New Hampshire Primary

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by moreluck, Jan 5, 2012.

  1. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    No candidate has ever won in both the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary.
  2. island1fox

    island1fox Well-Known Member

    :happy2:Karnac says the answer is Mitt !!
  3. Baba gounj

    Baba gounj pensioner

    no candidate has ever won NH and then SC since these early primaries started.
  4. trplnkl

    trplnkl 555

    I read that somewhere.
  5. texan

    texan Well-Known Member

    Interesting fact of the state of New Hampshire:
    The legislature is called the General Court. It consists of the House of Representatives (400 members) and the Senate (24 members).
    The General Court is the third-largest legislature in the English speaking world, behind only the British Parliament and the United States Congress, respectively; and the New Hampshire House of Representatives is the fourth-largest individual chamber (exceeded in number by the United States House of Representatives, the British House of Commons and the British House of Lords).[SUP][9][/SUP] The legislature at one time grew to 443 members due to population growth, but a 1942 constitutional amendment set its size at from 375 through 400 members.[SUP][10][/SUP] There is one Representative for about every 3,300 residents.[SUP][11][/SUP] In order for the U.S. Congress to have the same representation, there would need to be approximately 93,000 Representatives.

    Government of New Hampshire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  6. texan

    texan Well-Known Member

    Another interesting fact:
    State legislators are paid $200 for their two-year term, plus mileage, effectively making them volunteers. The only other benefits are free use of toll roads and of state-owned resorts. A 2007 survey found that nearly half the members of the House are retired, with an average age over 60.[SUP][14]
    Government of New Hampshire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/SUP]
  7. UnsurePost

    UnsurePost making the unreadable unreadabler

  8. UnsurePost

    UnsurePost making the unreadable unreadabler

    Our children may be going to public schools after all? :D

    Anyhow, I don't see Mitt Romney grabbing more than 40-42% of votes in this, esp since Santorum is going to swipe some of his base away.

    He is the Mr Burns choice for the uninspiring 100k-1 mil Boston commuters in Southern NH , their wives, and that's about it for his voting base actually.
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2012
  9. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Will you be able to object to the curriculum that doesn't teach evolution and instead teaches creationism as I have a feeling that is the brand of religo....I mean science that you are going to get?
  10. trplnkl

    trplnkl 555

    Why not teach both?
  11. UnsurePost

    UnsurePost making the unreadable unreadabler

    I would assume anyone can object however, if you or anyone else did not know, NH is one of the least religious states in the U.S. and also, this state is one of the best performing regarding public school education. I'm not sure what those two basic things would argue for against, perhaps different "sides"...

    Also I would consider arguing that there are plenty of private school and alt options available here. :)
  12. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I have no problem with that but you may be opening a door that most christian parents especially may not want opened. From a historicity POV, I think it'd be great and very worthwhile as I love reading about history and religion is a huge factor in it. But from a point of science, the creation story in Genesis chapter 1 and 2 could be very problematic IMO not that I don't welcome that problem from my POV. Read closely the order of creation as opposed to observable science in the form of empirical evidence and you may see the difficult problems I speak off. If a conflict with science then undermines the creation story as fact, then one could/may question if a fall of man ever occured and thus the entire rational for a savior/messiah becomes suspect if needed at all.

    I understand from that POV why maintaining the absolute of the creation story for some is so important but I'd let sleeping dogs lay. Even the Catholic Church has without much fanfare accepted evolution but it should be known that before Darwin, not all christian scholars would have had conflicts with Darwin's conclusions.

    I also think once going down that path begins, parents of fundamental faith especially would regret it. Having this debate and discussion among adults is one thing but doing so with young minds at this point could be counterproductive in the long run. I prefer to error on the side of caution when it comes to kids even though many of my fellow dis-believers, skeptics, free thinkers think otherwise.

    BTW: I read the Bob Jones University homeschool curriculum on evolution and they did a pretty good job to my surprise. Impressive curriculum even with the point of reference they come from.
  13. trplnkl

    trplnkl 555

    I vaguely remember being taught in school the theory of evolution. It was presented as a theory not as cold hard fact. Not once did I hear the teacher say it was or wasn't a proven theory. They did mention that it was in part in conflict with many religions teachings. If I remember correctly it was one six week term that both were taught. 5th or 6th grade I think. We weren't asked to choose between them, just remember the things they told us long enough to pass a test. If it was the 6th grade I probably failed that test, I did most tests that year.
  14. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Yeah, I was about the same. I think we are not to far off in age from one another so I'm guessing we got roughly the same lessons. I remember as well calling it theory but that word can be more than we think. We have germ theory but it's treated as peer reviewed fact and a science built around it. I consider evolutionary theory to be on that same scale but too each his own!
  15. trplnkl

    trplnkl 555

    Granted I haven't taken any advance science courses or really done any in depth research. However I can see where in some areas that science and religion tend to support one another to a small degree. I've read a few debates on this and I find that both rely, to an extent, on faith. Scientificos (lol made up word) have faith that the scientists have it all figured out and proven, when in actuality a lot of the proof is nothing more than speculation formed by a given number of assumptions. Religion relies on faith of a creator of everything, that is also forgiving and loving for the believers. Science scares the hell out of people and religion gives them hope. Both faith based IMO.