What does a conservative living in Austin think?

I read a few blogs by a self described conservative living in a liberal Austin called Robbie Cooper and that’s exactly how he portrays himself in the blog called Hilary covering for another lying democrat. He comes off in a very strong offensive matter from the beginning to the end. One example of this is when he mentions that Hilary Clinton is covering up for lying, dirty scumbag democrats. The purpose of his commentary is to point out how Hilary Clinton and democrats in general should have had more security in the U.S. embassies that were attacked and also how the situation should have been handled differently. He also had a viewpoint that the administration was apologetic after the attacks and didn’t view them as terrorist attacks. His claims to these arguments aren’t backed up by facts just opinions making it a very weak argument. The intended audience here is more of a right wing conservative one. The author is trying to fire up the conservatives for the upcoming elections and did a good job in that because he portrayed high leading Democrats in this national as liars and cover-up experts. Opposing parties always love to hear how bad the other party is doing. One good example of how he is firing up the conservative is when he describes the seriousness of these attacks, which had an outcome of four Americans dead and puts that patriotism in there when he describes how the coffins are draped with the American flag. I don’t believe that Hilary Clinton was trying to cover up for the President, but as any good politicians would do he/she would try to divert that attention somewhere else. Overall, I like his strong and sometimes very offensive commentary. It was full of intensity, but it was weak in providing facts and almost all opinion.

Fisher vs. University of Texas

On October 10, 2012 just a few days from now the U.S. Supreme Court will have a hearing in the Fisher vs. University of Texas case which is in the Houston Chronicle in commentary, The University of Texas is wrong about racial preference. This case is challenging how constitutional it is to have an admission process that gives preference to a few selected minorities. The author of this is commentary is Joel C. Mandelman. He has a more conservative political viewpoint that is noticeable because he mentions that the University’s current admission process is reverse race discrimination. This viewpoint coincides with Conservative’s political philosophy that the government should be used to enforce moral behavior and less on civil rights and social programs. There is also a mention of Liberals, which he doesn’t include himself in that group.  I agree with the author’s opinion that preference for minorities is unconstitutional as stated in the fourteen amendment. He states that Texas A&M doesn’t have a racial preference admission and still doesn’t lack a quality education. While this might be true there was no statistics to back this up. There was one good point that he made. The purpose of the University of Texas having racial preference in admissions is to add more diversity in the University, but no quota for a certain minority is made because it is illegal to have a racial quota.  When would the University know when to stop racial preference? 

I view admissions that takes race as a factor as a step back for individual liberties. An individual should be admitted solely on the individual’s qualifications and accomplishments and not factor in race. Yes, this country had a bad past which dealt with slavery and segregation well into the 1960’s. Those days of racial prejudice aren’t totally gone, but are at a minimal and don’t hinder an individual from moving up in society.