Olympic Gymnastics
Saturday was a hit for the men's U.S. gymnastic team. They had their problems, but overall, they did well. However, yesterdays performance left the team wondering, what happened? The men started out great, as the first competitor on the floor seemed to set the tone that the U.S. was going to be a strong contender. However, that changed as the second and third competitiors took the floor, then the palma horse, and so on. Even the team seemed genuinely shocked at their performance. Even so, the U.S. team may not have been as shocked as the Ukraine.
The Ukraine had beaten Japan, thought they were going to be standing on the podium with a bronze medal. However, that medal was not meant to be. Apparently, a judging error was brought to light, and it was revealed that Japan would win bronze, by .7.
So, the men have had their share of drama, what about the women on Sunday evening? The favored world champion, Jodyn Wieber did not score enough to go into the all-around. Even though, overall, she was in fifth place! Wieber was shocked, in tears, and at the same time happy for her teammates, but her dream of competing in the all around was broken.
Of course, it was mainly broken due to the new rules the Olympic committee has decided to put forth. I like to call it, the "fairness rule" or let's give everyone a trophy, so no one feels left out rule. In the past, the top scoring 24 gymnast have competed in the all around, but this year, the top two from each country are competing in the all around.
To many, this just does not seem right. It is also a look in to how trying to be fair to everyone, ends up being unfair to others who deserve to receive recognition. It's understandable that the Olympics wants to showcase all countries, but is it really fair that a gymnast who is in the top 24 (5th overall) is out of the all around because of the committee's desire to be fair to all countries? As awful as it is that she will not be competing in the all around, she is still a team member and everyone is hoping for a medal in women's gymnastics. As one story put it, she will "come out fighting," and she will not let her team or chances of winning a medal go.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
United SteelWorkers Union Seek Out "Secret" Romney Campaign Dinner
The United Steel Workers Union is apparently upset over the fact that Mitt Romney is having a high dollar dinner in London, as a way to raise campaign funds. The dinner is $25,000 to $75,000 a head. The Union has decided to offer a reward to anyone who can find the location of this secretive dinner.
Apparently, it's okay for Obama to have lavish campaign dinners throughout the country, especially in Hollywood. His dinners are always $35,000 or $40,000 and up a head. However, when a Republican has a similar dinner, it is an outrage! Of course, when the unions (of all sorts) are using their member's money to pay for Obama's and many other Democrats campaigns, they want their member's money to go to good use and to see those people win. Otherwise, that was money wasted for them (hear the sarcasm).
Overall, this is a double standard. It is okay to so many liberals and unions that Obama out spends and goes over budget and has his campaign dinners. However, it is just wrong for Romney to do this, and it is wrong if Romney gets more money than Obama. The only reason the Unions want Obama, is because they know Obama will play into their hands, whereas Romney will not.
The United Steel Workers Union is apparently upset over the fact that Mitt Romney is having a high dollar dinner in London, as a way to raise campaign funds. The dinner is $25,000 to $75,000 a head. The Union has decided to offer a reward to anyone who can find the location of this secretive dinner.
Apparently, it's okay for Obama to have lavish campaign dinners throughout the country, especially in Hollywood. His dinners are always $35,000 or $40,000 and up a head. However, when a Republican has a similar dinner, it is an outrage! Of course, when the unions (of all sorts) are using their member's money to pay for Obama's and many other Democrats campaigns, they want their member's money to go to good use and to see those people win. Otherwise, that was money wasted for them (hear the sarcasm).
Overall, this is a double standard. It is okay to so many liberals and unions that Obama out spends and goes over budget and has his campaign dinners. However, it is just wrong for Romney to do this, and it is wrong if Romney gets more money than Obama. The only reason the Unions want Obama, is because they know Obama will play into their hands, whereas Romney will not.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Obama's Business Statement and His True Campaign
The attack ads just keep getting worse from the President who, in 2008, said he wanted to run a clean campaign. Even though, his campaign then was not so clean (seeing as how many who should not have voted did so and then the famous ACORN organization mysteriously vanished after helping get votes for him). However, 2012 has proven to be a different story. Since Obama cannot run on his terrible record as President, he has decided to go with the punches and be the true politician he is, while giving elegant speeches full of hope and promise that will never happen.
In Obama's world, everything is a handout when it comes to benefits and it seems like those with money never run out of it and can keep giving to those who want it. He also thinks people of America are happy with government welfare programs being extended and doing little to encourage working, finding a career, or a job that will help build their skills (not minimum wage employment, good employment for people who are truly qualified) and get moving on making or continuing a career. Whereas Romney at least believes these people who are on Food Stamps (SNAP) or unemployment and other programs want to find good, decent paying jobs. He believes that people genuinely want to work to earn their own living and have their own opportunities instead of just collecting a check and then complaining if it's not extended because they really aren't looking for employment but they still deserve the handout.
The difference is definitely the mindset that each of these men have, Obama believes in spreading the wealth and that handouts and government control works just fine, and Romeny understands people want to be given opportunities and handouts are not opportunity and government control is not the answer. A major difference may be that Romney actually believes the in the American people and Obama has done little in his first term as President to prove he really does.
It was made obvious what Obama's view really is in his statement talking of Bain capital, "If you've got a business-you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Something that wasn't emphasized as he kept talking about not getting to where one is on one's own (which is true to an extent) was his main point of the topic, "Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. " So, with that statement of all the things listed that governments helped create but Americans (many during the Depression who were in desparate need of jobs) helped build those and without them, they wouldn't be.
Before completely buying into what Obama says, think about his intent and his bad record (even as a Senator). Also, why is Obama asking for more documents from Romney, why was it like pulling teeth to get his birth certificate and why doesn't he release lists of his donors and documents from colleges, schools, and other things. Not only is this election proof that Obama is not a "clean" politician, it's also proof that he has got nothing to run on except to make someone else look worse than him.
The attack ads just keep getting worse from the President who, in 2008, said he wanted to run a clean campaign. Even though, his campaign then was not so clean (seeing as how many who should not have voted did so and then the famous ACORN organization mysteriously vanished after helping get votes for him). However, 2012 has proven to be a different story. Since Obama cannot run on his terrible record as President, he has decided to go with the punches and be the true politician he is, while giving elegant speeches full of hope and promise that will never happen.
In Obama's world, everything is a handout when it comes to benefits and it seems like those with money never run out of it and can keep giving to those who want it. He also thinks people of America are happy with government welfare programs being extended and doing little to encourage working, finding a career, or a job that will help build their skills (not minimum wage employment, good employment for people who are truly qualified) and get moving on making or continuing a career. Whereas Romney at least believes these people who are on Food Stamps (SNAP) or unemployment and other programs want to find good, decent paying jobs. He believes that people genuinely want to work to earn their own living and have their own opportunities instead of just collecting a check and then complaining if it's not extended because they really aren't looking for employment but they still deserve the handout.
The difference is definitely the mindset that each of these men have, Obama believes in spreading the wealth and that handouts and government control works just fine, and Romeny understands people want to be given opportunities and handouts are not opportunity and government control is not the answer. A major difference may be that Romney actually believes the in the American people and Obama has done little in his first term as President to prove he really does.
It was made obvious what Obama's view really is in his statement talking of Bain capital, "If you've got a business-you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Something that wasn't emphasized as he kept talking about not getting to where one is on one's own (which is true to an extent) was his main point of the topic, "Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. " So, with that statement of all the things listed that governments helped create but Americans (many during the Depression who were in desparate need of jobs) helped build those and without them, they wouldn't be.
Before completely buying into what Obama says, think about his intent and his bad record (even as a Senator). Also, why is Obama asking for more documents from Romney, why was it like pulling teeth to get his birth certificate and why doesn't he release lists of his donors and documents from colleges, schools, and other things. Not only is this election proof that Obama is not a "clean" politician, it's also proof that he has got nothing to run on except to make someone else look worse than him.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
The United Nation and Gun Control
So, while Syria and Saudi Arabia and other UN countries are violating multiple human rights and constantly encouraging violence, the United Nations has decided that it should pair with Iran and create gun control against America. Mainly, against American gun owners. Apparently, the UN and Iran want records of gun owners to be given to foreign countries. Is this not a violation of human rights and especially America's 2nd Amendment right? Of course, considering all the laws that have been passed which go against the Constitution, why not let this happen? It's only the lives of Americans that may be endangered and controlled by foreign countries, but especially the UN.
It should not be a surprise that something like this would come from the UN because the UN really has not done a good job in encouraging human rights in middle eastern countries what so ever. Of course, it shouldn't be surprising that Iran would encourage such a thing, but for the UN to go along with it is a bit strange. As the head of the NRA put it, Americans do not want to be in a "nanny state." Especially in such a state involving the UN or other countries, and it does restrict our rights that are written and spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.
There is a lot of concern about what this could do and the dangers it could cause for the U.S. Hopefully, it will not happen and the current administration will fight it.
So, while Syria and Saudi Arabia and other UN countries are violating multiple human rights and constantly encouraging violence, the United Nations has decided that it should pair with Iran and create gun control against America. Mainly, against American gun owners. Apparently, the UN and Iran want records of gun owners to be given to foreign countries. Is this not a violation of human rights and especially America's 2nd Amendment right? Of course, considering all the laws that have been passed which go against the Constitution, why not let this happen? It's only the lives of Americans that may be endangered and controlled by foreign countries, but especially the UN.
It should not be a surprise that something like this would come from the UN because the UN really has not done a good job in encouraging human rights in middle eastern countries what so ever. Of course, it shouldn't be surprising that Iran would encourage such a thing, but for the UN to go along with it is a bit strange. As the head of the NRA put it, Americans do not want to be in a "nanny state." Especially in such a state involving the UN or other countries, and it does restrict our rights that are written and spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.
There is a lot of concern about what this could do and the dangers it could cause for the U.S. Hopefully, it will not happen and the current administration will fight it.
Unions Spend Billions and More on Campaigns
Surprise, surprise (not really). A new report (from the Wall Street Journal) shows that unions are spending more on elections and lobbying than once thought, on Democratic candidates. Why this is a news story is more shocking than the fact its self. It has been apparent for years that unions are always throwing money at a candidate or a political position, and trying to control the vote of their members by doing so. Mainly because of promises that they may benefit from, or just the fact they are for one party over the other because of the benefits.
The money spent is not just at the national level, but also state and local. The biggest story out of this is probably the pull unions have with swaying the vote, and the fact that it is so hypocritical for the left to yell about Republicans campaign funds when the Democrats have been receiving much more from other businesses, unions, private donors, and so on for years.
Unions have a huge hold on their members. Of course, a member could pretend that they would vote for one candidate just to make the union happy but vote for the other. The unions may not really control their members so much as influence them.
As for the hypocrisy of the money, it is not a shocker. Everyone, or at least everyone with common sense, knows that the money flows in from all sorts of places for candidates. For a while Democrats have said that private donors should be made public, but when Obama's campaign did that a few weeks ago, it ended up hurting some of Romney's donors and causing them to be placed so much in the public eye that they received a lot of backlash for the candidate of their choice. If the Romney campaign had done that to Obama's donors, it would have been a National crisis. Of course, everyone knows who gives to Obama, Hollywood and unions (to mention two), two very influential sources. The hypocrisy comes in the fact that Democrats constantly get up in arms over big spending on campaign, when they are the biggest spenders and control addicts.
So, as it's always been known, Dems can get billions and get away with it but if the Republicans get millions, then it's just too much being spent on the election. As for those unions supporting candidates that their members may not necessarily support, go ahead and thank them for continuing to chip in to your agenda.
Surprise, surprise (not really). A new report (from the Wall Street Journal) shows that unions are spending more on elections and lobbying than once thought, on Democratic candidates. Why this is a news story is more shocking than the fact its self. It has been apparent for years that unions are always throwing money at a candidate or a political position, and trying to control the vote of their members by doing so. Mainly because of promises that they may benefit from, or just the fact they are for one party over the other because of the benefits.
The money spent is not just at the national level, but also state and local. The biggest story out of this is probably the pull unions have with swaying the vote, and the fact that it is so hypocritical for the left to yell about Republicans campaign funds when the Democrats have been receiving much more from other businesses, unions, private donors, and so on for years.
Unions have a huge hold on their members. Of course, a member could pretend that they would vote for one candidate just to make the union happy but vote for the other. The unions may not really control their members so much as influence them.
As for the hypocrisy of the money, it is not a shocker. Everyone, or at least everyone with common sense, knows that the money flows in from all sorts of places for candidates. For a while Democrats have said that private donors should be made public, but when Obama's campaign did that a few weeks ago, it ended up hurting some of Romney's donors and causing them to be placed so much in the public eye that they received a lot of backlash for the candidate of their choice. If the Romney campaign had done that to Obama's donors, it would have been a National crisis. Of course, everyone knows who gives to Obama, Hollywood and unions (to mention two), two very influential sources. The hypocrisy comes in the fact that Democrats constantly get up in arms over big spending on campaign, when they are the biggest spenders and control addicts.
So, as it's always been known, Dems can get billions and get away with it but if the Republicans get millions, then it's just too much being spent on the election. As for those unions supporting candidates that their members may not necessarily support, go ahead and thank them for continuing to chip in to your agenda.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Abortion is Not So Bad
A news story popped up on The Blaze about a new internet site showing that abortion is not as bad as it is made out to be. It was created by a woman who had an abortion at six weeks and wants to show the world that it is not bad, and try to show a more realistic view of abortion besides the ones depicted by religious groups and conservatives. Of course, it seems kind of hard to do that when one of the pictures on the site is that of a thing of blood from an unborn child that was selfishly aborted and now being exploited.
The woman, using the name "Jane," claims that, this is not about her (obviously not about her aborted child either). Jane says, "the power is in the collective." In other words, it is those who will cooperate and come together to share this new discovered view of what abortion really is, and rally together to support it and fight against the Pro-lifers (cause they are so bad for wanting to save the life of a baby).
Of course, one of the reasons she created this came out during an interview. She admits to making the site because it is an elcetion year and women's rights should be a focus. "Women's rights are human rights." Really Jane? What about the human being you aborted, does he or she not have any human rights just because you think your rights are more important then theirs? What would this Jane consider her aborted baby to be when she talks about her human rights but not that of the childs?
Of course, the blaze makes an excellent point as to "how much faith" it takes to believe this woman and her site. However, the fact that it encourages killing human beings while advocating for a woman's human rights, is very contradictive and wrong.
A news story popped up on The Blaze about a new internet site showing that abortion is not as bad as it is made out to be. It was created by a woman who had an abortion at six weeks and wants to show the world that it is not bad, and try to show a more realistic view of abortion besides the ones depicted by religious groups and conservatives. Of course, it seems kind of hard to do that when one of the pictures on the site is that of a thing of blood from an unborn child that was selfishly aborted and now being exploited.
The woman, using the name "Jane," claims that, this is not about her (obviously not about her aborted child either). Jane says, "the power is in the collective." In other words, it is those who will cooperate and come together to share this new discovered view of what abortion really is, and rally together to support it and fight against the Pro-lifers (cause they are so bad for wanting to save the life of a baby).
Of course, one of the reasons she created this came out during an interview. She admits to making the site because it is an elcetion year and women's rights should be a focus. "Women's rights are human rights." Really Jane? What about the human being you aborted, does he or she not have any human rights just because you think your rights are more important then theirs? What would this Jane consider her aborted baby to be when she talks about her human rights but not that of the childs?
Of course, the blaze makes an excellent point as to "how much faith" it takes to believe this woman and her site. However, the fact that it encourages killing human beings while advocating for a woman's human rights, is very contradictive and wrong.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Job Numbers Down, Disability Numbers Up
While sitting in economic class last Thursday, the professor made an astonishing announcement about the job numbers. He said, the job numbers were looking really good. Of course, the first thought was, what job report is this guy looking at? Then, as always, a look at the actual job numbers were not so optimistic.
As of June, only 80,000 jobs were added, that is not much of an improvement in jobs. Nor is it really an improvement when there are people who have been unemployed for so long that they are not even counted or they just don't claim unemployment. Of course, jobs may be down, but disability went up. Which is just another way of realizing how bad the job market has really gotten.
Of course, the reasons for no real major job growth is many, and now that Obamacare has passed, employers are waiting to see what happens and on top of that regulations have always been a problem. Once again, on top of that, the number of people looking for jobs is HUGE! It isn't just teenagers, new grads, and 30 somethings, it is everyone from 16 and up. The job market is so competitive because of the need for people to work, and for those in a somewhat decent or a great job, they will not be leaving any time soon.
Overall, one knows the numbers are bad when even Robert Gibbs says so. Hopefully, there will be some hope in the numbers and the gas prices will not go up too bad to boot.
While sitting in economic class last Thursday, the professor made an astonishing announcement about the job numbers. He said, the job numbers were looking really good. Of course, the first thought was, what job report is this guy looking at? Then, as always, a look at the actual job numbers were not so optimistic.
As of June, only 80,000 jobs were added, that is not much of an improvement in jobs. Nor is it really an improvement when there are people who have been unemployed for so long that they are not even counted or they just don't claim unemployment. Of course, jobs may be down, but disability went up. Which is just another way of realizing how bad the job market has really gotten.
Of course, the reasons for no real major job growth is many, and now that Obamacare has passed, employers are waiting to see what happens and on top of that regulations have always been a problem. Once again, on top of that, the number of people looking for jobs is HUGE! It isn't just teenagers, new grads, and 30 somethings, it is everyone from 16 and up. The job market is so competitive because of the need for people to work, and for those in a somewhat decent or a great job, they will not be leaving any time soon.
Overall, one knows the numbers are bad when even Robert Gibbs says so. Hopefully, there will be some hope in the numbers and the gas prices will not go up too bad to boot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)