During the New Hampshire Democratic Debate from Sunday night, Wolf Blitzer asked the eight hopefuls to raise their hand if they agreed whether or not they thought English ought to be the official language of the United States. Of the eight, there was only one with the sensibility to take up the cause. Well done Mike Gravel.
Now, while I’m not all too charged about any of the 10 Republican hopefuls, I should say that this lot of eight from the across the aisle is even that much more uninspiring. They’re so uninspiring that for the life of me, I can’t fathom having to watch them on screen (okay so I caught a flash of Sunday night’s debate). That said, I was able to locate a copy of the transcript from the fun filled event which is chock full of items worthy of critique. Lucky you…
I’m sorry to be so blunt here as I get back to my initial point of Gravel’s showmanship, but what the hell is it about Barack Obama that is so worthy of a standing ovation? While Gravel remained insistent that we could encourage people to learn and speak other languages, his underlying fact that English is the language of the United States and ought to be accepted as such hardly brought a peep; even if you disagreed with his assessment, that he stood there as the only candidate with the fortitude to acknowledge it as such ought to have been worthy of applause. But, not so much, for Obama no sooner opens his mouth with “Can I make a point, though?....” and the crowd goes wild. Good lord, asking to make a point, now that takes some strong leadership (certainly we ought to all rise to our feet for that). Obama thinks questions such as this are divisive and he sincerely believes that “everybody is going to learn English if they live in this country”. Here’s a question that perhaps Senator Obama might not find so divisive. What color is the sky in your world?
As any devout Democrat would certainly attest, it is quite noble and great to have broad vision when it comes to growing government and expanding, adding, and subsidizing all of its apparently wonderful and glorious social welfare programs. It is however in the same breathe, not recommended that one outline precisely how they intend to finance such nobility. Daring to be different however, John Edwards is forging ahead with his universal healthcare plan which will apparently pay for itself by merely eliminating the Bush’s tax cuts on people earning $200,000 a year all the while proceeding to ramble on in the same sentence about a failure to provide truth and honesty to the American people. Pardon me for a moment John. While you were under the blower at the salon shelling out $400, I was telling our dear readers about how those “people” earning an exorbitant $200,000 a year are often times not “people” or individuals per say but rather they are often times small business owners (and families). These small business owners are more often than not what we call S corporations. These business owners are called S corporations because they elect to be taxed under Subchapter S of Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. An S corporation generally pays no corporate income taxes on its profits. Instead, the shareholders in the S corporation pay income taxes on their proportionate shares, called distributive shares, of the S corporation's profits. Shareholders must report the income (and pay a related tax, if any) regardless of whether the shareholders receive distributions from the S corporation (nothing like killing small business for the sake of social welfare uh John?).
Now, Bill Clinton as roving ambassador to the world…tell me you’re not serious. Well of course Hillary would be all for it (I mean anything to get the guy out of her hair right?). If Bill Clinton was so much greater at building world wide alliances, I guess I’d have to question whether or not terrorist acts were any less frequent during his presidency and why, if we were building stronger foreign relationships, our supposed allies and friends were doing so little to thwart such acts.
I’m not one for Dennis Kucinich although his proposal for rebuilding the military is an admirable proposal if only it were the cornerstone of his domestic policy. What better way to rebuild the military than by implementing a 25% cut in military spending? Considering this is coming from a man who’s proposed some whacked out 9-10 forum which will have us all singing Koombya and reconnecting with a deeper sense of who we are as Americans, I’m not shocked. I know who I am when it comes to my American heritage. After all Mr. Kucinich, mine is a heritage steeped in the traditions of our founding fathers; the framers of our very constitution. It was these very framers who knew that above all else, the role of the United States Government was and is to protect its citizens. I should think it not so easily done without a military force in an urgent time of war. But, I digress and state that I’m willing to give your proposal a try. Now, how about we try your economic rebuilding plan by first taking a shot at welfare reform?
And lastly, given that last week’s article on environmental policies and its effect on gasoline and domestic energy prices and exploration left me want for more and that these lackluster eight seem to be willing to stop at nothing when it comes to investigating as yet unproven claims of price gouging and big oil profitability (and yes again with the Middle Eastern dependency canard), I offer a follow up question to our Democratic Presidential hopefuls. Given the position of many of you standing before us with respect to investigating gasoline price gouging claims, as President of the United States, are any of you willing to launch a similar investigation into the excessively rising cost of college tuition rates?
No comments:
Post a Comment