Magox

Whoever does the best during training camp and preseason is who I want to be the QB. Period

It was an interview with Bob Woodward, ya big dildo.

So the Defense Secretary under Obama along with the president are simply full of ****. Got it!

Sure If you don't believe Panetta's words, Then how about Obama's? During a presidential debate with GOP nominee Mitt Romney, there also was this exchange: Like I said, pretty much everyone knew... Well, except you.

Everyone knows that the extension of the status of forces agreement was something that could have been attained if the administration had pursued it. Bottom line, Obama !@#$ed up.

Meanwhile you keep pretending to be a conservative.

The main problem with liberal economics in a nutshell, are that the incentives structures are completely out of whack. In any company that employs sales, you give bonuses to those who produce. This gives incentives to do more. Whereas liberal economics is the complete opposite. The incentives are for those that do less. This may help those in the bottom, but it provides incentives for them to continue meandering through life, getting by and not fully producing to their capabilities. I'm not against helping those in need, but I am against helping those that are capable of helping themselves knowing that they can do more if they applied themselves all while receiving federal and state assistance. There needs to be some serious reforms with many of these programs. In regards to the growing income gap, stop focusing on the rich, as if they are the problem. We've talked about this before, the main reason why this is happening are for two main reasons, globalization and technology. Adapt or fall behind.

If the focus from policy makers is how to even out incomes, there will never be sustainable strong growth.

The intention of the law was NOT to provide a "living wage" it was so that companies wouldn't exploit their employees and pay a fair wage. Modern day liberalism, has changed the intentions from paying a fair wage to a "living wage". That is a handout.

It's not the responsibility of the company to provide a "living wage" to it's employees. I'm more in favor of a "fair working wage". Fair to both the employee and the employer.

Everyone wants affordable healthcare, the issue is how you get there. A "living wage", well that is open to interpretation. If you are wanting to do what Los Angeles is about to do which is to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, that would be a handout. Why? Because the skill set required is not worth $15 an hour, the market dictates a much lower hourly figure. I'm not against minimum wage increases, I personally think it should be indexed to inflation but the increase that Los Angeles and Seattle are moving forward with, are indeed handouts from my POV.

Indeed

Believe it or not Dorkington, the youth aren't nearly wanting to receive government hand out's as much as you do. They are in line with liberals on most social issues, aside from the near infanticide (late-term abortions) positions that many hold such as yourself. But the economic positions that the youth desire are more in line with the conservatives.

All one has to do is look at the entertainment industry, pop culture and the universities to see that in "modern day liberalism" groupthink is the norm. I'd hardly consider that to be against the status quo.

You could have made much better arguments than this one....

I suppose it's a matter of how you view the U.S's role in the world. Should we be a force to try to stop mass atrocities across the world? Or shall we take a more isolationist path and allow these things to happen? Yes, I understand it's not a zero sum world, there is a happy medium to all this, but where is that medium? If the US doesn't intervene, then you damn well the rest of the world will just debate it at the United Nations, make some sort of meaningless declaration of disapproval and that will basically be the end of that. It's complicated.

Let the spinsters spin and the apologists make excuses. None of that will ever take away the fact that both administrations made huge miscalculations.

The Problem LA, is that public sentiment shifts like leaves in the wind. It's too difficult and I'd argue almost unreasonable to expect that the US can follow through on any foreign policy that includes nation building. Yes, if we would have followed through on Bush's plan it very well may have ended in a much more stable Iraq and I'd argue Middle East, but the cost would have been tremendous. We would have spent Hundreds of Billions if not Trillions to have that happen not to mention would have entailed risking American Lives more so than they are now. But the reality is that we have elections, and when wars are unpopular and huge nation building projects are under way, you can easily see a new president step in to stop the "occupation" of another sovereign country from the previous administration and reverse course, much like Obama did. Of course, his actions are proving to be costly as well, yes, he had a mandate to pull out of Iraq, but what's popular with the public isn't necessarily what's best for the country. Bush didn't create ISIS and either did Obama. ISIS has always been there, it is a deep-seeded ideology that has been dormant for quite some time. However, Bush did create the instability by displacing a secular dictator. Yes, with his surge he did keep it in check, and yes, Obama's fateful decision to not push for the Status of Forces agreement in Iraq did contribute to creating the vacuum in Iraq that allowed this poisonous interpretation of the Koran to fester and ultimately become what it is today. I guess what I'm saying is that we can't rely on the American public to follow through on any Nation Building projects.

LA, I think you found your own rabble-rouser as well.

I think you misunderstood me, or perhaps not. I'd venture to say if that question was posed today to the American public, "Is the world a better place today without Saddam Hussein?". There very well may be more people that say no than yes. My argument isn't to say that the world is better, just that it is a very sensible debatable issue among thoughtful people. It's a matter of whose perspective? If you are looking at this from an US economic point of view, I'd say we aren't better off. If you are looking at this from a point of view of the value of human lives. Then I'd say yes, the world is better off. The point is as I've said before is that reasonable people can have reasonable differences, but to say that this isn't a fair-minded debate is silly.

Every one sees right through you Greggy. And not many people seem to agree with you.

You'd think so. Look at Greece, it's clear to anyone who understands math, that the unsustainable promises made to the public by leftist politicians was the determining factor in the mess they are in, yet if you look in see who is in power today, it's an uber left socialist party. Never underestimate the power of the demonization of money from faux populists.

Unfortunately, you are right. As you know I am the farthest thing from being a social conservative, however I respect those that have a differing view due to their religious beliefs, as long as they are respectful. But you gotta admit, social issues use to be a wedge issue that the right used to employ to win elections and it use to put liberals in a bind. The tables have turned, I suppose what was good for the goose is good for the gander? My guess is that within the next decade or so you won't see politicians wear their religious beliefs on a sleeve (aside from some deeply red rural areas) as they use to, and that's not a bad thing. Doesn't mean they have to abandon their religious views, it just means that they won't be running on a socially conservative agenda. My view is that politics and religion shouldn't really mix anyway. I'm not saying that some of the values that Christians espouse should be put in a lock box, actually I believe many of those values are useful, just that they need to be repackaged more so for the 21st century.

Totally