of people come from. Then there is the other side that says same sex marriage is blasphemy, a sin, sanctity-ruining, I can see where they are coming from too. I have my own opinions on these issues, but to be honest, these opinions are some of the very few that I won't share. Not because I am afraid of what people will think of my opinions, I couldn't care less, but because it doesn't matter. On the political floor, all of this is irrelevant, useless. Keep your social issues out of my politics, I don't want them. First of all, this is not a national issue, at all. This should be handled on a state level and a state level only. Actually, no, it should be handled by the church/temple/other religious institution, make it up to them and leave it out of politics entirely. Whether or not two men or two women can get married is not going to effect the state of America's economy. Abortion laws will not determine if the Keystone Pipeline is built. All these issues serve to do, in a political forum anyway, is alienate voters. No politician wants that. We all know that Santorum, and at one point Bachmann, was the social conservative to current leader Mitt Romney, no need to shove it down our throats.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Sputtering to Serious. The Iowa Caucus Results
It is 1:30 in the morning, 99% of the votes are in in Iowa and holy cow what a night. From the beginning, Romney, Santorum, and Paul have been neck and neck. Later in the day, Paul, still a very strong showing in my opinion, faded away, securing a third place spot.
But the story of the night by far is Rick Santorum. He could not have surged in the polls at a better time. Now, this candidate, who was getting made fun of on SNL constantly, and barely being heard at debates, is beating the long time front-runner. I don't care what the numbers say, although he is winning at the moment, he is far and away the winner of tonight among the republican candidates. His stump speech was touching and heartfelt, but not very polished and not necessarily my cup of tea. I like what he had to say about manufacturing and his plans to create jobs. He is also pro-protectionism, which I like. He will carry a lot of momentum into New Hampshire next week, however the reason he was able to do so well in Iowa was because he went to every single county in the state and had over 370 meetings and rallies. Unless he gets some serious funding, that isn't going to happen anywhere else, or maybe Iowa will be the state that gets those Super Pacs going, "Maybe there is something to this guy..."
Romney still did very well tonight. People have to keep in mind that Santorum went to all 99 counties in Iowa in over 370 meetings. Romney's Iowa campaign pales in comparison. He polled almost identically to the way he did four ears ago, interestingly enough. His stump speech was typical of his campaign so far. It was polished, clean, and criticized Obama significantly more than talking about his own platform. Still, he showed his verbal prowess compared to Santorum.
Another interesting storyline tonight, Angry Newt Gingrich. Most of what campaigning Romney did, was bashing Newt Gingrich, the former leader in the race by a sizable margin. His adds effectively took Newt down a few notches, to fourth place specifically. I am truly terrified though of what is going to happen in New Hampshire and especially South Carolina. I am worried Newt is going to come out of Iowa stark raving mad, with a smear campaign locked and loaded against Romney. And Romney, I am assuming, will start to go after Santorum after he has begun to prove the conservative alternate to him, and an emerging threat.
Also, after getting squashed, we can say quite assuredly that Bachmann is done, she is probably going to hang around a little longer, but she is for all intents and purposes, kaput. Also Perry is going to "reassess" his campaign, after coming in fifth today.
But the story of the night by far is Rick Santorum. He could not have surged in the polls at a better time. Now, this candidate, who was getting made fun of on SNL constantly, and barely being heard at debates, is beating the long time front-runner. I don't care what the numbers say, although he is winning at the moment, he is far and away the winner of tonight among the republican candidates. His stump speech was touching and heartfelt, but not very polished and not necessarily my cup of tea. I like what he had to say about manufacturing and his plans to create jobs. He is also pro-protectionism, which I like. He will carry a lot of momentum into New Hampshire next week, however the reason he was able to do so well in Iowa was because he went to every single county in the state and had over 370 meetings and rallies. Unless he gets some serious funding, that isn't going to happen anywhere else, or maybe Iowa will be the state that gets those Super Pacs going, "Maybe there is something to this guy..."
Romney still did very well tonight. People have to keep in mind that Santorum went to all 99 counties in Iowa in over 370 meetings. Romney's Iowa campaign pales in comparison. He polled almost identically to the way he did four ears ago, interestingly enough. His stump speech was typical of his campaign so far. It was polished, clean, and criticized Obama significantly more than talking about his own platform. Still, he showed his verbal prowess compared to Santorum.
Another interesting storyline tonight, Angry Newt Gingrich. Most of what campaigning Romney did, was bashing Newt Gingrich, the former leader in the race by a sizable margin. His adds effectively took Newt down a few notches, to fourth place specifically. I am truly terrified though of what is going to happen in New Hampshire and especially South Carolina. I am worried Newt is going to come out of Iowa stark raving mad, with a smear campaign locked and loaded against Romney. And Romney, I am assuming, will start to go after Santorum after he has begun to prove the conservative alternate to him, and an emerging threat.
Also, after getting squashed, we can say quite assuredly that Bachmann is done, she is probably going to hang around a little longer, but she is for all intents and purposes, kaput. Also Perry is going to "reassess" his campaign, after coming in fifth today.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Iowa Caucuses
The Iowa Caucuses are today. The results will come in at around 7 o'clock Eastern Time. I personally can't be more excited. The race could go to anybody.
Mitt Romney has been the front runner for nearly the entire race. However, the Iowans are not huge Romney fans. He still polls high, but the margin between him and the likes of Ron Paul is not nearly as large as it is nationally.
Speaking of Paul, his son Rand has been on the stump for him in the last week or so. According to his son, Paul polls the highest out of all Republicans with Independents, as well as with the Democrats.
Of course there is the local girl, Michelle Bachmann. I think she will poll decently, maybe fourth place. I just really hope she drops out soon. I am not a fan. But I heard that she will stick around until at least South Carolina; that makes me sad.
Then there is Pennsylvanian Rick Santorum. Finally, all of his glad handing has paid off with his timely surge in the polls. I think it is due largely in part to the popular Iowa radio host endorsing him right around winter break. However, I don't think this new found popularity will extend outside of Iowa.
Then there is Rick Perry, who nobody is taking seriously anymore. Anita, his wife, was on Fox and Friends this morning to say the contrary. She says that no one is talking about all of the rallies he has had where people have been enthusiastic and "seriously interested."
Newt Gingrich has taken a hit recently and has already conceded that he will not do well in Iowa. He is not worried though, saying "the race is not over."
This is a great time to be a fan of politics, this month in particular, with all of the primaries and around four debates coming up. I am excited to find out who will win and will update as soon as I find out the results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)