Posted by hank, Sun Nov 02 17:01:00 UTC 2008
Hilarious skit.
Posted by hank, Mon Sep 15 02:06:00 UTC 2008

This is awesome - I’m pretty sure it’s accurate as well. While Obama’s side might look “fair” to many people, I think it will encourage the affluent to leave the country or move their businesses offshore, as well as their investments. It is a plan that will force our exports to decrease and our imports to necessarily increase since there will be less domestic industry. It is Rand’s nightmare realized. This will lead to a dramatic cost of living increase, and eventually another depression. It’s a question of whether we want a nation of workers who get a little more money per year but are massively unemployed, therefore increasing the tax burden on other workers over a period of time, or whether we want to continue borrowing tons of money from foreign nations, not paying down the debt, fighting increasingly expensive wars (which, of course, Obama wants to do as well), and decreasing our taxation, which is also unrealistic in the long term.
Obama’s plan to saturate the professional market with highly educated people, yet force the owners of businesses away from the country through very large increases in personal income tax, capital gains, and corporate taxes will either lead to massive unemployment or a population of outsourced labor a bit similar to what we’re seeing in India at the moment. While I do not support cutting taxes and increasing spending, I actually concede that John McCain’s plan is slightly more reasonable than Obama’s fiscally, mostly because of the opposition to push a ridiculous amount of funds into things like Americorps, his “Civilian National Security Force that is … just as well funded” as the military, and, last but not least, healthcare. I have a feeling that when Obama’s taxation plan fails to live up to the cost of the social programs he proposes to create, we will see even more increases of taxation of corporations and the rich, giving them even more reason to leave. I believe McCain’s plan will fail in an entirely different way, relying upon even more borrowing and foreign investment, eventually leading us into the same fate many other countries have faced - not being able to pay even the interest on their loans from afar. If McCain were to have to raise taxes to responsibly pay down the debt, I believe he would do it in a much more sane way than we see on the right side of the above figure.
Now, the Obama campaign has addressed this very concern, but it mostly addresses earmarks. McCain also primarily denounces earmarks when he talks about “cutting spending.” Earmarks have been demonized into being the worst wasteful spending possible, but the real problem is the number of social programs Obama will create, build upon, or perpetuate. For instance, he is a proponent of building low-income housing, which has created crime-ridden neighborhoods for years. He and McCain support the mortgage bailout that is happening right before our eyes, which will save the irresponsible house-flippers who made bad investments in their homes or obtained mortgages with terrible terms, as well as save the organizations that made this possible, Fannie and Freddie. The lenders themselves, while marketing bad loan products, are simply the middlemen, and the guarantee that Fannie and Freddie would buy any mortgage-backed-security-bundle they created is what has caused this mess. But, instead of those people having to stimulate the rental property industry and “lose” their homes (which just means the banks lose, housing prices go down, and people who don’t own homes currently have access to cheap property), we’ve decided to punish all the people of America for the mistakes of the few.
I still believe that my taxes will increase when the people most able to leave the country decide they don’t want to lose an extra $700.000 per year, and when the top 1% leave, we will be left with 28% more tax burden. All that needs to happen is for 3,000,000 people to leave.
Obama laid out some of the things I said in a speech yesterday by the looks of it.
Posted by hank, Wed May 28 18:46:00 UTC 2008
After seeing this, I couldn’t help myself:


Posted by hank, Sun Dec 23 15:24:00 UTC 2007
Within ten minutes of posting that Ron Paul had 18% of the vote, Cherry Creek news removed all references to Ron Paul from its article. Also, it appears that their results for McCain went from 19% to 11% somehow. This is proven by the snippet found on Google News. Depending on Google News, this may or may not update there.
Here is a screenshot of what Google News says:

And here is a screenshot of the article:

Contact them to tell them to add Ron Paul back into their results. This distortion is unacceptable. How could they have screwed up their results so much? I mean, confusing McCain as 19% rather than 11%? Weird…
After a little more detective work, I managed to reconstruct most of the original paragraph. Most of it is the same as the new one. It looks like they just removed a section about the Echo Boomers, who are supporting Ron Paul 18%. Here it is:
Rudy Giuliani is still the top choice for Echo Boomers followed by Mike Huckabee (28% and 21% respectively), but John McCain moves into third place (19%) and Ron Paul jumps into 4th place with 18 percent of this generation’s support.
So, tell Cherry Creek News to put back in its Echo Boomer results, which are apparently the generation of people between 18 and 30.
They told me to “get a life.” Wow - what a fair and honest publication. I don’t know why they won’t add Dr. Paul back into their article after these amazing polling results that obviously show he is neck and neck with Huckabee with young people. Boycott Cherry Creek News.

Posted by hank, Sat Dec 22 16:59:00 UTC 2007

Let’s not make this true.
Posted by hank, Fri Dec 14 06:30:00 UTC 2007
So, I keep seeing people posting comments around that say Ron Paul is a racist, and most of them refer to a 1992 mailing list post he allegedly wrote. This posting was controversial because it portrayed inner city Blacks in a bad light. It was protesting against the lack of police action against rioting, the Rodney King scandal, and inner city crime committed by Blacks. Now, I don’t think he was inferring that only Black people commit crime, or are predisposed to it by their race; quite the contrary in fact.
Posted by hank, Sun Dec 02 18:33:00 UTC 2007
I saw a post on Digg that caught my eye, and thought that this might be another way to gauge the amount of hardcore supporters each popular candidate has. I picked the following:
Now, you would think that the number of hardcore supporters should correlate nicely with the number of voters turning out in the primaries since one should think that anyone in a Meetup group would go vote come primary day. But, sadly, by the looks of it very few of the supporters of the “top-tier” Republican candidates are enthusiastic enough to join a Meetup group. I wonder why since this would help their campaigns immensely. Here’s the result:
Maybe they’re all just using a different site? Let me know what you think.
Posted by hank, Sun Nov 25 22:55:00 UTC 2007
I took this test to see which current presidential candidates my views align with, and got some pretty surprising results:
It’s based on this table of the candidates views on popular issues, and how strong your feelings are on each one. A good tool indeed, and it should be publicized as a guideline for voters by our caring media since we all want voters to make informed decisions…
The graph led to this:

I have no explanation for this picture.