September 7 GOP Debate

I was just thinking...


Last night, after I got done with my work, or a good portion of it, I turned on the Republican Candidates (for President) Debate. I caught just about half of it (the second half). I regularly watch these debates, as it interesting to see how the other half goes about their business. I noticed a lot of things throughout the hour or so that I saw, much of which were not good things. I will explore a few of them here.

First and most importantly, most of the candidates lied, about one thing or another. And these weren't little lies, these were outright wrong statements that were presented as facts. They attacked President Obama, and attributed things to him that were not even remotely true. They made it sound like the situation in Libya was started by Obama, and they repeatedly alluded to the United States' involvement in the struggle. If they paid any attention to the news, they would know that the US Army never, ever had boots on the ground. They also made a clear lie in saying that he launched air strikes without the consent of the UN, which, again, is false. I get it; they want to smear Obama: He IS their eventual opponent, after all. But, creating complete falsehoods to sway the stupid Americans dumb enough to take their word as fact and vote for them is dirty politics.

I did not take notes on the debate, so most of this is not supported with specific details. For this reason, the rest of this will mostly be my thoughts and opinions on some of the candidates.

Ron Paul
Ron Paul is not a republican. I mean, he technically is, but in reality, he is not. He is a libertarian. The overlap between libertarian-ism and republicanism is almost strictly their belief in less federal government involvement. The difference between these two groups beliefs is that the libertarians are a step away from anarchists. They would be pretty happy if government was done away with completely, at least on a federal level.

That being said, I like Ron Paul much more than most of the republican candidates. I can get behind him, to a degree, with his calls for drug legalization. Some of his arguments are kind of crazy, and yet some others I would say I agree with. But, Ron Paul is still not a real republican, so he holds no chance of winning the nomination.

Michele Bachmann
I used to be terrified of Michele Bachmann, and that is NOT just because of her face on the cover of Newsweek. She scared me because she had the Tea Party following that Sarah Palin had, yet seemed to actually know something about politics and the United States, in general. She was the smart Sarah Palin to me. A smart Sarah Palin is equal to what it would be like if we gave (28 Days Later) rage virus-infected zombies semi-automatic weapons; extremely dangerous.

However, after last night's showing, I am pretty comfortable with her running for president. She has no chance. She was like a bully at a school when a bigger bully transfers in. That new, bigger bully is Rick Perry.

Rick Perry
Rick Perry is the scariest man in the United States right now. He has a Tea Party following, which, as we know from our knowledge of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, is full of crazies. So, he's a Tea Party guy with a following stronger than Bachmann. Uh oh. He was Governor of Texas. He seems to be missing a few screws. Wait, doesn't that sound familiar? Uh oh indeed!

Rick Perry stole the show last night. He and fellow front runner (it will absolutely come down to these two) W. Mitt Romney duked it out a little bit, and appeared the strongest candidates in the field. But Perry held the spotlight due to his absolutely insane comments regarding global warming. He said, in one way or another, that he was scared of there being a leader of this country who would put the economy in jeopardy by believing in something as ridiculous as science. He asserted that the scientists who, time and time again, have proven the reality of global warming are wrong. He basically said that he does not trust science, and is scared of people who do trust it. Really? This is 2011! These aren't even opinions anymore, they're pretty much facts! Even Mr. Moron (George W. Bush) says it is real! It is incredible that someone can be a legitimate candidate with these beliefs, but he is, and is currently leading the polls. What does that say? It says that not only does a politician have these beliefs, but also that a majority of people agree with him! I have said before, when referencing Sarah Palin and FOX News, that the scariest part isn't that they believe this way, but that people listen to them and agree. There is nothing like people agreeing with crazy people to make me lose faith in humanity. How can he be so wrong, so stupid?

All signs point towards Romney or Perry getting the Republican nomination, at least at this point. While I would not prefer either, and will not vote Republican regardless who the candidate is, this does not bode well for the country, which is apparently about halfway filled with morons, and a bunch more who think Obama is useless. (He is not; the republicans just refuse to cooperate on anything) I fear that Obama could lose the election, and none of the Republicans would be even remotely good for the country. With a possible exception for Jon Huntsman.

Jon Huntsman
Holy moley, Batman! A moderate! Huntsman won me over last night. I mean, obviously not really, but enough that I could deal with him. I will never vote for a republican, but, if I had to deal with a republican as president, Huntsman would be the most agreeable. I have always felt that voting in the US isn't about voting for the best candidate, but the least bad one. Jon Huntsman is the least evil, least terrible republican in the current field. I don't foresee John McCain from the 90's (back when he was a moderate) coming back and running, so it's kind of Huntsman or bust for the republican field.

My approval for Huntsman is all relative; I would never ever vote for him. He just looks good in a field of full of Rick Perrys and Michele Bachmanns.

Deval Patrick and the Illegal Immigrants' Education

I was just thinking...

Alright, it's been a while since I've posted...I'm a bad blogger. At least when I over schedule myself for the semester.

Anywho.

I'm home in Springfield for Thanksgiving, and I'm sitting, eating lunch, reading the newspaper. I end up on the "Letters To The Editor" page. The first letter is by a Springfield woman, Carol Resnick, and is headlined "Illegal immigrants don't deserve break."

This letter was in regards to Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, who was recently re-elected, for his second term in office. Almost immediately after the election, Governor Patrick proposed a plan that would allow Massachusetts residents, regardless of if they are here legally or not, to receive the in-state tuition break to state colleges (universities, technically, thanks to legislation from this past summer). MA residents pay something like $17,000/yr to attend UMass, while out of state students pay something around $21,000/yr. These numbers are estimates, but since my brother went to UMass, I've got a decent idea about the price.

The letter begins by stating "Illegal is ill." 'OH BOY' I sighed to myself upon reading this. The first paragraph ponders what Governor Patrick was thinking in this proposition while the second begins, "They shouldn't be entitled to any benefits." This ENTIRE paragraph is so ridiculous, I see it fit to include all of it, and will break apart everything that's wrong with it. And lemme tell you, it's all wrong.

Where do we go from here with our tax dollars?
Really? Ms. Resnick, you do not understand how these things work. No one's tax dollars are being paid towards an illegal immigrants' education! Tax dollars have literally NOTHING to do with receiving in-state tuition at UMass and other state schools. This rhetorical question obviously is hinting that tax dollars will next be used to do something EVEN WORSE than paying for an illegal immigrant to attend UMass (which is not what would be happening anyway!)

Allowing illegals to enter a university, taking the slot of some deserving citizen who was not accepted, is mind-boggling.
Carol, I'm sorry (actually, I'm not) but you've really got no concept of this system works. An illegal immigrant receiving in-state tuition does in no way, shape or form prevent a legal citizen from attending an institution. Also, if the citizen was deserving, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED! If they weren't accepted, they weren't deserving! If an illegal immigrant has been accepted to one of the fine public institutions Massachusetts offers, kudos to them. They've already accomplished a huge amount by succeeding academically in another country, which isn't the easiest thing to do. And Carol, "mind-boggling"? Really? It is mind-boggling how far you have misconstrued this system and situation.

In the final paragraph, Ms. Resnick goes on to say that citizenship is a privilege and honor etc. etc. Honestly, I don't care about citizenship. I don't believe that a student who may not be here legally should not be given the same right to in-state tuition as anyone who is here legally. If you've put in the work and been accepted to this school, there's no reason to say that you aren't "worthy" of in-state tuition, if you live in this state.

Resnick states that "when immigrants earn that right (citizenship) they are most welcome (to in-state tuition)." What? I don't understand how being a legal citizen makes you any more qualified to attend an institution that you've been accepted to. Yea, if you're a citizen, you pay taxes. But Republicans don't like taxes. They want tax cuts and would much prefer if there were no taxes, but still got the same services taxes provide for. So, really, they wish they could be like illegal immigrants! LIGHT BULB! The Republicans are jealous of illegal immigrants!

This issue has been somewhat under the radar, but I find it "mind-boggling" that these Republicans can be so ignorant about this subject, yet so fiery in their attacks on it.