December 18, 2011
In this article, Mr. Stainbrook is accused of having recruited Sean Binkley. This becomes a big issue, because Johnathan Binkley is another candidate, which happens to have the exact last name. This will be easy to mistake once voting time comes around. Johnathan than accuses Mr. Stainbrook of having something to do with this, but hopes he didn't and that he is all in it for "good Government". Evidence against Stainbrook and Sean Binkley involve a petition that Sean Binkley had signed about 2 years ago for Stainbrook.
Friday, December 23, 2011
December 21, 2011
By Rich Lowry
Oregonian, The
To view this article yourself, Click Here.
Ron Paul, racist?
Ron Paul has been considered the person to make fun of since 2008. This year he plans to go further as he is much more centered on winning this year. But will he really be winning this year with racist comments that have been published? The author of this article claims that although Ron Paul does not dress to impress, he is definitely one to stand out in the crowd because of his great knowledge. He is said to give people a reason to smile or nod during a debate. The author then contradicts Ron Paul by saying that he "never knows when to stop" as he lets his suspicion of centralized power slip into paranoia. He begins to talk on a radio show with conspiracy-mongering host Alex Jones of his conspiracy ideas.
Is Ron Paul really a racist just for his opinion on what the Iranian plot actually was?
I learned more of Ron Paul, Informing me that he is definitely looked upon in other ways which I haven yet to see til I read this article.
I could definitely use this information in the future, because I would not want to vote for someone who is racist and possibly ends up ruined everything for other races.
The author shows his opinion on Ron Paul, making this article very bias. He first tells of how he is a racist, then defends him as a true runner, then begins to down-talk him again and talk negative of his ideas and view.
By Rich Lowry
Oregonian, The
To view this article yourself, Click Here.
Ron Paul, racist?
Ron Paul has been considered the person to make fun of since 2008. This year he plans to go further as he is much more centered on winning this year. But will he really be winning this year with racist comments that have been published? The author of this article claims that although Ron Paul does not dress to impress, he is definitely one to stand out in the crowd because of his great knowledge. He is said to give people a reason to smile or nod during a debate. The author then contradicts Ron Paul by saying that he "never knows when to stop" as he lets his suspicion of centralized power slip into paranoia. He begins to talk on a radio show with conspiracy-mongering host Alex Jones of his conspiracy ideas.
Is Ron Paul really a racist just for his opinion on what the Iranian plot actually was?
I learned more of Ron Paul, Informing me that he is definitely looked upon in other ways which I haven yet to see til I read this article.
I could definitely use this information in the future, because I would not want to vote for someone who is racist and possibly ends up ruined everything for other races.
The author shows his opinion on Ron Paul, making this article very bias. He first tells of how he is a racist, then defends him as a true runner, then begins to down-talk him again and talk negative of his ideas and view.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
December 15, 2011
JIM DAVENPORT
To view this article, Click Here.
In Columbia, South Carolina, the state republicans are outraged and irked of the fact that their tax money is being talked about to be spent for the Primary being held this year. As Republican Gov. Nikki Haley quickly responded, "the primary's cost shouldn't fall on taxpayers". The Jan. 21 contest is expected to be costing at least $1.2 million. The GOP-dominated legislature is only authorizing $680,000 to be used by the state election commission. With that being said, the Republican Party would pick up the rest of the tab. Haley had vetoed plans to spend the taxpayer money on the Primary, but the Legislature's had to override the veto.
The main issue with this article is definitely the fact that the taxpayers are the ones who will be paying for most of the Primary. They are not the ones who are responsible for this, and are definitely upset about this issue.
JIM DAVENPORT
To view this article, Click Here.
In Columbia, South Carolina, the state republicans are outraged and irked of the fact that their tax money is being talked about to be spent for the Primary being held this year. As Republican Gov. Nikki Haley quickly responded, "the primary's cost shouldn't fall on taxpayers". The Jan. 21 contest is expected to be costing at least $1.2 million. The GOP-dominated legislature is only authorizing $680,000 to be used by the state election commission. With that being said, the Republican Party would pick up the rest of the tab. Haley had vetoed plans to spend the taxpayer money on the Primary, but the Legislature's had to override the veto.
The main issue with this article is definitely the fact that the taxpayers are the ones who will be paying for most of the Primary. They are not the ones who are responsible for this, and are definitely upset about this issue.
Michele Bachmann, the bad guy?
December 16, 2011
Mark Z Barabak; Seema Mehta By Mark Z. Barabak and Seema Mehta, Tribune Newspapers
Chicago Tribune
To see this article yourself, Click Here.
While the heated arguements and debates continue on in the Iowa Caucus, Gingrinch is constantly fought against, especially by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. Gingrinch is assailed against for his work for Freddie Mac after he has criticized him for contributing to the housing crisis. He then fires back against Congresswoman Bachmann by accusing her of misstating the facts about his record on abortion. As Gingrinch states "I have never once changed my position because of any kind of payment." , Bachmann begins to bristle. She then begins to explain that she is a serious candidate for President and that she finds it outrageous that every chance Gingrinch gets, he uses it to prove her wrong. Bachmann also gets into a heated debate with Texas Representative, Ron Paul, over his strenuous opposition to U.S. military engagement abroad. Bachmann is against his view on restraining Iran's Nuclear program. Paul on the other hand says he prefers to restrain the nuclear program rather than "declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims" doing so. He says you cannot solve these problems with war and stands his ground against Bachmann. The article then closes with Gingrinch against Romney having to face questions that were obviously designed to begin an oral battle in between the two, but each turned away the opportunity to engage in this oral confrontation. Kudos!
Bachmann seems to be one of the main problems in this article as she continuously puts herself in awkward positions where she seems to be the start of the arguments.
I think that one of the main results that can happen from this can be that Bachmann's reputation or popularity can very much decline and might not be able to save her when it comes to the Iowa Caucus.
From this, I have seen a different side of Bachmann, as well as learned more about who she is. I have learned that she is very forward and seems to be very aggressive. She is very anxious to put us up for a possible war with the whole nuclear program issue rather than avoid it.
I could definitely use this information in order to keep a better and closer eye on Bachmann as she seems very fishy in this article and my views and ideas on her have completely changed since reading this article.
In this article, the author definitely has persuaded me to see Bachmann as an aggressive woman when it comes to her facts and her debates. As this article is obviously biased, just as nay other article, I feel I do agree with what the author has stated and that Bachmann does seem like the "bad guy" in this situation.
Mark Z Barabak; Seema Mehta By Mark Z. Barabak and Seema Mehta, Tribune Newspapers
Chicago Tribune
To see this article yourself, Click Here.
While the heated arguements and debates continue on in the Iowa Caucus, Gingrinch is constantly fought against, especially by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. Gingrinch is assailed against for his work for Freddie Mac after he has criticized him for contributing to the housing crisis. He then fires back against Congresswoman Bachmann by accusing her of misstating the facts about his record on abortion. As Gingrinch states "I have never once changed my position because of any kind of payment." , Bachmann begins to bristle. She then begins to explain that she is a serious candidate for President and that she finds it outrageous that every chance Gingrinch gets, he uses it to prove her wrong. Bachmann also gets into a heated debate with Texas Representative, Ron Paul, over his strenuous opposition to U.S. military engagement abroad. Bachmann is against his view on restraining Iran's Nuclear program. Paul on the other hand says he prefers to restrain the nuclear program rather than "declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims" doing so. He says you cannot solve these problems with war and stands his ground against Bachmann. The article then closes with Gingrinch against Romney having to face questions that were obviously designed to begin an oral battle in between the two, but each turned away the opportunity to engage in this oral confrontation. Kudos!
Bachmann seems to be one of the main problems in this article as she continuously puts herself in awkward positions where she seems to be the start of the arguments.
I think that one of the main results that can happen from this can be that Bachmann's reputation or popularity can very much decline and might not be able to save her when it comes to the Iowa Caucus.
From this, I have seen a different side of Bachmann, as well as learned more about who she is. I have learned that she is very forward and seems to be very aggressive. She is very anxious to put us up for a possible war with the whole nuclear program issue rather than avoid it.
I could definitely use this information in order to keep a better and closer eye on Bachmann as she seems very fishy in this article and my views and ideas on her have completely changed since reading this article.
In this article, the author definitely has persuaded me to see Bachmann as an aggressive woman when it comes to her facts and her debates. As this article is obviously biased, just as nay other article, I feel I do agree with what the author has stated and that Bachmann does seem like the "bad guy" in this situation.
Mitt Romney= President Barrack Obama? What are you inferring Fox News?
December 15, 2011
The Colbert Report
To view this video clip, click here.
In this video, Colbert points out the mistake which Fox News obviously slipped up on in one of their news casts on December 14, 2011. He blames most of this on Megyn Kelly. During Megyn Kelly's review on the 2012 Iowa GOP Caucus, she points out the fact that Newt Gingrinch is in the lead with 29.3% of the votes. She also shows the pictures and vote percentages of the 6 other candidates. When viewers take a closer look, you can see that Mitt Romney's photo is actually a photo of President Barrack Obama. What are they trying to say here? Are they trying to relate Mitt Romney to President Barrack Obama? Is this really just a simple mistake? They then show her reappearing an hour after the news cast and explaining that Mitt Romney in fact is not actually Barrack Obama. Thanks for clearing that up Megyn Kelly. But it's too late to "un-air" that clip. Colbert then pulls out his hilarious antics as he states that this must have been a Freudian Slip and when he tries to pull up a picture of Sigmund Freud, they accidently pull up a picture of Colbert's mother. He then jokes that Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney do actually have about the same popularity among the republicans. Closing his banter on Megyn Kelly, he says that in order for her to actually make up for her mistake, she has to "accidently" put up the wrong photo for all of the other candidates.
The problem that is addressed in this talk show, is obviously the mistake which Megyn Kelly made during her part of the news cast.
According to Colbert, this mishap actually "hurt Mitt Romney's rock solid conservative image". I think Colbert could definitely be right about this. And I also think that this could definitely hurt Fox News' in the long run as it challenges whether they are completely aware of their actions.
I learned that Romney and Obama actually do have a couple things in common and that whether this mishap is subliminal or not, some people do think Romney would be just another version of Barrack Obama.
I could use this information in order to know which news station to watch next time because I wouldn't want to watch a news station that may cause another mistake.
Colbert obviously makes fun of this situation, as it is his job to, but he obviously points out that this is a big mistake and it seems that he very much agrees that this was completely wrong on the channel's behalf, as well as Megyn Kelly's behalf.
All in all, this talk show definitely impacts Mitt Romney because whether it was just a mistake or not, this does affect Romney's conservative image and puts him on the spot of this mistake. It also raises a lot of heads to whether or not they want someone who could possibly be a repeat of President Obama.
The Colbert Report
To view this video clip, click here.
In this video, Colbert points out the mistake which Fox News obviously slipped up on in one of their news casts on December 14, 2011. He blames most of this on Megyn Kelly. During Megyn Kelly's review on the 2012 Iowa GOP Caucus, she points out the fact that Newt Gingrinch is in the lead with 29.3% of the votes. She also shows the pictures and vote percentages of the 6 other candidates. When viewers take a closer look, you can see that Mitt Romney's photo is actually a photo of President Barrack Obama. What are they trying to say here? Are they trying to relate Mitt Romney to President Barrack Obama? Is this really just a simple mistake? They then show her reappearing an hour after the news cast and explaining that Mitt Romney in fact is not actually Barrack Obama. Thanks for clearing that up Megyn Kelly. But it's too late to "un-air" that clip. Colbert then pulls out his hilarious antics as he states that this must have been a Freudian Slip and when he tries to pull up a picture of Sigmund Freud, they accidently pull up a picture of Colbert's mother. He then jokes that Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney do actually have about the same popularity among the republicans. Closing his banter on Megyn Kelly, he says that in order for her to actually make up for her mistake, she has to "accidently" put up the wrong photo for all of the other candidates.
The problem that is addressed in this talk show, is obviously the mistake which Megyn Kelly made during her part of the news cast.
According to Colbert, this mishap actually "hurt Mitt Romney's rock solid conservative image". I think Colbert could definitely be right about this. And I also think that this could definitely hurt Fox News' in the long run as it challenges whether they are completely aware of their actions.
I learned that Romney and Obama actually do have a couple things in common and that whether this mishap is subliminal or not, some people do think Romney would be just another version of Barrack Obama.
I could use this information in order to know which news station to watch next time because I wouldn't want to watch a news station that may cause another mistake.
Colbert obviously makes fun of this situation, as it is his job to, but he obviously points out that this is a big mistake and it seems that he very much agrees that this was completely wrong on the channel's behalf, as well as Megyn Kelly's behalf.
All in all, this talk show definitely impacts Mitt Romney because whether it was just a mistake or not, this does affect Romney's conservative image and puts him on the spot of this mistake. It also raises a lot of heads to whether or not they want someone who could possibly be a repeat of President Obama.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Our campaign, a joke?
12-05-2011
Weinman, Jaime J
Maclean's
Throughout this article, Jaime completely bashes against the whole campaign for the 2012 Presidential Nomination. She is completely against the candidates as she believes that they all are unfit for this position. She calls them idiots and especially comments towards Herman Cain as he is in the predicament with sexual abuse. She then recaps on things that have happened in the past, including Donald Trump and his views against President Barrack Obama. She claims that "There have always been freaky candidates in every election" and starts naming people such as Steve Forbes, George W. Bush, and John McCain. She then starts mentioning the other candidates that she feels are incompetent. She mentions Gingrich and Michele Bachmann. She mentions how Michele once gave a whole speech facing the wrong camera. According to her sources, she also states that Cain was never actually fundraising for anything and missed important meetings such as the interview with the newspaper that was supposed to endorse him. The New York Times looked into his calendar of campaign events and found that "19 of the 31 days of October are blank". This is very surprising to find out of Cain. It is stated that while Cain is constantly offending people, "Romney has mastered the art of defending his unorthodox positions without offending anyone." She contradicts herself but explains for her contradiction as she says that although Romney is the perfect candidate, he is also very boring compared to Cain and his wild fame so far.
In this article, Jaime is very appalled by the candidates that are running for the 2012 Presidential nomination. She thinks that these candidates are a complete joke, yet we are going right along with it. It is stated that Cain does not do any fundraising or help towards the people. Do we really want this as a president?
I definitely learned more in detail about Herman Cain and how he is being accused of this sexual abuse issue.
http://elibrary.bigchalk.com/elibweb/curriculum/do/document?set=search&dictionaryClick=&secondaryNav=&groupid=1&requestid=lib_standard&resultid=6&edition=&ts=7396FBA453A1973E2F6FEA3FF6E85D4C_1323740471650&start=1&publicationId=&urn=urn%3Abigchalk%3AUS%3BBCLib%3Bdocument%3B200710704
Weinman, Jaime J
Maclean's
Throughout this article, Jaime completely bashes against the whole campaign for the 2012 Presidential Nomination. She is completely against the candidates as she believes that they all are unfit for this position. She calls them idiots and especially comments towards Herman Cain as he is in the predicament with sexual abuse. She then recaps on things that have happened in the past, including Donald Trump and his views against President Barrack Obama. She claims that "There have always been freaky candidates in every election" and starts naming people such as Steve Forbes, George W. Bush, and John McCain. She then starts mentioning the other candidates that she feels are incompetent. She mentions Gingrich and Michele Bachmann. She mentions how Michele once gave a whole speech facing the wrong camera. According to her sources, she also states that Cain was never actually fundraising for anything and missed important meetings such as the interview with the newspaper that was supposed to endorse him. The New York Times looked into his calendar of campaign events and found that "19 of the 31 days of October are blank". This is very surprising to find out of Cain. It is stated that while Cain is constantly offending people, "Romney has mastered the art of defending his unorthodox positions without offending anyone." She contradicts herself but explains for her contradiction as she says that although Romney is the perfect candidate, he is also very boring compared to Cain and his wild fame so far.
In this article, Jaime is very appalled by the candidates that are running for the 2012 Presidential nomination. She thinks that these candidates are a complete joke, yet we are going right along with it. It is stated that Cain does not do any fundraising or help towards the people. Do we really want this as a president?
I definitely learned more in detail about Herman Cain and how he is being accused of this sexual abuse issue.
http://elibrary.bigchalk.com/elibweb/curriculum/do/document?set=search&dictionaryClick=&secondaryNav=&groupid=1&requestid=lib_standard&resultid=6&edition=&ts=7396FBA453A1973E2F6FEA3FF6E85D4C_1323740471650&start=1&publicationId=&urn=urn%3Abigchalk%3AUS%3BBCLib%3Bdocument%3B200710704
The 2012 Republican Primary
12-06-2011
Malone, Jim
Voice of America News / FIND
The Process of selecting the next American president begins on January 3, 2012, in Iowa. Surveys show Newt Gingrinch rising over Mitt Romney in the latest national polls. They say Romney is focusing his campaign to winning the New Hampshire primary, which is to be held a week after the Iowa caucuses. Romney seems to be focused as well on his Republican Rival, President Barrack Obama and his economic record. He states that he thinks Obama does not understand America nor it's economy. He "does not understand the power of free people, free to choose their course in life." Although the surveys tell us that this race may just be between Romney and Gingrinch, we have seen Congresswoman Michele Buchmann, Texas governor Rick Perry, and Georgia businessman Herman Cain, all quickly rise and fall in the polls. Hermain Cain actually had to suspend his campaign after allegations of sexual misconduct. But on the other hand, Romney seems to be having a bit of trouble as he tries to prove to his Republicans that he is a true conservative.
"The race in one respect is pretty clear. A quarter of the Republican Party wants Mitt Romney and the other three-quarters want to have nothing to do with him."-states analyst Stuart Rothenberg
Some problems that have been addressed include the closeness of the surveys and polls so far. It seems impossible to tell where this race can be heading. We have many competitive people running. Who will win?
From this article, I have learned that Romney is against Barrack Obama in this race and on his views. Does Obama really not know how to take care of our economy? Or is Romney just trying to find someone to throw the blame on?
I plan to look further into Romney's views and issues as he runs in this race. I plan to go further and see what Romney "truly" is about.
The author of this article seems to be against Romney, since most of his quotes and evidence point against Romney.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)