Magox

Not withstanding the political wedges that some of those on the left are looking to exploit with this tragedy, my feeling is that for many people the Confederate flag may have a benign symbolism for them, but for many others it's a symbol of hatred. Without question it is a divisive subject and the only thing that the elected representatives of South Carolina are deciding to do is remove the flag from government property and moved to a historical museum where in my view it belongs.

These sort of things typically don't bother me, but I gotta say, that chick has got some chutzpah. I was always taught to be grateful for the things and opportunities that were given to me. Seems to me that I all too often see that is missing in too many people.

Cruz would be more of an interventionist than Rand. In regards to Foreign policy and aside from the NSA stuff, Cruz is pretty closely aligned to the Establishment GOP, whereas Rand isn't.

It became a partisan issue once the bright ideas of taxation and wealth distribution were introduced into the scheme as a panacea for Global warming/Climate Change. I guarantee you that if these "solutions" hadn't been put out there, the belief that the earth is warming would be much greater than it is today.

So it's all meaningless? And we are all keeping close tabs?

How do you discern him making himself out to be some "sort of player evaluation expert" and some reporter providing his opinion? After all, that is his job.

I know you guys are down on Joe. B. for being "negative" but let's be real here, haven't the quarterbacks been bad here in Buffalo for quite a while now? Isn't it possible that he's just reporting what he is seeing? I've always found Joe B. to be pretty informed.

Your analysis is off. And why the !@#$ am I responding to you?

Yes, and I won't bother you to rationalize anything on your own.

I don't give a sh*t if you haven't seen the proof you need to see to satisfy you. It's common sense, every individual is different, some will spill the beans when pushed others won't. It's as simple as that.

I'm not saying that torture is the best way to get reliable information. What I'm saying is that it has produced reliable information in the past and if some torture techniques were to be applied to some people, it would produce reliable information on those individuals. The argument isn't whether or not this is a good way of going about getting information, simply that it has and will continue to produce the intended results of the torturers on some individuals.

You want me to show you proof? If you want me to post you links of cases that torture has worked, fine. more more and more I could produce many more as "proof", but the fact that you could say that torture never works is simply mind-boggling. What it really says is that you are so partisan, that you are looking at this through the lens of the old 9/11 torture debate. Which I'm not. I'm simply saying that torture works in some cases and it doesn't in others. Oh, and the fact that you are referring to the one-sided partisan report from Senator Feinstein says it all.

Are you trying to tell me that torture never works? Is that what you are saying?

Let's start with the fact that I am not referring to the morality of the issue. Whether it's right or wrong, whether it's something that I support or that I don't. What I was speaking to is that some torture techniques produce the intended results of the torturers on some individuals And some of those same techniques won't work on other individuals, because in some cases their levels of thresholds of pain are higher than some others or that they have been mentally conditioned to not succumb to such tactics. To say definitively that torture works in all cases or that it never produces any results, most-likely says that you're defending your ideology on this position without well-thought reason. My guess is that you aren't that thick to believe that torture never works and that you misunderstood what I was saying.

You are one thick-skulled dude.

That's not what you said, nincompoop. You said Which means you were referring to the morality of torture. My comments were to the effectiveness of torture. Which of course, anyone with any common sense whatsoever would know that some forms of torture works with some people and that it doesn't work with others. Depends on the individual.

Learn to read. That's not what I said.

I feel the same way on Facebook. The vast majority of my friends are liberals and they seem to engage in this groupthink mentality, and often times I have the urge to respond and voice my opinion and think twice, "I better not". It's quite astonishing how I see the voices of opposition get pilloried and virtually stigmatized for having a view that doesn't line up with the herd.

John Oliver is a funny dude. Having said that, some tortures work for some people and don't work for others. Each person has different pressure points and levels of thresholds of pain that they can endure. To say one way or another in a definitive manner only speaks to your own ideological bias.

Jon Stewart's take on Rubio's Financial scandal's

I wouldn't consider supporting the Medicaid expansion to supporting the ACA. As you know, the medicaid expansion is only a portion of the what the law entails. Of course, many on the further end of the spectrum will try to dishonestly or ignorantly say that they are one in the same, which it isn't. However, considering his stance on Immigration is an anathema with the nativists of the party, combined with his support of the medicaid expansion, I'm afraid you are right, at least in the sense that he won't be able to gain traction.

By the tea party folks, yes.

I like Kasich, he's a guy that has accomplished things, put positive results on the board and isn't ideologically driven. The Conservative base won't like him, but they'll be busy hating on Bush and that could allow him some breathing room. Having said that, I just don't see how he gets the support to win in the primaries.

As if we didn't know he was a meathead.

While everyone is trying to cast blame on who is responsible for ISIS, the reality is that ISIS has always been around in the middle east, simply that it had been dormant over the past decades. Bush's war with Iraq was the beginning of the destabilization of the region, which began fueling the idea of reemergence of ISIS. He did manage to keep the region in check with his "Surge" but that was squandered by Obama's willingness to keep stabilizing forces in Iraq and many argue that there was a window of opportunity to support some of the rebel forces in Syria that could have dampened the ambitions of ISIS. I'm a little skeptical of that, but it's impossible to tell. Bottom line, it's always been there and the failure of US foreign policy gave it oxygen to grow.