Comments for MaverickVoice.com

Comment on SCHRODINGER’S SOCIAL SECURITY by Angela Quesinberry

Angela Quesinberry — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:18:24 +0000

I know this isnt exactly on topic, however i run a web site using the same program too and im having errors about the comments displaying. is there a setting i am negelecting? perhaps you may help me out? thx.

Comment on THE REVOLUTIONARY CYCLE – PART 1 by hh

hh — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 04:50:00 +0000

hehe tehe

Comment on SOUTH CAROLINA by Steve Hansen

Steve Hansen — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:32:23 +0000

I think we should get a third party candidate on the ballot — Hilary. Seriously, if somehow Hilary was to wind up on the ballot for one of the left-wing fringe parties, we could do virtually anything on the right without risk of giving up a re-election… Of course, there’s a chance that Hilary would win, but even THAT would be better than what we have now…

Comment on 2012 STATE OF THE UNION – PART 1 – THE ENTERTAINER by aaron cornett

aaron cornett — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 03:18:07 +0000

It felt like a PBS money marathon. I’ve been hearing the same thing for the last three years! As Gutfeld said on FOXNEWS the five “if you took a drink every time Obama said “fairness” you would wake up naked in a tree somewhere!”

Comment on SOUTH CAROLINA by T. Edwin Perry

T. Edwin Perry — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:58:50 +0000

I don’t know about all of that, Steve. I think a 3rd Party Candidate could have a good chance of winning an upset, especially if his/her supporters are the ones participating, while the supporters of the “Status Quo” parties remain complacent. Think about the participating in Iowa: 5% of the Voting Age Population. The number of votes cast in the South Carolina Primary constituted less than 17% of the State’s voting age population. New Hampshire has had the highest amount of activity, with just over 24% of its voting age population participating. Based on these figures, a strong minority of the population could EASILY upset the results of a National Election under the current system. In fact, I would wager that if all of the Primaries were conducted simultaneously rather than in sequence, the results would be dramatically different, and the winner would be someone completely different than the one we will eventually have to accept. And in the event of a Plurality Decision, as a 3-Party race would cause, I think, the possibilities are endless. Remember, Lincoln won the election without winning a single Southern State. Clinton won Plurality but never garnered even 50% of the vote in either of his Presidential Bids.

As for the issue of Campaign Funding, the money is there. Relying on Federal Funds is a fools bet because the deck is always going to be stacked against a 3rd Party. The only way a 3rd Party could break into the game would be with Private Sector Support, and it’s the Candidate that would defend the rights and freedoms of the Private Sector that would actually support the changes necessary to 1) fix the economy and 2) restore the Constitutional Limitations on the Government. Call me an optimist if you must (WOW…just imagine it…ME, an Optimist!), but I still retain hope, even when the odds are good that we’ll end up with Romney or Gingrich.

Comment on SOUTH CAROLINA by Steve Hansen

Steve Hansen — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:52:26 +0000

The problem is, with “winner takes all” distribution of electoral votes, it’s virtually impossible for a 3rd party candidate to have a chance — except in times of extreme political participation by an upset public.

Winner-takes-all isn’t the only *huge* hurdle for third party — it’s also the way that public election funds are distributed based on prior election cycle results.

If a third party candidate could accumulate votes, but not win a state, and still receive electoral votes, they’d have a shot at actually winning (imagine a candidate that could win California as a Libertarian that could *never* win as a Republican, while simultaneous winning many of the states in the South), but with winner take all, finishing *every* state in second place means no electoral votes. It’s not hard to come up with a scenario where a third party candidate could actually win a *majority* of votes and come away with virtually *no* electoral votes.

Which means next time around, no significant portion of the publicly available campaign funds would be available to the party that won the popular vote in the prior election. Without winning multiple states, it would be virtually impossible to be a serious force.

Comment on PRIORITIES by aaron cornett

aaron cornett — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:00:41 +0000

Good article!
As a District Manager of a privately owned video retail company, I’ve seen alot of pirating and bootlegging and I believe this has had a major impact on all retail chains.
When I read about these two bills my first thought was “too little too late.” People fail to realize we have laws on the books concerning copyrights and piracy: we choose not to enforce them!
SOPa & PIPA are like putting storm shutters up long after the hurricane took out the house!

Comment on SOUTH CAROLINA by T. Edwin Perry

T. Edwin Perry — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:01:17 +0000

Well, as for Santorum’s chances, I don’t think that they’re great. The unfortunate probability is that we’re going to end up with Romney or Gingrich, but neither one of them are a very good choice, in my Humble yet Outspoken Opinion. Given the timeframe, I think the only way Santorum could win in Florida would be if both Romney & Gingrich face a “October Surprise” in tonight’s debate that totally crush their support in Florida.

As for the “Brokered Convention” potential, one thing is certain: if the GOP resorts to this methodology, the GOP is history. If the country survives, there will be a third party, possibly the Libertarians, that will rise up, and we’ll be dealing with a nation that never again elects a President by Majority, but by Plurality. I’m certainly not looking forward to that outcome, but, then again, I’m not eager to having to vote for either Gingrich or Romney in November.

Comment on SOUTH CAROLINA by Steve Hansen

Steve Hansen — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 04:13:07 +0000

Of course, the other thing that’s interesting about the Florida primary is that it’s the first one that’s “winner take all” on the constituents… If Santorum could somehow pull out a win in Florida (and I have no idea how likely that is), he’d be in a decent position to drive the rest of the way…

But, even if this *is* Operation Chaos Redux, the thing that about it that makes me happy is that it takes away a little bit of the mainstream media’s certainty in trying to award the nomination to Romney already…

What really has me concerned though, is the rumor that the party leaders are considering holding a “brokered convention” — essentially meaning that all of the votes in the primaries wouldn’t matter one bit, since the nominee would truly be chosen by a deal in a smoke-filled back room…

Comment on FASCISM OR SOCIALISM: IS THAT THE QUESTION? by zakopane apartamenty

zakopane apartamenty — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:03:33 +0000

Thank you for sharing excellent informations. Your website is very cool. I’m impressed by the details that you have on this website. It reveals how nicely you perceive this subject. Bookmarked this web page, will come back for extra articles. You, my pal, ROCK! I found just the info I already searched all over the place and just couldn’t come across. What an ideal web site.

Comment on FASCISM OR SOCIALISM: IS THAT THE QUESTION? by Mandie Bouch

Mandie Bouch — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:32:06 +0000

This is my second time to your blog, I love it every time!

Comment on AND SO IT BEGINS… by Silvana

Silvana — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:03:39 +0000

I like your way of writing! You should post more often…

Comment on EQUAL JUSTICE: CIVIL UNIONS by Gwenda Lilyblade

Gwenda Lilyblade — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:06:56 +0000

I like the valuable information you provide in your articles. I will bookmark your blog and check again here frequently. I am quite certain I will learn lots of new stuff right here! Best of luck for the next!

Comment on THE GREAT CUPCAKE CONTROVERSY by T. Edwin Perry

T. Edwin Perry — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:09:06 +0000

@Randy: Yes, when you refuse to provide a service to any group of people, it is Discrimination. You hit the nail on the head. (A year late, but, hey, some topics keep coming back around.) But, as I said on October 15, 2010, that should not necessarily be an illegal thing. Should a Jewish Deli be REQUIRED to provide catering for the KKK? Should an openly Gay Owned Bakery be required to provide cupcakes with crucifixes on them for the Westboro Baptists? Should a Cuban-American Restaurant be required to serve Pro-Castro Communists?

Bear in mind that I’ve stated that, if the store violated its lease, then it should be evicted in accordance with that lease, but there are plenty of bakeries that I’m sure would have loved to take the business. Let them. It’s called competition, and it is the greatest form of regulation that there is. Businesses don’t act in a way that hurts their bottom line without a reason. “Tolerance” is a lie if you force one person to act in a way contrary to their beliefs in the name of Tolerance.

Comment on THE GREAT CUPCAKE CONTROVERSY by Randy

Randy — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:20:22 +0000

You can not make cookies for one group of ppl and not for another that is total Discrimination. You cant except orders the way you would like them like they had in the store and then not fill the order. People lets be real about this, it was about the companys religion and that is why they did not fill the cookie order to just put some rainbow sprinkles over some cookies takes a few seconds and if they didnt have the sprinkles they could of bought some at Walmart for 3.00 tops. It was about their religon whether you want to see it that way or not…

Comment on THE UNIFICATION THEORY by Shemeka Loepp

Shemeka Loepp — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:15:19 +0000

Can I just say what a relief to find someone who actually knows what theyre talking about on the internet. You definitely know how to bring an issue to light and make it important. More people need to read this and understand this side of the story. I cant believe youre not more popular because you definitely have the gift.

Comment on EIGHT VOTES by Clyde Baras

Clyde Baras — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:52:19 +0000

Santorum was a horrible Senator here in PA. I cannot imagine anyone thinks he would make a good President.

Comment on EIGHT VOTES by Eloise

Eloise — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:18:22 +0000

There seems to be a lot of people within the Republican Party that are not very fond of Santorum. It is going to be hard for him to secure the nomination, much less the presidency, without more support from within his own party.

Comment on PICKING YOUR CANDIDATES – PART 3 by Kenton

Kenton — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:18:21 +0000

Santorum had a shocking showing in Iowa (shocking from where he was just 6 weeks ago). It doesn’t sound like he has the funding to continue the momentum though. Time will tell.

Comment on PICKING YOUR CANDIDATES – PART 3 by Vernon

Vernon — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:18:20 +0000

Comment on EIGHT VOTES by Gregg Mcfarlain

Gregg Mcfarlain — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:05:04 +0000

Santorum had a good showing in Iowa, but I just do not see any evidence that he can continue that momentum. Regardless, this year has given us one of the worst fields of Presidential hopefuls out of the Republican Party that I can remember.

Comment on COMMON SENSE by google influence

google influence — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 03:03:38 +0000

50% affiliate Program offered & Awesome Site offering cash For Perform simple assignments such as Liking or clicking your site or advert Plus 1′s Available with affordable Seo Services That you can string together With social network articles & High Pr web 2.0 Profiles

Comment on CRISIS by Kerry Pikey

Kerry Pikey — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 22:17:32 +0000

Excellent post, I entirely agree. If I may deviate off subject and point out that despite forking over income taxes to the governing administration and sending our citizens to combat and die in every war, Washingtonians have had no voting representation in Congress and have had to seek out endorsement from individuals they didn’t elect on all legal in addition to monetary matters. That my friends is criminal offense against society, and America. Let’s hope it will change soon. Cheers.

Comment on THE ADAMS FAMILY by T. Edwin Perry

T. Edwin Perry — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 23:29:38 +0000

As always, great points, and thanks for joining in, Roger. There’s a lot that can be done to start to change the system. Unfortunately, Welfare is a bigger “Third Rail” than Social Security or Medicare when it comes to our politicians. Anyone who proposes a change to fix the problem is accused of trying to take food out of the mouths of children.

Comment on THE ADAMS FAMILY by Roger Gingerich

Roger Gingerich — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:43:09 +0000

Excellent analysis as usual.

My thoughts:
No government support after the second child. Two year time limit for cash benefits, and then five years to requalify. Minimum age to qualify is 18 – under that it is the parent’s responsibility or the grandchild is counted as one of their 2 children for benefits purposes.

Food stamps and housing subsidies based on up to two children may need to continue indefinitely because, let’s face it, many people are not mentally equiped to earn enough to pay for the cost of a basic existence these days.

All persons residing in the home must be included when determining income qualifications. Two unmarried parents with two kids each may earn enough separately to qualify while the combined household income as a couple would be too high to qualify. Or they may live with a higher income person that pays all the bills and the government money is just extra spending money.

Starting with these changes will help, although there is a very long way to go.

Comment on IS CAIN ABLE? by Yael Chriswell

Yael Chriswell — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 19:20:02 +0000

I really enjoy Herman Cain. It is unfortunate that these people can come out of the woodwork and lob these accusations against him. No matter what party you are affilaited with no one deserves to be falsly accused. I don’t know if he did it or not but it seems very odd.

Comment on DEFEND THE BORDER – GO TO JAIL by Steve Hansen

Steve Hansen — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 02:55:52 +0000

Another detail of Jesus Diaz’s situation that’s not really mentioned often: The 15 year old drug smuggler (who has never spent a day in jail and was granted immunity for his testimony after our government went to Mexico to ask him to testify) complained that his shoulder was sore because of Diaz lifting his arms behind his back. That’s why they went after Diaz…

But get this: this kid weighed in at 100 pounds… the backpack he was carrying had over 50 pounds of marijuana in it… he had “ruts” in his shoulders from the weight of the backpack… assuming his shoulder was actually sore, what’s the likelihood that it hurt because he was carrying a backpack that weighed 50% of his body weight?

Comment on INDISCRIMINATION by Steve Hansen

Steve Hansen — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 02:27:41 +0000

I’ve always looked at this from a different angle… If *I* have to pass a drug test to get (and keep) the job that I have, and I pay tax on the income I make from that job, and those taxes are the basis for the money that is used to pay the welfare / unemployment benefits, isn’t it OBVIOUS that the welfare / unemployment recipient should have to pass a drug test to collect that benefit?

Maybe this judge should be subject to a drug test…

Comment on PLAYGROUND POLITICS by J. Joshua Beistle

J. Joshua Beistle — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:24:15 +0000

You completed several nice points there. I did a search on the matter and found the majority of persons will have the same opinion with your blog.

Comment on INDISCRIMINATION by T. Edwin Perry

T. Edwin Perry — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 02:37:34 +0000

I feel your frustration, Roger. Unfortunately, Scriven is a Federal Appointment, meaning she’s appointed for life, kind of like “Darth Vader” Ginsberg in the SCOTUS.