The republican debate on November 9th was to be focused on economics; but sadly America did not come away from this with much as for the answers we were looking for. Herman Cain only seemed to know one thing about the economy, and that was “a bold plan” known as the 9-9-9 plan. Rick Perry seemed to forget a third of what he knew. And Newt Gingrich seemed to think that no one else in the world knew anything about history or economics (and yet somehow, in spite of those remarks, he is now ‘the new favorite’). Despite what little some candidates seemed to know, there were a few times when it seemed that a candidate did really well. For example, a ‘guest moderator’ half-jokingly requested more time to be given to Ron Paul so he could solve the deficit problem. There has already been some time since this debate, now, and sadly, America only seems to be focused on the fact that Rick Perry forgot his own plan.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Republican Primaries coming early?
Once upon a time, there seemed to be an unspoken yet established rule that the Republican Primaries would happen at a certain time of year in direct correlation to the actual votes for President.
but something strange seems to have happened this year. for some reason a few states have tossed around the idea of moving their primary dates up as early as December! and doing so would cause some states who have the 'rights' to go first in said primaries to have to move up the dates to even earlier!
But what would that mean? the big glaring response is "elections are sooner than you think".
you know how, during school, you suddenly find the deadline on an assignment closer than it should be when you haven't really started? this seems to fit the situation. having the primaries so close makes one suddenly wonder how well they've been paying attention to whats going on, making them really start examining the candidates to choose one if they haven't already, or to be sure the one they have their eye on is the right one for them.
then again, there may also be some out there who are relieved the primaries are coming so early, they already are 100% certain of their choice, or they could simply care less.
reguardless, it seems like no matter if we are prepared or not, primaries are coming sooner than we think.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8825382/Republican-primaries-could-start-before-end-of-the-year.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election#Presidential
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-new-hampshire-primary-20111012,0,5497107.story
but something strange seems to have happened this year. for some reason a few states have tossed around the idea of moving their primary dates up as early as December! and doing so would cause some states who have the 'rights' to go first in said primaries to have to move up the dates to even earlier!
But what would that mean? the big glaring response is "elections are sooner than you think".
you know how, during school, you suddenly find the deadline on an assignment closer than it should be when you haven't really started? this seems to fit the situation. having the primaries so close makes one suddenly wonder how well they've been paying attention to whats going on, making them really start examining the candidates to choose one if they haven't already, or to be sure the one they have their eye on is the right one for them.
then again, there may also be some out there who are relieved the primaries are coming so early, they already are 100% certain of their choice, or they could simply care less.
reguardless, it seems like no matter if we are prepared or not, primaries are coming sooner than we think.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8825382/Republican-primaries-could-start-before-end-of-the-year.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election#Presidential
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-new-hampshire-primary-20111012,0,5497107.story
Monday, October 3, 2011
A lesser known war that is taking away our rights
Before I begin, I must say that I do not condone, by any means, the abuse of the substances mentioned in the following blog.
The War on Drugs and Alcohol is ongoing. it may not seem as big of news as, say, the Presidential Elections at the moment, but even that touches upon these topics.
Sadly, laws surrounding this 'war' violate much of the Amendments laid out in the Bill of Rights.
For example, the Fourth Amendment states that one must have a search warrant to search you or your property, and that said search warrant can only be given under probable cause. But according to Justice John Paul Stevens, the Amendment actually only covers one's property rights, and one cannot technically have property rights to illegal materials; therefore, an un-waranted search violates no rights so long as something that can ven be considered 'illegal' turns up--regardless of what that 'illegal' material may be. (Read more about this here)
How about drinking? If you are suspected of drinking, whether you are underage, walking along the sidewalk, sitting in a car or are the driver; then the common belief is that you must submit to whatever kind of test the officer asks of you--or orders you to do. But in reality? According to your rights, you do not need to let them test you in any way.
So what about "random sobriety checkpoints"? These are places randomly set up where police can stop you without any good reason to, and where police officers have everyone take tests such as 'breath tests' and check for license, etc. to check for those under the influence. Doing this, too, violates several Amendments, including the sixth and the fifth.
While all this may be in noble cause, is it really worth it? Do the ends justify the means of stripping away a persons rights? Is this as far as the government will go, or will they take away more in the name of 'warfare'?
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=36648648413
http://www.dui1.com/Dui_Lawyers_Driving10.htm
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145529,00.html
The War on Drugs and Alcohol is ongoing. it may not seem as big of news as, say, the Presidential Elections at the moment, but even that touches upon these topics.
Sadly, laws surrounding this 'war' violate much of the Amendments laid out in the Bill of Rights.
For example, the Fourth Amendment states that one must have a search warrant to search you or your property, and that said search warrant can only be given under probable cause. But according to Justice John Paul Stevens, the Amendment actually only covers one's property rights, and one cannot technically have property rights to illegal materials; therefore, an un-waranted search violates no rights so long as something that can ven be considered 'illegal' turns up--regardless of what that 'illegal' material may be. (Read more about this here)
How about drinking? If you are suspected of drinking, whether you are underage, walking along the sidewalk, sitting in a car or are the driver; then the common belief is that you must submit to whatever kind of test the officer asks of you--or orders you to do. But in reality? According to your rights, you do not need to let them test you in any way.
So what about "random sobriety checkpoints"? These are places randomly set up where police can stop you without any good reason to, and where police officers have everyone take tests such as 'breath tests' and check for license, etc. to check for those under the influence. Doing this, too, violates several Amendments, including the sixth and the fifth.
While all this may be in noble cause, is it really worth it? Do the ends justify the means of stripping away a persons rights? Is this as far as the government will go, or will they take away more in the name of 'warfare'?
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=36648648413
http://www.dui1.com/Dui_Lawyers_Driving10.htm
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145529,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)