Magox

Aside from this poorly conducted interview by Halperin, he is one of the better informed and fair journalists that are out there. I respect the guy and whenever he has something to say, it's usually worth listening.

I think the main problem with poverty overall is mainly due to broken homes. Too many dead beat dads are skipping out on doing the right thing, which obviously creates a void in the child's life and the role models that many of these kids look up to are either losers or music/sports stars that they will most undoubtedly never become. Change the culture, if true dad's begin to step up, poverty will decrease.

Bingo! Too many what if's that no one could possibly know to make any sort of an INFORMED opinion.

Ah, so you are a communist.

I wonder if he's still butt hurt about Clay.

Ah! Well that makes a whole hell of a lot more sense. Thanks

Totally agree. I mean I know why, they didn't want to deal with the P.R mess, but geez! If he ends up being innocent and having a solid career, there will be a lot of second guessing from fans across the league.

Certainly this group out of Texas intentions are that of an inflammatory nature, but without doubt there is no reasonable justification for these religious islama nuts to attempt to shoot up people because they were offended. It's as if they were baiting them to come. Dem Boy'z in Texas don't mess a round

Makes sense!

I'm a little surprised of the pick but I can't say that I am shocked. If they indeed did have Darby as their BPA, which I gotta believe is the case and the fact that Ryan puts a heavy emphasis on DB's that can play press coverage due to the exotic and high QB pressure schemes, it would make sense. McKelvin has been a serviceable option for us, but my guess is that their designs are that Darby would step in to take the starting job opposite of Gilm. therefore allowing them to save cap space by releasing McK. next year. If you look at Darby's strengths, he fits in to what Rex is looking for. Time will tell, obviously if he ends up supplanting McK. next year and becomes the starting DB, then we are talking about this being a successful pick. I didn't say they were invalid. Re read my post again and then get back to me.

I think it's because of the all the knee-jerk reactions of people who seem to have an expert opinion on someone that they barely heard of. I find it humorous myself of all the hyperventilating that occurs each and every draft year after many of the picks. The reality is, no one really knows, Doesn't matter if you were a scout in your previous life or not. Professional scouts on the books get it wrong all the time. So when someone comes in with an opinion that they are rooster-sure of, I get a chuckle out of it myself.

I believe the point that he is making is valid.

I doubt it, she is not equipped to have an informed opinion.

Aside from the kiddy partisan jargon from the op ed author, this is what happens when you go too far to one side of the Laffer curve. If taxes get too high, tax revenues go down, if taxes are too low, revenues go down. There is a happy medium, and Kansas wasn't able to find that right balance. Also, the fact that the author states "The great Laffer curve dream" shows that she has a complete lack of understanding of what the Laffer curve represents. The Laffer curve doesn't advocate a tax rate, it simply illustrates the effects of taxation and revenues generated.

What's funny about this post is that you are one of the biggest bigots that frequents PPP.

Eek

No, you consistently criticize only one party. For someone who purports to be a "true conservative" , your actions and words don't line up. I on the other hand admit my leanings, even though I take on the party that I generally support more so than just about anyone here. In regards to possible solutions. There are no quick fixes or anything approaching that. I've made my feelings known many times on this board. Which is to protect our immediate interests, take out any immediate threats, don't get in the business of taking out leaders and nation building, support our allies who hold western democratic values, and begin planting the seeds of Democracy in the middle east. Maybe, if we're lucky in about a century or so things will normalize to the point to where we can have a dramatically different sort of landscape that isn't dominated by religious wars. And I just about always address the issues, nitwit.

Oh looky, the liberal is defending Obama's epic foreign policy failures. Not surprising.

I'd take him for a mid round pick. In a heartbeat.

So what you're saying is that you agreed with Obama and Hillary that the Russians could be trusted with the RESET button. And that you agreed that Obama should have made a clear Red line threat against Syria to only back peddle on his red line. And that you agreed with Obama that the status of forces agreement in Iraq should have played out the way it did, in that Obama pulling out completely was the right thing to do. And that you agreed with Obama that the Ukranians shouldn't receive any sort of support against Russia's proxy against them. And that you agreed with Obama in that the agreement we made with the Polish people to help beef up their missile defense system should have been null and voided because the Russians were to be trusted. And that you agreed with Obama's assessment of ISIS in that they were a JV team to not be taken seriously. And that you agree with Obama's view that as long as the Iranians don't get a nuclear weapon "on his watch" (which is what? 2 years?) is the right approach. We get it, you think Obama's Foreign policy has been successful. Got it!

That's great logic you have there.

You can certainly criticize G.W on the decision to attack Iraq. But he's spot on with his criticism of B.O and most foreign policy experts happen to agree with him.

Polls this far out are mere snapshots in time and are virtually meaningless this far out. However, there is value in the internals. The Fox polling also shows her seriously underwater in that department. It's hard to imagine her going up against a quality candidate with those sort of mistrust with the public and winning.

I don't have a problem with the benefits of the Medicare plan he had, it's that it wasn't paid for. That's where I had a problem with that. In regards to the health insurance voucher program, I for whatever reason can not remember the details of that plan, but I have no problem with giving lower to middle class folks assistance either through advanced tax credits or subsidies to help pay for their health insurance. I am now more on the side of expanding coverage than I use to be, it's a good thing that more people have coverage. Of course, it's the pay for's is where it gets tricky.

No, it's not that. It's that some people don't actually have opinions that go in lockstep with others that they usually attend to agree with 100% of the time. sprinkling a little conservatism around the periphery gives the impression that they disagree with their non "rhino" counterparts more often than not. Where in all actuality that simply isn't even close to being the case. It's ok to be disagreeable and have differing opinions. Perfect example is immigration reform. The numbers and math dictate that it is a logical decision to come up with a more efficient immigration policy that encourages a controlled inflow of immigrants. Also, reason dictates that we aren't going to deport the illegals that are already here. It makes sense to take steps to limit inflows of illegal immigration but at the same time providing a process that gives legal status to the ones that are here that would incorporate them to the system. There not only would be additional inflows of taxation but safety net programs such as S.S would benefit. Without immigration, the economy would have stagnant population growth. Stagnant population growth is a long-term killer for economic growth. This is an issue that should be ok to have respectful dialogue, rather than have the nativists attempt to purge members of the party they tend to support simply because they don't agree with them on this issue. Perfect example, can you actually believe that many of these same people believe Rubio is a RHINO? Yet if you look up the Heritage foundation's scorecard of conservatism, he rates extremely high and a perfect 7 for 7 (according to their scores) on the issues they care about. The point is if you want to expand the party and increase the size of the tent (which is what Reagan did) then in order to that, you have to have more differing points of view. It is unrealistic to believe that if the GOP had it let's say Dante's way and that they were all hard line tea partiers that somehow you would change the landscape of the constituents on the electoral map to be more hardline right wingers. That is simply fantasy. No one is saying abandon your principles, you can stand up for them advocate and make your positions known. The point is to not try to purge those that you don't always agree with simply because they aren't as much of a purist as some people would like. When you go into more moderate swing states, we have seen what happens when you purge those that you agree with more often than not but not all the time The more hard line candidate often loses. Obviously that's not always the case. It's largely dependent on the quality of the candidate. Ted Cruz is a perfect example, he espouses very conservative views, but he's a talented politician. He wins . But look at Angle from Nevada or the kook from Delaware. Both of these candidates weren't ready for prime time, yet the primary process and outside support purged the more moderate candidates. What was the result, another six years of Harry Reid, rather than someone who would have voted in the opposite direction of him 85% of the time.